Shadow Government

I recently made some changes to the small investments that I have. I didn’t do so after the big 2008 crash because I’ve always heard: “you only lose money when you sell low. Ride it out.” So I stuck it out but as the Republicans and Democrats battled over the US Debt Crisis and Europe struggled with its own sovereign debt issues I thought to myself: “how is this ever going to be solved?” And I couldn’t come up with an answer.

I asked some investment advisors and stock traders and the best they could offer was that markets always go up and down and while governments may not have money, big companies still do. But what if you’re a regular guy who doesn’t own Apple stock or Gold? And what happens if these governments get really desperate for cash? Where are they going to get it? Aren’t we getting close to that now?

So a bigger question formed: if I’m wondering about these things, surely those in control have been as well and what are their answers to the growing monster of debt? Having recently produced the documentary SHADOW GOVERNMENT, I couldn’t help but wonder if a crisis was being managed to help force the US and World into a new direction that before would have been out of the question. Was there something bigger coming?

And then of all things I saw a political cartoon from a 1934 Chicago Tribune. I checked it out and it’s authentic.

Make sure to read the plan on the bottom left.  To say that I found it relevant to today would be an understatement. We avoided the predicted dictatorship in 1934, can we do so again?

—

Blog by André van Heerden, Writer, Director (2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?, SHADOW GOVERNMENT)

So how was it?

Really good. It may sound like a cliché but this movie really will make you laugh and cry and sit on the edge of your seat. I think it will do very well opening weekend: Sept. 30th!

However, when I was watching it I couldn’t help feeling, time and again, that this wasn’t a regular movie. There was something very different about it.

What was it?

Could it be because it was made by a church through mostly volunteers? Well, it looks very professional, I don’t think that was it. Could it be because it was written and directed by brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick – whose full time jobs are as pastors? Actually, the directing is quite good. Could it be that it has a very strong biblical theme? That certainly stands out but I’ve seen many other films with strong themes and messages.

Then it struck me: it was a sense that this movie SHOULDN’T be as effective as it is.

As someone who has worked very hard on producing films and documentaries for a number of years, I know how hard it is to produce something worth seeing. I’ve studied how to do it at University. I’ve read book after book on screenwriting and filmmaking. I’ve reviewed and analyzed great films and directors and mentored under industry professionals. And I’ve even written, directed and produced a number of successful feature films. So I’d like to believe that I know how it’s done.

But movies like COURAGEOUS prove that I, and I’m going to say most other filmmakers, still have a lot to learn.

In the apostle Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians he writes: “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” 1 Cor. 1:27

Against almost all odds Sherwood’s highschool football film FACING THE GIANTS made $10 Million at the box office. Their next film, FIREPROOF, made over $33 Million at the box office. These are great numbers for any independent filmmaker – never mind a group of church volunteers and a whole lot of prayer. Most Hollywood analysts and experts would say that it could never happen. Yet it did. And I believe it’s about to happen again.

COURAGEOUS works because it’s full of emotion and heart and it has a theme that people can relate to. I also believe it works because the filmmakers behind it were committed to honoring God with their work. And they did. Go see it opening weekend!

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

It notes that political posturing in films often spells box office disaster. The article cites examples like THE UNDEFEATED (a pro Sarah Palin documentary) and AN AMERICAN CAROL (a farce about Michael Moore being the Nation’s biggest threat) and ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 1 (an indie drama based on the Ayn Rand novel) to prove its point.

What is interesting is that Toth only cites examples of films with conservative view points. He shows his distaste for these themes when he writes about the target audience: “Personally, I suspect that they are much happier venting their spleen either online or by phone rather than sitting quietly in a theater for a couple of hours.”

Toth again shows his political leanings when writing: “The audience has a virtual Constitutional (and certainly God-given) right not to go to your movie. … This type of free and open selection by the audience is called capitalism. I don’t quite understand why I am having to explain this to right-wing filmmakers, but all I can add is, “Welcome to the pain of the marketplace, pal.”

Those are pretty strong words for filmmakers whose projects have failed. I wonder if he’d have stronger words for politically-biased films that lost much more money? The Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford drama, LIONS FOR LAMBS cost $35 Million to make and had a box office of $15 Million. Matt Damon‘s GREEN ZONE cost a whopping $100 Million to make and only made $35 Million at the box office. This despite having pretty much the same concept, producers and marketing muscle as Damon’s extremely popular BOURNE films. Or the recent Sean Penn, Naomi Watts film: FAIR GAME which only made $6.7 Million at the box office while costing $22 Million to produce.

It’s important to note that none of Toth’s examples had the cast, marketing dollars or production budgets of the left-wing themed films. So which ones had the bigger failure?

Good films need to have themes. Themes though can’t be a sermon – no matter how true or important they may be.

Toth rightly notes that “Most people go to movies for a form of emotional engagement, not politics. … most attempts at political statements in movies end up sounding as if the filmmaker is hectoring the audience. As a rule, people won’t pay to be hectored. They come to see a story, not a harangue. Heck, they might even want a little romance on the side.”

Similarly, I think film reviews and commentaries should also concentrate on the story (i.e. political films often fail) rather than making political speeches (i.e. conservative filmmakers don’t get it).

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

André van Heerden, on the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

Can you rationally discuss a controversial topic without getting emotional?

Can you stop yourself from interrupting another person as they make their points – even if you’ve heard them before?

Can you actually listen to and process what they’re saying rather than just preparing to fire your response back?

It’s a lost art.

On the one side you have people who defend their positions by throwing-out socially barbed terms like “homophobe”, “right-wing”, “patriarchal”, “traditional”, “Zionist” and claim that any views that oppose theirs are offensive.

On the other side you have people who defend their positions with a condescending superiority based more on a moral stance rather than on facts and figures and counter-points.

It’s almost impossible for these two different sides to even converse without getting frustrated. Frustration leads to anger. Anger leads to emotional responses and personal attacks. Suddenly the two sides are further apart than ever. Rather than productive discussion we’re left with name-calling.

I can’t help but be reminded of Bill O’Reilly‘s visit with the ladies on “The View.” Here are people who’s daily JOB is to debate hot topics in a rational manner. They’ve done it for years. They know who they’re going to be talking to and what their views are. There shouldn’t be any surprises. And yet very quickly the show saw Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar swearing and leaving the set. That’s not productive for anyone. For those who are supporters of O’Reilly they’ll think that he was in the right. For those who support the ladies of “The View”, they’ll think that they were right. Nothing was settled because no one actually listened. No one actually learned. No one respected the other.

I recently had the great pleasure of traveling with actor and presenter Jeffrey Douglas to the ancient Mayan ruins in Palenque, Mexico. He is the host for our newest documentary: 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC? He is also a co-host on the long-running national daily radio program: “As it Happens” with Carol Off and was host for National Geographic‘s “Things That Move” TV series. His background knowledge on many topics is wide and he’s well-read and articulate. He also knows how to have a discussion.

Our trip to Mexico was a long one (the trip back even longer!) but I can’t remember a time that I debated and learned about so many different things. The keys: listening and respect. We didn’t agree on everything but I certainly learned more on what we debated about rather than what we agreed upon.

We recently completed another documentary called THE 12 BIGGEST LIES hosted by Kevin Sorbo (“Hercules”, “Andromeda”, WHAT IF…). It’s a bold title that attracts many strong responses. But hopefully, if someone can swallow their retorts and emotions and world-view, they might take something away from it other than ‘anger’.

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film & TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Host Jeff Douglas on the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

On the set of Cloud Ten's upcoming documentary, 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC?

I love good cinema. I love to watch it and share it. I really want Christian filmmaking to be at a high level, but it usually doesn’t have the resources to be the best. Still, I believe it can and should be better. So, how do you make an effective epic disaster film for today’s kids?

1. Always start with your best foot forward. So many movies that save their best stuff (surprises, back stories, etc.) for sequels never get them. I understand that you have a template to follow here, but still, treat this film like it’s the only one you are ever going to get to make.
2. All films, even disaster films, have to be about something. This film should have no problem accomplishing that, but this also applies to the action and disaster scenes. These scenes of peril shouldn’t stop the movie dead, everything should enhance the character relationships.
3. Think, ‘What would Michael Bay do?’ Then, do the opposite.
4. It’s important that the audience care about these characters. Create good arcs and get actors that fit them well (resume’s in the mail).
5. Don’t listen to me. Listen to God. I am insignificant, but this film could be something great. That is why I write, because I care. May God bless your production and be with you every day.

- Blog by Travis Else

It took me until the fourth movie to get into the HARRY POTTER series. After the point Voldemort rises, this series (in my opinion) becomes very involving, even making the films that came before it more interesting. This is the feeling I got when watching LEFT BEHIND: WORLD AT WAR. With a solid cast, solid direction, and a tight script, this film shows how good Christian filmmaking can be.

The film opens with a strong scene involving Chris, Ray’s friend from the first two films. He really steps up here and sets the tone for the film. You can see growth in many of the main characters. They have all become confident, yet humble leaders. There is one scene where Buck is captured by the U.S. Government and President Fitzhugh, with a cold stare, points a gun at Buck and asks him if he will renounce his faith in Jesus Christ. Wow, this is the single tensest moment in the whole series. President Fitzhugh’s whole story is great and kind of what I wanted to see with Buck or Ray in the first film: it’s a solid arc, brilliantly performed. You believe him when he is devoted to Nicolae and you believe him just as much when he changes. Another character that changes is Hattie. She is far more antagonistic here in the first half, which also makes things more interesting since she knows Ray is a Christian.

What really brings this film to another level is the addition of Louis Gossett, Jr. and Jessica Steen to the cast. These two have presence. Not saying the other actors don’t, but when these two are on screen, you are glued. Fortunately they get ample screen time. I must also mention the director Craig R. Baxley. This guy knows how to use the camera effectively to keep the audience in every scene. Baxley keeps the camera keeps moving, rotating around characters, ascending up to a person’s apartment, he finds ways to keep the scenes interesting. Not surprising from a former director of THE A-TEAM series. The atmosphere of the film is another strong point. You get the sense that nowhere is safe, something I should have felt more of in TRIBULATION FORCE, but didn’t.

It’s too bad the films had to end here. This series was really gaining momentum. Re-watching these films, I do feel strongly that this material would greatly benefit from a remake. The first film just isn’t the powerful introduction it needs to be. In the end, I am glad I revisited these films as I’ve grown closer to the material as a result. It’s been a rewarding experience. Moving on to the new film, what should this remake focus on to be the epic it needs to be?

- Blog by Travis Else

Making an epic story that explores our world after a pre-tribulation rapture is fascinating, regardless of whether one agrees with its validity. What would this world look like? How would the anti-Christ be able to fool everyone? How could things realistically get so bad?

When I heard the news that Cloud Ten Pictures would be rebooting the Left Behind franchise, I was excited for this new direction, but also looked back at the original trilogy. I certainly hope this new film gets the proper care and treatment it deserves, but I wonder: did the original series deserve its early demise? Does it need to be remade? And most importantly, what can the movies do differently this time around if it does?

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen these movies so I thought it would be fun to re-watch them and share my thoughts. I may start off sounding harsh (sorry Cloud Ten), but I really did end up liking this series by the end. I hope you enjoy.

Movie Two: Tribulation Force

This film has a darker tone than its predecessor, which is welcome since this really is a dark time. In this movie more than any you can see a realistic turn away from belief in God. Toward the beginning, in perhaps a reference to Hitler, Nicolae says, “for ours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen!”

In a world that has suffered this big a loss, anyone in power like this could make a successful argument to turn away from religion. Complete unity is a very attractive idea after all and almost natural after a crisis. Meanwhile, the “Force” in this film has become just that. Buck has become a strong proselytizer here, which is surprising since he just became a Christian at the end of the last film, but not impossible given the circumstances. He’s pretty quick on his feet when talking with Ray’s friend Chris about the Ten Commandments and the definition of a sinner. Speaking of this scene, this film has a lot more evangelism moments in it, as well as scripture reading and prayer. Definitely a bit too hardcore for the non-believer in the audience. There is a quality moment of tension near the end when Ray, aided by an angel, walks through a group of soldiers pointing guns at his head. This is a good ‘walk by faith’ moment.

There’s not much else to say about this film. It is kind of a middle-of-the-road type of movie, it’s definitely not bad, but it doesn’t really stay with you either, save for the aforementioned scene with the soldiers. As Bruce Lee said in ENTER THE DRAGON, “We need emotional content.” Even though this film was more technically proficient than the first, I still didn’t feel as invested as I should have been in the characters problems. I simply don’t have enough to react to. A part of this is because the film is too small in its scope. I didn’t feel like I was watching a big movie, but rather a TV show.

The first two movies as a whole have not had that big movie feel. We know a devastating event has happened, but we don’t see much of this world. Instead we spend a lot of time in rooms listening to people talk. This material should be having me on the edge of my seat. Perhaps I am missing the point and shouldn’t be worrying about how the film ‘looks’ or ‘feels’, but if we are trying to “reach millions of people who have never even heard of the rapture” then this matters. In the end, though, this is an improvement over the first movie. The question is, does this improvement continue even more with the third film? The answer is yes, much more than I expected…

- Blog by Travis Else – check back for Part III soon!

Kirk Cameron behind the scenes on LEFT BEHIND with Cloud Ten Pictures

Making an epic story that explores our world after a pre-tribulation rapture is fascinating, regardless of whether one agrees with its validity. What would this world look like? How would the anti-Christ be able to fool everyone? How could things realistically get so bad? When I heard the news that Cloud Ten Pictures would be rebooting the Left Behind franchise, I was excited for this new direction, but also looked back at the original trilogy. I certainly hope this new film gets the proper care and treatment it deserves, but I wonder: did the original series deserve its early demise? Does it need to be remade? And most importantly, what can the movies do differently this time around if it does? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen these movies so I thought it would be fun to re-watch them and share my thoughts. I may start off sounding harsh (sorry Cloud Ten), but I really did end up liking this series by the end. I hope you enjoy.

Movie One: Left Behind
I remember first seeing this film in 2001. It was my freshman year of college, my friends and I gathered in the room we normally used for Chi Alpha meetings. I was eager to check this out, I had heard about the book series, but never read it. How much will this film inspire me? By the time LEFT BEHIND: THE MOVIE ended, I really wasn’t sure what to think. I wasn’t expecting a polished big-budget film, but I was hoping for something more in terms of dramatic storytelling. Needless to say, this was the one I was most curious about re-visiting. Was it as I remembered? Actually no, it wasn’t exactly, but it was pretty close. Let me break it down by category.

Scenes. The first scene that struck me as a little off originally is the one between Ray Steele and his wife Irene. This scene isn’t as bad as I remember it, but their confrontation still feels a bit disjointed. When the doorbell rings, Ray (played by Brad Johnson) simply says, “Doorbell.” This caused some unintentional laughter back in ‘01. The next scene I felt uneasy about is the one on the plane when the rapture actually happens. This scene has an abundance of freaked out people and overdramatic music. When Hattie brings Ray up to speed on the situation she says, “Their clothes, glasses…they were all left behind.” This ranks up there with STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT as one of the poorest insertions of the movie title in the dialogue! Buck does a better job with this later on. Also, seeing a bunch of clothes lying around, as well as people reacting to the clothes, is a bit funny. If someone actually saw a person vanish, the panic would be more justifiable, but not only does the camera miss the rapture, everyone on the planet does as well. Were there really no witnesses to this? The movie starts to settle down from here, ending strongly. However, I never understood why Nicolae tips his hand and says “seven years of peace” when he doesn’t have to. What world leader would agree to only seven? Maybe I missed something here.

Character, character, character. I love a good, believable character arc and unfortunately I wasn’t completely satisfied here. I wish I could have spent more time with these characters as they were going through their respective crises. Seeing more of Ray learning and struggling with belief would have been great. Pastor Barnes has one brief freak out moment (another odd scene) and then he’s fine. For such an important character, Barnes really lacks screen time. Chloe takes longer to come around, but this still isn’t what it could have been. I wanted all these characters to represent different aspects of the common person, but they didn’t, despite having the potential to.

Acting. Once you have a good character story, you need to find an actor that can bring that character to life. Let’s talk about Buck Williams. You don’t really get to spend enough time with Buck to see completely where he is coming from, but basically he is supposed to be a firm atheist at the start who slowly puts the truth together. Unfortunately, I was never convinced that Kirk Cameron’s Buck is an atheist here. Most glaringly, when he says the line, “Those scriptures are so vague, they could mean anything.” you can see Cameron almost wincing. This is one of the few opportunities where you get to hear Buck share his thoughts on the bible and it comes off unconvincing. Of course, this was only a problem with the first film.

Music. I have already mentioned how I thought the composition here is a little overdone, but I also want to mention the added Christian music. When you bring in pop songs or other outside material, it should (like the original score) enhance the scene. Take the use of Casting Crowns’ “Slow Fade” in FIREPROOF or just about any song in EXTREME DAYS (2001) as an example. The songs incorporated here don’t really add to the scene and feel awkward. When Ray drives off after a confrontation with Chloe toward the beginning of the film, there is a soft bit of music (“After All” by Bob Carlisle) that doesn’t really fit with the tone of the scene, especially since a much more pop-like song plays at the start of the scene, “Left Behind” by Bryan Duncan ft. Shine.

Now it may sound like I hate this film, but this is not the case. It’s hard for me to hate anything that only intends to bring God’s glory to Earth. I just feel this film had the most opportunities for improvement. There are things I enjoyed as well. Firstly, the plot about controlling the world’s food supply is interesting and I like how this mystery helps Buck not only find truth, but faith. Seeds are slowly planted in Buck’s heart and his conversion feels the most legitimate out of all the characters. Also, Gordon Currie is fantastic as Nicolae. I love every scene he’s in. Another nice touch is the “very attractive baby” listed in the end credits…nice André. The way this movie ends, one has hope that the next movie will be an improvement. It is, somewhat…

- Blog by Travis Else – check back for Part II, soon!

Have you ever learned a new word – one that you’re sure you’ve never heard before – and then within the next few days you hear it again?

Or you read a book or watch a movie about some topic that you didn’t know about and then you see it again and again all around you?

I’ve recently had that experience with a troubling topic. We’re working on two new documentaries. One titled 2012: PROPHECY OR PANIC? And the other titled THE MARK OF THE BEAST. Both deal with the near future.

In beginning the interviewing process I travelled to Tampa, Florida to the International Prophecy Conference put on by Joe VanKoevering’s “God’s News Behind the News” ministry. It’s a wonderful conference full of remarkable speakers with great insights based not only on current in-depth research and study but in many cases, decades of experience and wisdom and prayer.

I got the privilege of interviewing Mark Hitchcock (The Mayan Apocalypse), Grant Jeffrey (Shadow Government), Joe Van Koevering, Donald Perkins (According to Prophecy Ministries), Gary Kah (En Route to Global Occupation), Dr. Chuck Missler (Koinonia House) and Dr. Larry Bates (IRN USA News).

In all of those interviews they all felt that the next few years were going to be tumultuous – to say the least. Two of them predicted that the American dollar and economy would totally collapse because of a National Debt that could no longer be serviced. They had facts and figures to back this up and while this has been predicted in the past – it has never felt so real or possible.

On returning home I was sent an MSNBC video news clip from good friend and socially concerned actor, Kevin Sorbo. It features Harvard History professor and Newsweek Columnist Niall Ferguson talking about how President Obama and the US badly mishandled the recent Egyptian up-rising and in related videos how the US is on the path to collapse like the Soviet Empire in Russia in the 1990s.

Then yesterday I read a recent letter to the editor entitled: “What Has America Become?” And then just this morning I read Jack Kinsella’s “The Omega Letter” and it drove all of the above points home. The “writing is on the wall” for the United States.

Read Daniel Chapter 5 1-25 and see if it sounds familiar?

Unfortunately I think those verses would fit right in with everything else I’m hearing in the news today about America.

- Intro by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Letter to the Editor: What Has America Become? Click on the photo to enlarge and read.

The National Constitutional Center is running an exhibition called “Ancient Rome and America – The Classical Influence That Shaped Our Nation.”

The exhibition doesn’t look at America and Rome from the perspective that America is following Rome down the road to perdition. Instead, it showcases “the cultural, political, and social connections between the lost world of ancient Rome and modern America.”

The exhibition is organized into five galleries: Introduction, Building a Republic, A Classical Revival, Expansion and Empire, and Epilogue. It sounds kind of . . . Epilogue???

Epilogue is the “after the story” story. Rome’s epilogue was written sometime in the fifth century AD. Contemporary public opinion is split on whether or not work has already begun on America’s.

At its zenith, the Roman Empire was a military superpower that dominated much of what historians call “the known world.” But Roman influence was much broader than mere military conquest and occupation.

The material culture of Rome – Roman architecture, art, fashion, foods and fads was eagerly embraced by nearly everyone who became part of the Empire – even those who fought against it.

Rome’s citizens were modern, wealthy, empowered and the envy of the known world.

As Rome grew more luxurious and wealthy, its citizens grew more complacent. They imported slaves to do the dirty work– until eventually Romans became the defacto minority in their own state.

No doubt they had slogans like; “We need slaves to do the jobs that Romans won’t do” etc.

Roman manufacturing ground to a halt as the wealthy Romans imported what they needed from elsewhere in the Empire. They became fat, lazy hedonists too selfish to make the sacrifices that once elevated them to the zenith of civilization.

They became completely dependent on foreign labor, foreign goods and foreign entertainment. In Rome’s early days, barbarian tribes that moved into the Empire were accommodated on the basis that they assimilate into the Empire as either Roman subjects or citizens.

Eventually, as Roman hedonism overtook the Logic of Empire, Rome looked the other way as barbarians settled themselves in great blocs in Gaul, Spain Africa and elsewhere.

No effort was made to assimilate them, (no doubt under mindless slogans such as “unity in diversity.”)

Eventually, the Romans hired the barbarians to police the Empire, creating vast armies that it was ultimately unable to control.

These alien groups formed the breakaway groups that ultimately overran and conquered the Roman Empire from within.

Hence the phrase, “the barbarians within the gates.”

Assessment:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

America used to be the best the world had to offer. It was the greatest country the world had ever seen – the first country in two millennia to be rightly compared with the Roman Republic.

American products were of a higher quality. American buildings were bigger, safer and the envy of the known world. American freedom was not just an illusion.

Like the ancient Romans, Americans still believe they are the best even as the American Empire begins to crumble for all the same reasons Rome did. America still believes its military is the greatest – but increasingly America is relying on mercenaries to fight its battles for it.

Americans complain about ‘injustice’ – provided they are not asked to do anything to right the ship. The debacle ongoing in Wisconsin sounds more like a morality tale about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The spectacle of American teachers storming the Wisconsin capital like so many Third World thugs is more than sad. Much more. These are the people that are teaching the next generation.

What are they teaching them? It seems unlikely they are studying much about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Or maybe they don’t care – as long as they have theirs.

Alan Simpson, former Wyoming Senator and co-chair of the Obama Deficit Commission has been stumping his deficit reduction proposals on the various cable news talk shows.

Over the weekend, he appeared on Fox News where he suggested that nobody is worried about their grandchildren because they don’t like them;

“This is fakery. If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that — I think you know, grandchildren now don’t write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they’re walking on their pants with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don’t like them!”

I think that Senator Simpson might have something there. . .

Is America the revived Roman Empire the Bible says will be the superpower of the last days? I don’t believe so for the obvious reason that there is already a revived form of the Roman Empire in place in Europe.

We identify the antichrist as a “prince of Rome” because Daniel says the antichrist will be a prince of the people that were prophesied to destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Temple) – both of which were accomplished in AD 70 by the Roman Empire.

America’s resemblance to Rome is not that of a revived Roman Empire, but rather a picture of Rome in its final stages of decline.

Bible prophecy depicts the empire of antichrist as the world’s premiere super-power – a place occupied for the time being by the United States of America.

But if the United States of America were to collapse, who stands ready in the wings to replace it? The only logical choice is Europe. America isn’t the revived Roman Empire of prophecy.

But as long as America stands as the world’s premiere superpower, nobody else can be.

The decline of the United States is heartbreaking; its ultimate collapse unthinkable.

Except that now, as this generation winds down to a close, it isn’t just students of Bible prophecy that are beginning to discuss the unthinkable in terms of the inevitable.

Epilogue. It’s not just for the Romans anymore.

It’s often been said that life imitates art. If that’s the case then according to the movies at this year’s Sundance film festival – our society is sad and lost. Unfortunately while many of the films highlighted people desperately searching for answers and meaning to their lives, they failed to satisfy any of those longings. (See “Lost at Sundance” article by Marc T. Newman below.)

Author and filmmaker Stanley D. Williams writes, “values are the taproot of stories that give our movies meaning and our audiences understanding and satisfaction.” (The Moral Premise, p. 13)

Here’s hoping that we can listen and learn from people like Williams and offer those poor lost movie characters – and those sitting in darkened theaters watching – some wisdom, hope and faith in our up-coming future films!

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and Television Production for Cloud Ten Pictures

Lost at Sundance
Posted: Friday, January 28, 2011
by Marc T. Newman, Ph.D.

Two days into week two at Sundance and I am detecting a theme, at least in the films that I selected to see at this, the nation’s premiere independent film festival: we are lost.

I am sure that there are plenty of feel-good films here in Park City, but for some reason, I have not seen them. Over the span of 48 hours I have watched as filmmakers shared their vision with festival-goers, and that vision is bleak. What a great opportunity for the faith community.

Some people go to the movies to escape. They gravitate toward formula romantic comedies, something safe and familiar. Sundance understands that films do much more than merely entertain. They can, and should, make you think, challenging the status quo, exhibiting the pain of the human condition, and trying to offer – if not some kind of solution – at least a chance to evoke conversation that might lead to one. So far, I have encountered visions of a declining west that does not know where it is, what it’s doing, or what people are worth. These filmmakers represent a significant cross-section of American culture that is dangerously adrift.

Here
An American cartographer, mapping the Armenian countryside for corporate interests, meets an Armenian photographer, and offers to transport her to a dangerous section of the country in exchange for her abilities as a translator and guide. Will Shepherd, the map maker, has made a habit since youth of wandering off in an effort to lose himself, to run up to the edge of the earth. Gadarine, the photographer, feels smothered by her small-town Armenian family, who refers to her as “the prodigal daughter” – though she has little interest in returning home. Will’s project is failing – he cannot pin down his maps, a metaphor for his own condition. Despite her modern morality (it doesn’t take long for the two of them to have sex), Gadarine is drawn to photograph traditional architecture and pastoral scenes from her country. But she does not want to land. Neither one of them is ever “here.”

This film powerfully speaks to the modern, mobile west. Able to be anywhere, we are actually nowhere. We find it hard to commit, preferring to keep our options open just in case a better deal comes along. And it matters little if that potential upgrade is a job, a home, or a person. There are no easy answers offered in the film. Things are the way they are, and unless our presuppositions change, there is little hope that anything will get better. We long for belonging, yet we actively pursue lives that mitigate against us ever finding it. We are culturally schizophrenic.

Homework
Pitched as a teen comedy, George Zinevoy is a budding nihilist who cannot understand why everyone is so concerned about his future. He knows his future. He, like everyone else on the planet, is going to die. Why bother with homework, college applications, dating, or family life when, ultimately, it is all going to end in death. But when he rescues Sally Howe from detention by taking the blame for a minor infraction, the stirrings of meaning he feels are hard to deny.

Unfortunately, George does not have any models of love and commitment in his life. His mother and stepfather appear headed for divorce. She is obsessed with George’s academic success while ignoring his impressive artistic abilities (which even George calls doodles). Dad is a hypocrite. When George first meets Sally’s newly-single mother, mom invites him in for a beer and makes a pass at him. Everywhere he looks he finds evidence that the rat race, or even the mating game, is every bit as meaningless as his personal philosophy suggests.

Glaring by its absence is any suggestion that George’s problems might have their root in spiritual darkness. No adult ever confronts George’s nihilism with anything but stock American success speeches. He has significant questions. No one has meaningful answers. When the film takes a more commercial turn at mid-point it is a little jarring. In the Q and A that followed the screening, I asked the director, Gavin Wieson, what in George’s life would motivate him to take a chance on love with Sally? It seemed to stump him a bit, and the answer he gave, that George was moved by a life-changing problem faced by his mom, did not make much sense given George’s philosophical presuppositions.

It is the first part of the film, not the commercial third act, that rings true. Young people, in particular, are adrift. After decades of educational indoctrination that argues that there is no transcendent meaning in life, Nickelback’s lyrics, “You and me baby ain’t nothing’ but mammals” gains traction. C.S. Lewis, in the 1940s, argued, “We laugh at honor, and are surprise to find traitors in our midst” could easily be translated, “We told our children that they are nothing more than beasts, and then are surprised when they lose all motivation to seek the triumph of the human spirit.” Our abandonment of a spiritual center has played a role in creating this generation of young people without the equipment to make sense of their own lives.

How to Die in Oregon
When we do not know where we are from or, ultimately, where we are going; when our lives are no longer firmly grounded in a transcendent view of reality, the only thing left for people to rely upon is themselves. Unwilling or unable to surrender their lives to a benevolent God because they have forgotten or ignored Him for so long, micro-managing is the only alternative.

How to Die in Oregon chronicles the lives of a number of people who choose to end their own lives. The narrative focuses on two women: one, Cody, is a cancer victim trying to determine when to end her life, and another is campaigning to extend Oregon’s right to die law to Washington in fulfillment of a deathbed promise she made to her husband.

It is impossible not to have sympathy for these people as they are processing a tremendous amount of physical and emotional pain. As we witness their journey, we find these folks likable and sincere. But the film, made in association with HBO, more honestly falls into the category of advocacy cinema, and very little time is spent examining cogent counter-arguments to the right to die agenda.

My greatest fear is that people will see this film and will choose to prematurely end their own lives. The film opens with a man using a poisonous drink that he says tastes like wood, then lying down to die. As he slips away, he says, “Tell them that it’s easy.” I found it interesting that in the final scenes in the film, as Cody chooses to take her own life, she also says how easy it all is. By book-ending the film in this way, the director is sending a clear message: Natural death is messy, painful and difficult. Assisted suicide is the easy way out.

About 30 years ago, my close friend, Guy, was diagnosed with leukemia. He was an accomplished musician, engaged to be married, with is whole life ahead of him. Great strides have been made in the treatment of leukemia over the years, but back then leukemia could be a painful, daunting disease with an overwhelming treatment regimine. It isn’t hard for people to choose to give up. The doctors gave Guy only even odds of survival. I spoke with him today – still alive after all these years, married, with a great son — about How to Die in Oregon, wanting to know how he would feel about a similar campaign in California. He said he would be opposed, recognizing how easily such a law could be abused and how it might lure people who still had many important days, weeks, months or years ahead of them to prematurely end their lives.

These lives have dignity. We do not get dignity from what we are able to do, we have dignity as a result of our being created in the image of Almighty God. We are not animals that need to be put down, but human beings who can find significance in every part of life, even those that are painful and difficult.

To See or Not to See
Watching a sequence of films like these can be a daunting, demoralizing experience. One might be tempted to ask, “Why would anyone want to do it?”

These films wrestle with significant moral and spiritual issues in the lives of our neighbors. Filmmakers make such movies because they are working through their own process. Whether or not some of these films get picked up by distributors and get into wide release is not the issue. That people in the audience relate to the works these filmmakers create indicates that they are not alone. They are joined by many others who feel the same way, even if they haven’t experienced a film that brought those thoughts and feelings to the fore.

We live in a lost and dying world filled with confusion, doubt, pain, and death. These films highlight what many of us would wish to hide. They are important movies because they remove the mask that says, “everything’s going to be fine.” And once we recognize our truly lost condition, we can begin to honestly seek for answers. It’s a good starting place.

Marc T. Newman, Ph.D., is the president of MovieMinistry.com, an organization that provides sermon and teaching illustrations, Bible studies and discussion cards, drawn from popular film, and helps the Church use movies to reach out to others and connect with people. Dr. Newman is an associate professor in the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University.