Attention Word Slingers readers: Beginning December 11, 2019, all posts will be available at BaptistMessenger.com. Thank you for reading Word Slingers!
I had the chance to see 42, the Jackie Robinson story. I invited my mother to go with me because I knew she would enjoy it. Mom grew up around the time Robinson went through his courageous experience.
I enjoyed it as well. I like biographical films, especially if they are done accurately and feature great acting. 42 meets these criteria.
The movie has a PG-13 rating, and anyone who has any idea of what the movie is about should not be surprised by such a rating. The “N” word is used excessively throughout the show. There is an uncomfortable scene featuring Phillies manager Ben Chapman, who says this disgusting utterance in similar fashion as one calling chickens.
The details of the historic ballparks were amazing. How they replicated the Polo Grounds, where the former New York Giants played, was a thrill for this sports nut to view. The Polo Grounds featured an unusually deep center field that was uniquely designed with a square notch at straightaway center. The movie made you feel like you were sitting in the stands.
Chadwick Boseman is excellent playing Robinson. He looks like an athlete, and shows some of the attitude Robinson was known to have.
But the star of the show is obvious. Veteran actor Harrison Ford gave an incredible performance as Dodgers General Manager Branch Rickey.
Ford is not known for playing historic characters. He hasn’t done impersonations or replicated mannerisms. He made his fame yelling at robots, kissing Princess Leia, bantering with a Wookiee; or wearing a fedora, carrying a whip, hating snakes and collecting priceless artifacts while being chased by villains or a large boulder.
Playing Rickey may have placed Ford at a different level on the acting sphere. The transition is similar to Sean Connery’s, when the Scotsman collected his 1988 Oscar for his role in The Untouchables. Before playing the street cop-turned mentor for Kevin Costner’s Elliot Ness, Connery appeared to be washed up as an action movie actor, but he actually enhanced his acting career playing older roles in movies that followed The Untouchables. Perhaps this is a path Ford may take?
Ford’s Rickey appears to be true to character. Rickey comes across in the movie as a combination of shrewd businessman and Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird. In real life, he actually was a successful manager who stood tall on social issues of the day and made known his Christian faith, even more than what the film reveals.
Prince writes “I fear the moniker, ‘ferocious Christian gentleman’ sounds oxymoronic in contemporary evangelical circles where manhood is often reduced to being a nice guy and God is envisioned as a kind of cosmic smiley face. Where Christian discipleship is cheapened to generic niceness, men pursue comfort and respectability in the place of self-sacrificial ‘great experiments’ that demand ferocious Christian gentlemen.”
Men like Rickey are rare today. Not many businessmen are willing to go against culture and stand on Christian principles. As Prince states, “. . . our churches are in desperate need of some ferocious Christian gentlemen.”
The movie 42 does present the harshness of segregation our country experienced, but thankfully, the film also shows the powerful and humble stand both Robinson and Rickey take.
The final episode of The Bible is over and thankfully, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was mostly accurate. Notice I said “mostly,” which means there are those who would say it is still heresy.
I reiterate what I said last week. All viewers of this mini-series should leave the series being prompted to read their Bibles, even read Bible commentaries and subject themselves to regular solid Bible teaching. Yes, this mini-series had flaws in presenting an accurate depiction of God’s Word, but when was the last time you or your children were encouraged to read the Bible after watching Glee or Honey Boo-boo?
The show opens with the trial of Jesus. Peter denies Christ three times when it seemed there was way too much daylight. I would’ve thought the rooster would be done crowing at this point.
Jesus is tried by Pilate. Pilate’s wife pleads with him not to do this because of the dream she had. I liked the actor who portrayed Pilate because he showed confidence and annoyance with the Jews, which seems historically accurate. His meeting with the high priest was good, and I liked the scene that showed the high priest crafting how to execute Jesus before meeting. It helps answer common inquiries people have about why the Jewish leaders decided to get rid of Jesus in this manner, and it yields to the prophecy of how Jesus was to die.
I also appreciated the liberty the producers took in showing Pilate’s exchange with his wife after the trial. In a week, he confidently tells her, this all will be forgotten… or so he thought. As I mentioned before, and as history would report, crucifixions were grossly too common at this time. The Romans may have taken more thought to swatting flies than the number of crucifixions they performed. So this played well in the shock and amazement of what happened after Jesus’ death, and during the time of His resurrection.
I am under the impression the producers did not think they could spare the time needed to show how it actually went down with Thomas doubting the appearance of Jesus. The “No, it can’t be you, Jesus!” interpretation was a farce.
I didn’t like the Day of Pentecost scene either. I know the sound of a violent rushing wind came and filled the house where the disciples were staying, but when they were speaking in different languages, I understood this to mean they were in a public setting, speaking to the multitude (Acts 2). Plus they didn’t show Peter preaching his famous sermon — another disappointment.
The stoning of Stephen was weak, lacking much content. I didn’t like the actor they chose to play Paul. During the early ‘80s, there was a TV movie called Peter and Paul, where Anthony Hopkins played Paul. I realize the Oscar-winning actor may not have been affordable at this time, but someone of his physical characteristics would be more suitable for the role.
Of course, Paul’s baptism was incredibly weak. Dousing him with a pitcher of water after he’s healed of his blindness? C’mon, he didn’t win the Super Bowl!
I could go on and on with my disappointments in this show. They sprinted through the events of Jesus’ disciples and Paul’s adventures. There’s no mention of Barnabas or Timothy, though the show features Luke. Paul is shown quoting I Corinthians 13, the Love Chapter, but no mention of passages he wrote that have a greater focus on the Gospel.
Probably one of the weakest moments is when Peter and John were saying a formal goodbye to each other. Before John departs, Peter says, “Good luck.” After all the experiences they had over a span of three and a half years with the Son of God, do you actually think Peter would have the mindset to wish John “good luck”?
Overall, I think the very first show of the mini-series was the best. It seemed like the quality of the shows that followed greatly depleted. Showing Christ being crucified and rising again is great. I give kudos for this.
Hopefully, the best part of The Bible may still happen, which is the seeds of Gospel it may have planted.
Here’s what I would encourage all viewers of The Bible Part 4 to do. Read your Bible, and then read it again. And then, find a good Bible commentary, as well as a good mentor who has a solid foundation of the Scriptures and could help you better understand God’s Word.
There is SO much about this episode I found disappointing, somewhat frustrating and even confusing. And even with all this negativity, I did find a few bright moments.
I’m not going to list all the issues I had with this show. There are just too many. I will offer two big flaws, and then to balance it out, I will mention three positives from this show.
Flaw No. 1 – who was this Mary character? I’m not talking about Mary, Jesus’ mother, played by Roma Downey (by the way, she looked beautiful, even angelic or was touched by one). I’m talking about the Mary who went everywhere with the apostles and seemed to have too significant of a role in Jesus’ earthly ministry.
I’m guessing this is supposed to be Mary Magdalene, but I never heard directly in the show. If it were mentioned, it may have been during one of the many times I had to let my dog outside.
The mini-series is treading on dangerous grounds with this depiction. Nowhere in the Gospels can you find this woman having such a major part in the events that were featured.
According to this show, and contrary to the written Word, she took parts from Peter, John, Philip and maybe even others. This, my friends, is blasphemy.
What also makes this very troublesome is it yields to the false reports of Mary being the wife of Jesus. I don’t think I need to say any more.
Flaw No. 2 – The words of Jesus are cut short, or His actions apparently were not accurate. Much can be said about the actual manuscripts of the Bible. I don’t intend to go into that because I don’t have the credentials.
And I have said from the beginning, latitude would be allowed for some things, and offering a variance on what the characters say would be accepted if there isn’t blasphemy or a clear steering away from what is told in Scriptures in order to promote an alternative message.
I was disappointed while listening to the man playing the role of Jesus. His teachings did not line up accordingly or were misapplied. The scene with the adulterous woman brought by the Jewish leaders to be stoned portrayed Jesus inaccurately. For one, He was not shown writing in the dirt, but instead He is shown holding a rock, giving a dramatic speech.
This may seem petty, but I think it’s more powerful (and accurate) to show Jesus remaining calm, “stooping down and writing on the ground with His finger” (John 8:6). This error, however, is not as glaring as another one I noticed.
During the scene of the Last Supper, Jesus quotes John 14:6. Thankfully, they did get the exchange correct, involving Thomas asking the question and not Mary, the scene-stealer.
But Jesus’ response is clearly cut short: “I am the way, the truth and the life…”
I sat there waiting… waiting… waiting… Surely these great theologians who are advising Mark Burnett won’t allow this profound statement, crucial in expressing the Gospel message, to be stopped at mid-point. Alas, they did, and it was.
Dear friends, please understand, as important as it is for people to come to the understanding that Jesus IS the way, the truth and the life, it is equally important for them to know that “No one comes to the Father except through Me (Jesus).” This is the greatest disappointment of the whole mini-series.
So there are negatives. Here are some positives I took from the show.
First, I enjoyed watching Jesus heal the leper. Visual effects were spectacular. The leper’s face was so grossly deformed, he resembled the Elephant man. Yet, we get to view a great reenactment of his healing.
Second, I enjoyed the scene of Nicodemus and Jesus talking at night. This is one of my favorite stories featured in the Gospels. Everyone should read John 3 and study this exchange between an educated man who is revered as a community leader and the Son of God. Most importantly, everyone should learn that from this inconspicuous conversation originates the greatest message ever given to mankind (John 3:16).
Lastly, the final positive did not come directly from the show but from hearing of those who watched. My cousin Mauri posted on Facebook a discussion she had with her young son, Silas. “Mommy, did Jesus WANT to die on the cross?” he asked after watching this show.
Mauri said Jesus wanted what his Father wanted more than what He wanted. He wanted to sacrifice His life so that others, including Silas, would have eternal life.
Even with the blasphemy displayed in this show, the Gospel message can still ring true.
“What does it matter? Just that in every way, whether out of false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed. And in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice” (Phil. 1:18).
The Bible Part 3 had some satisfactory elements. Okay, I admit it. I was disappointed they didn’t start off with Solomon, as I predicted last week.
Solomon is one of many Bible characters who fascinate me, and I think it would help modern minds to know there actually was someone on the earth who was worth more than Bill Gates. Alas, they chose to go a different direction.
The show began with an Old Testament character I did not know very well. They didn’t teach King Zedekiah in my childhood Sunday School classes, as far as I can remember. So, I did what this mini-series is enticing viewers to do. I got out my Bible and read up on the Zedster.
It was an interesting portrayal that wove stories involving Jeremiah and Daniel. There were some inaccuracies presented. Jeremiah’s part seems correct. The prophet did prophesy that Babylon would conquer Judah, but it was interesting watching Jeremiah walk into the king’s court placed in stocks. Daniel, however, was not placed in captivity during Zedekiah’s reign, and Daniel was not known as Daniel while he was in Judah.
I expected King Nebuchadnezzar to be a crazy man. The actor did not disappoint. However, when he threw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the fiery furnace, it wasn’t very fiery. I was disappointed that they didn’t show the king ordering the furnace to be “seven times” hotter, and men who were in charge of throwing the trio in the fire did not die from the raging flames (Dan. 3:19, 22).
From Daniel, we move to the focus on Jesus. The traditional Christmas story and all its subplots were expressed. Joseph and Mary… King Herod and Wise Men… Shepherds, angelic messengers… mostly the details as we traditionally are presented with, though I am confident nit-pickers could have a field day with the details.
There were some violent scenes that involved Romans crucifying Jews who attempted to rebel. This was powerful. When Joseph and Mary were returning from Egypt they noticed the many crucifixions on the hills as they passed. Of course, there is no mention of this, but history recounts that death by crucifixion was plenteous in that day. This helps viewers understand this dreadful fact.
One of the things shown that I do applaud was the portrayal of John the Baptist baptizing people by immersion. The Southern Baptist in me almost made me jump up from my recliner and pump the air!
The temptation of Jesus was interesting. The Devil speaks with a Hispanic accent and has long black finger nails. He also could double as a Sith Lord.
As the Devil is tempting Jesus, we see visions that Christ has that involve allurement, but then we also see visions of His eventual crucifixion. This is a fascinating depiction, basically trying to imagine what Christ may have been thinking during this ordeal.
The show’s final scene has Jesus encountering Peter alone in his boat. Andrew was not with him, but Jesus has Peter go out to fish, and they experience the catching of fish in abundance. Jesus tells Peter he will make him a fisher of men, and then Peter asks Jesus, “What are we going to do?”
The actor portraying Jesus responds, “Change the world.” Of course, there’s no reference of this exchange in the Scriptures. I suppose in one sense, Jesus does indeed invoke life-changing experiences during his earthly ministry, but the producers should have stuck to the Biblical script.
The question from here would be will the mini-series give the direct process of how Jesus changed the world. For that, we will have to tune in and see.
P.S. I recognize The Bible is drawing wide praise and criticism. I think it is important to note the History Channel is the one putting this on. The History Channel, who normally airs opinions of higher critics and secular scholars who criticize the Bible, is attempting to portray the Biblical story, albeit a “Hollywood-ized” version. Be that as it may, I am glad many in America are having their interest in the Bible piqued through the series, and, as I have already alluded, Christians are being challenged to compare its portrayal versus the actual sacred text.
Well, I confess. The Bible Part 2? I didn’t enjoy it as much as last week’s show.
Last week, I mentioned that a popular criticism of this mini-series is that it leaves out elements of the Bible stories. This week, I am a culprit of my own remarks.
The show began with Joshua and the Battle of Jericho. The two spies snuck into the city, climbed the great wall and ran into an elderly woman. I don’t know why, but this woman cracked me up. There was something about her initial neutral stare, and then suddenly yelling, “What are you men doing here?!” It seemed spoofy to me.
The rest of the story is unmemorable. I expected more, and maybe a different portrayal involving the experience of Rahab with the two spies. There wasn’t a rooftop scene, hiding the spies under the flax, and I expected Rahab to reveal more of a genuine faith when she spoke to the spies.
“I know that the Lord has given you this land,” Rahab is supposed to say, based on Joshua 2:9-10. “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt.”
Rahab is a major part of the whole Jericho story, and The Bible mini-series, in my opinion, did not give her enough significance.
The scene of Joshua approaching the commander of the Lord’s army was interesting. One glaring flaw in the conversation would be the commander telling Joshua that God would “split rock” and making a comparison to the parting of the Red Sea.
The Samson story was a MAJOR disappointment. I admit I’m not a Biblical scholar, but it occurs to me they may have gotten the ethnicity of Samson wrong.
Let me be clear, this isn’t an interpretive story inspired by the Bible. They are claiming to retell or dramatize the Bible. Therefore, they should stick to the facts. After all, the script was written for them.
This mistake, for me, messed up the whole story. I had a hard time picturing Israelites and Philistines communicating with someone who looked like they just got off the set of filming Cool Runnings 2.
Oh, that’s another thing. How do you pronounce “Philistines”? I grew up with the pronunciation “Phil-a-STEENS.” I never heard it pronounced “Phil-a-STINES,” as the characters were saying the word. Granted, this pronunciation reflects the English spelling, but it was odd for my listening ear.
Samuel, Saul and David finished off the rest of the evening’s show. This was a fair portrayal. Some parts were left out, but this whole section of Scripture would be challenging to present. They could dedicate the whole 10-hour series on David alone and still find it difficult to give his story justice.
I did like Saul’s depiction. The man was definitely insane, and the actor did a good job revealing Saul’s insanity.
The actor playing David didn’t seem to fit. The guy who played Thor in the recent Marvel Comics movies is more like who I would have in mind to be David. Someone who is full of life with strong, handsome features (see I Sam. 16:18), has a booming baritone voice, would stand out in a crowd – this is who I think should play David.
The story ends with David discussing building a temple, but he is told that his infant son Solomon would be the one in charge of building the temple. Next week’s show should lead off with the wisest man who ever lived.
Once again, I welcome your thoughts. I realize I was quite harsh this week, but tell me how I am not accurate, if applicable.
