Looking for Eric - a fairy tale about brotherhood
Football at the Movies
It used to be a truth universally acknowledged that any film with football in it would be about as entertaining as watching Gillingham draw 0-0. However, following The Damned United, Looking for Eric is the second worthwhile football film in just a few months. Again, it has an appeal beyond viewers of Match of the Day and collectors of sticker albums. Of course, neither film is really about kicking a round ball into a net for ninety minutes. Instead, Looking For Eric is a working-class fairytale about the importance of community and brotherhood. Although imperfect, the film is thoroughly entertaining with a number of memorable moments.
‘It was a pass’
The film centres around the character of ‘Little Eric’ Bishop (Steve Evets), a football mad postal worker whose life has fallen apart. His two step-sons show him no respect, using his house as a squat, while he cannot even bear to face the only woman he loves, his ex-wife. The turning point comes when Bishop’s hero, the charismatic Manchester United legend Eric Cantona (famed for his talent, upturned collar and kung-fu kick of a supporter) ‘appears’ in his in front room. From this point onwards, Cantona becomes Bishop’s imaginary life-coach, inspiring him to sort out his own life and the lives of those he loves.
At first, Bishop assumes his cocky Gallic idol has had an easy existence with no need of anyone else. However, as the film makes clear, Cantona could not have been a success in football without his fellow players and without the fans. Perhaps the most important part of the film occurs when Cantona is asked his greatest moment in football. He selects not one of his many goals but a pass to a team-mate. Rather than simply obtaining glory for himself, his greatest moment was through helping another.
I am Eric Cantona
The director of the film is Ken Loach probably best known for classic TV drama ‘Cathy Come Home’ and literary adaptation ‘Kes’. Loach is well known for his social realist style which often reflects his own socialist beliefs. Looking for Eric is no different, featuring a group of friends from a postal sorting office. In the end, it is they, rather than just football star Cantona that become the heroes. Towards the climax of the film all the friends don Cantona masks to help ‘Little Eric’ protect his family - they all become Cantonas, all one big team helping each other just as Cantona was just one player in Manchester United football team.
The Religion of Football?
From a Christian perspective, it would be easy to see Looking For Eric as demonstration of how football has become an idol in our society. Little Eric admits the last time he was truly happy was at the last football match he saw while his fellow supporters chant, ‘What a friend we have in Jesus, and his name is Cantona’. One might even read the appearance of Cantona as a type of religious experience. While the cast sometimes use Christ’s name casually, Cantona’s is spoken with reverence and awe. However, the film also demonstrates positive aspects of football culture from its portrayal of its skill and beauty of the game to the kinship between supporters.
Brotherly love
The moral of Looking for Eric, which underlines the importance of brotherly love, has much to be applauded (even if the eventual way it is demonstrated cannot be). Although the message of the film is inspired by socialist humanism not the good news, the selfless love and support seen in ‘Little Eric’s’ fellow postal workers should be found in our own churches. True glory is found in putting others first, as Christ became our slave at the cross. The unconvincing ‘fairytale ending’ of the film reminds us that only through Christ can we be fully reconciled to one other.
Angels and Demons
Ron Howard’s take on the prequel to ‘The Da Vinci Code’ resurrects the old ‘science vs. religion’ debate, but doesn’t have much new to say.
A container of anti-matter has been stolen by an ancient sect of scientists persecuted by the Catholic Church for their beliefs. With it, they aim to destroy the Vatican. Only Robert Langdon can avert disaster by following a trail of clues across Rome.
Following the success of ‘The Da Vinci Code’, now comes ‘Angels and Demons’, the latest Dan Brown film adaptation. The movie sees the return of fictional Harvard Professor of ‘Symbology’ Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks).
A film conspiracy
The filming of ‘Angels and Demons’ could provide the plot for its own Dan Brown story. For fear of attracting opposition from the Roman Catholic Church (who didn’t take to kindly to ‘The Da Vinci Code’) filming was carried out under the secret title ‘Obelisk.’ Yet the result is a surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of the Church. The film acknowledges the Church’s attempt to create a better world. For instance, at the end of the film, a cardinal asks Langdon:
‘When you write about us, and you will, do so gently.’
The film’s view on religion is summed up by the line by a Cardinal:
‘Religion is flawed because man is flawed,’
This realisation of fallen human nature is unlikely to draw criticism! However, the film does urge the development of a new version of Christianity based on co-operation between science and religion, and it implicitly marginalizes the unique truth claims of Christianity.
The Real Story
The real Illuminati were a secret society founded in 1776, many years after the death of Galileo Galilei in 1642. They were a movement of Enlightenment freethinkers. Writers at the time accused them of a number of conspiracies including the French Revolution. In modern times, they have been a popular part of ‘New World Order’ conspiracy theories (including those of David Icke).
Galileo did come into conflict with the Catholic Church over his theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. This was felt to be at odds with the Bible (for instance, 1 Chronicles 16:30 which states that ‘the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved’). Although Galileo was a personal friend of the Pope Urban VIII, he lost his support and stood trial for heresy. Galileo spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for the trial of Galileo.
Artistic licence
Although the book ‘Angels and Demons’ is a prequel to ‘The Da Vinci Code’ the movie is a sequel to the hugely successful 2006 film. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was a huge box-office hit, but critics and audiences alike were generally left uninspired. Ron Howard’s direction was deliberate and safe. He had little ambition beyond providing a faithful film adaptation that wouldn’t alienate the book’s cult following. The wordy conspiracies revealed so thrillingly in the book became dull in the film. In avoiding being either an Indiana Jones or Nutty Professor clone, Tom Hanks’ portrayal of Robert Langdon was bland, if not boring.
In ‘Angels and Demons,’ Howard felt more able to make key changes from the book. This makes the film more entertaining than its predecessor. For instance, most of the first third of the book set at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is cut while the ending becomes (slightly) less absurd. As a result, this movie is better than ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ although it isn’t likely to be considered be a classic.
The Fictional Iluminati
The key theme in ‘Angels and Demons’ is the relationship between science and religion. The film juxtaposes the world’s capital of science (CERN) with its capital of western religion, the Vatican. On one side, the (Roman Catholic) Church stands for religion, while on the other the Illuminati stand for science. In the film (contrary to the historical reality, as noted above) the Iluminati are a secret society with origins in the renaissance. As Robert Langdon explains,
‘The Illuminati did not become violent until the 17th Century. Their name means ‘The Enlightened Ones’. They were physicists, mathematicians, astronomers. In the 1500s they started meeting in secret, because they were concerned about the church’s inaccurate teachings. They were dedicated to scientific truth. And the Vatican didn’t like that. So the began to, how did you say it? Oh, hunt them down and kill them.’
The ‘God Particle’
The message of ‘Angels and Demons’ is that science and religion would best serve humanity by joining forces; an undue focus on either leads to fundamentalism. The old Pope is murdered is because he would like to see greater cooperation between science and religion. He is fascinated by research into ‘the God Particle,’ and believes this should be amalgamated with Catholic Doctrine. Perhaps through science we can understand what we define as ‘God’?
Of course this is nonsense. The ‘God Particle’ is a popular term to describe a theoretical particle - the ‘Higgs Boson’ - which helps explain why things have mass. The discovery of the Higgs Boson would be important, but it would hardly be the basis on which to re-write Christian doctrine or to understand scientifically the nature of God.
A ‘Scientific’ Religion?
‘Angels and Demons’ urges Christians to embrace science more fully. But scientists who are Christians (whether within the Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox tradition) would argue that their research is already compatible with their faith.
What is this ‘scientific’ Christianity meant to look like? The film makes a few suggestions. Firstly, there is a scene which discusses embryo stem-cell research. The Catholic Church is wary of such research, but the film suggests that if the Church was more embracing of science, it would remove its opposition. The second refers to the LBGT (Lesbian/ Gay/ Bisexual/ Transsexual) movement. In the film, onlookers in St. Peter’s Square wave the rainbow flag of the movement prominently at various points. I understood the implication to be that this ‘scientific’ religion would take a different stance on issues of gender and sexuality.
Science versus Religion
Despite appearances, ‘Angels and Demons’ has very little to say about the age-old debate about the compatibility of science and religion. Moreover, as it focuses on the Catholic Church, it does not address the reliability of the Bible, which is one of the key points at issue in such discussions. However, the film may raise questions for viewers in this area, as many still feel that science and religion are incompatible. So although it is not ideal, the film could be used in an apologetic setting. For anyone interested in reading more about this topic, I strongly recommend the books of Alister McGrath, including ‘The Dawkins Delusion.’ McGrath is a highly respected professor and his work is very readable.
It’s Star Trek, Jim, but not as we know it
The new Star Trek moves at warp speed, packing in more action than ever, with a new fresh faced cast (Chris Pine as Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Spock) and state-of-the-art special effects. And - most importantly - for the first time in decades Star Trek is cool again.
After the failing Star Trek TV spinoff Enterprise was cancelled in 2005, ‘Bones’ McCoy might well have commented of the ageing franchise ‘He’s dead Jim’. However, where Dr Who and James Bond have boldly gone before, the latest film sees a complete reinvention of the series for a new generation.
Enjoyable prequel
I really enjoyed this excellent reinvention of Star Trek. The film is directed by JJ Abrams, the man behind TV series Lost and Mission Impossible III. It is a prequel (of sorts) to the original series. It takes a little time to find its feet, but by the time a suspended James T Kirk is smuggled onto the USS Enterprise it soars. Its greatest strength is its screenplay, which includes loving, ironic, witty but rarely mocking nods to the original series. It satisfies our nostalgia, but leaves the audience waiting expectantly to see how the new characters will develop in the future.
Missing message
Missing from this roller-coater ride is the pretentious high-mindedness of the originals (particularly the Next Generation). The film may take your breath away, but isn’t so taxing on the brain. The essence of the science-fiction genre is its ability to consider big questions by creating new worlds. (Think Blade Runner, which considers the nature of humanity, or 1984 which warns about state control of thought and sexuality.) In the past, Star Trek was no different. The original creator of Star Trek was Gene Rodenberry (1921-1991). Through Star Trek, he saw an opportunity to comment on contemporary issues. Roddenberry stated that:
‘[By creating] a new world with new rules, I could make statements about sex, religion, Vietnam, politics, and intercontinental missiles. Indeed, we did make them on Star Trek: we were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network.’
Ever since, the franchise has reflected the issues of respective eras. For instance, the original series saw the first ever broadcast interracial kiss. Throughout, there has always been a message - heavy-handed at times - about the importance of tolerance.
Religion
One of the most notable aspects of the Star Trek world has been the conspicuous absence of religion. Rodenberry was raised a Southern Baptist, but did not become a believer himself. Instead, he considered himself to be an agnostic atheist humanist, and saw religion as the cause of wars and suffering. In the utopian society of the ‘Federation’ religion is absent, while the rituals of rival societies are regarded as archaic but to be respected. I wonder whether ‘Trekkies’’ obsession with this utopian vision of society reflects a dissatisfaction with our sinful world; through the Federation, one can still retain a confidence in humanity to improve itself and progress towards perfection, in spite of the evidence of the real world.
Contemporary issues
The new Star Trek completely passes on the opportunity to comment on contemporary issues such as financial meltdown, religious fundamentalism, the war on terror and an increasing rich-poor divide. In fact, it looks to dismantle some of the concepts of the past: The ‘rational’ Spock is involved in two separate brawls. When he seeks ‘illogical’ revenge on his enemies, it is celebrated. Characters are motivated less by a desire to serve the Federation selflessly than by a desire for personal success.
Confusion
With contemporary confusion about the nature of good and evil, and concern for the future of our planet, perhaps the utopian vision of the future presented by the original series would not be credible to audiences anymore. The idealistic Federation has become yet another victim of the post-modern challenge. The new Star Trek underlines the desperate search in our society for a moral authority that can ultimately only be satisfied by Jesus Christ.