Brave, Esposito, and The Meaning of Marriage

This week's reviews.  Two movies and a book.  Get psyched.

Can I tell you how psyched I was to see Brave?  Who doesn't love a kick-ass princess?  I heard several friends talk about how great it was! Then, I saw it. Disappointment galore.

Merida is no kick-ass princess; she's a selfish, spoiled brat.  She's no Katniss; They only share archery.  Merida harms her family instead of helps them.  They're both feisty but go about it in very different ways.  I think the two characters give two completely different view of the role of freedom: Katniss= freedom as being at liberty to perform one's duty, and Merida= freedom as being at liberty to follow one's whims.  Here's a link to my two reviews regarding Katniss and The Hunger Games.

I thought Brave made light of the role of education and peace-making, and glossed over the necessity of decorum and culture for the most part.  It used hyperbole as if it were theI think it attempted to meld the traditional princess story with a coming of age story, but failed each genre miserably.  And, I think the whole concept of fate gets muddled with the double story.  I can't recommend it.  And, I have to say it further bothered me that such a befuddled, pointless story was set in Scotland.

Fans of the movie would argue that the transference of the "Legend as lesson" from mother to daughter is the point-- that one can learn from other's mistakes if one is wise.  But, I'm not sold on that.  I find it far more problematic that the protagonist would have killed her mother.  She asked that the witch change her mother in lieu of wishing to be changed.  (I'm guessing that I feel such animosity towards Merida, the cartoon character, because I'm dealing with the selfish, spoiled brat aspects of myself and wishing that my situation be changed instead of myself.  I identify with her much to my chagrin-- and it's quite enlightening for my evaluation of my situation when added to a conversation I had on Friday about differentiating between "personal preference" and philosophy/world view/character.)

PS.  I know I'm the dissenting opinion on Brave. Please feel free to disagree with me.

On the other hand, Esposito was awesome.  (Not only should we support local food, but we should support local arts.) It exceeded expectations. It's a love story set in a self-storage place in North Carolina.  Orange shirts and golf carts are involved!  It was obviously the first feature film for most of the ensemble (we're talking actors, writer, director), and that may have added to its charm.  But, it had a good idea and wrestled with questions of honesty, friendship, and character.  Esposito is along the lines of Junebug in terms of Southern flavor, but a little less polished.

It was really funny!  The writer and protagonist is a key player in an improv group.  There's definitely some improv going on in the movie.  The friend I went with wasn't overly thrilled with that aspect of the film, but I liked it.  I found it highly entertaining throughout.  The bit characters were quite fun; they made me think of this quote Designer Women quotation: "In the South we don't institutionalize the crazy, we celebrate them."  I think this idea would be an amazing sitcom.  It'd being distributed in October.  You should check it out.

Now for the book: The Meaning of Marriage by Tim and Kathy Keller.  I read it because my mother bought it for my cousin who's getting married later this month.  My mom asked me to read it in order to guarantee that it be read.  You see, books as gifts are a running joke between my mom and this cousin.  My mom is a former English teacher and my cousin hated/s reading.  You can see where this is headed.  Anyway, my mom would always give M a book with an IOU tucked in the book near the end.  After M read it, Mom would quiz her, and if she knew the answers would give her the money.  I think this time, she's just going to put a check into the book.  M will most likely rifle through the pages.

Anyway, I'm glad I read it.  Keller is a fantastic writer.  Here's my gist of the book.  Marriage isn't about personal happiness or fulfillment.  It's about commitment and covenant.  One's spouse is his or her partner in sanctification-- or as I said in my head, "sanctification buddy".  Marriage, by its essence, changes the individuals.  Marriage should be done in community.  Marriage is good... and hard.  Yet, marriage is no one's salvation.

Singleness is also good; I think he means it since he's a pastor of about 3,000 singles.  Singles need to make sure that they neither glorify or fear marriage.  And, one should consider compatibility of character and friendship as the number one factors in potential partners.  A single should be looking at the person's potential not where they are now (talking about character).  He warned women not to get hung up about money and men about looks.

So, it's slightly more complex than that, and that is why you should read it!