CHRISTIAN: "Camelot"

This movie had a Judeo-Christian worldview. There is good and bad and the consequences of sin (or doing what's bad) are real. The most obvioius example is Lancelot and Guennevierre's affair leads to their own misery, Arthur's suffering and so on until it leads eventually to the downfall of the great ideal that Arthur had built Camelot upon. Also, Arthur's sin resulting in his illigitimate son and his failure to properly acknowledge the kinship leads to the undermining and division of his kingdom and his demise. Sin likewise results in our death and it eats away at our foundation and our noble ideals.

Along these lines, it is evident that mankind is sinful by nature, that even the good king Arthur sins. Furthermore, as seen above, sin is the origin of conflict and suffering. This is consistent with the Christian worldview.

On the other hand, good can be seen also. Arthur establishes the good values of not being offended for one's own personal honor in a selfish and hot-headed manner. Instead, he establishes a round table where everyone is equal and disputes and problems are reasoned out logically and in a civilized manner. Also, when Arthur realizes that Lancelot and Guennevierre have fallen in love, his first natural inclination is to take revenge on them. However, he tames these impulses and returns to the value of "might for right" and looking out for other's interests.

In the end, as Mrs. Kirk discussedd in class, Arthur serves as a sort of Christ figure. When he speaks to the boy and commands him to tell of the glory of Camelot and never to forget, it relates to Christ's Great Commission to his followers, who are to tell the Good News throughout the world. Also, Arthur knights the boy. In the Biblical application, I see this as a sort of conferrence of authority, just like Jesus gave His followers the Holy Spirit.

The commission of King Arthur to the boy is an important part in the closing. Therein lies the hope. That hope is that all of Arthur's righteous efforts were not in vain becasue the boy will remember the glory that came of a righteous foundation and that the boy will spread the ideal to all people and perhaps, the ideal will once again come to life.

SEC. HUM.: "Planet of the Apes"

Before we started the movie, I really thought that I wouldn't like it. Now, I'm not sure that I liked it, but it was certainly very interesting and even enjoyable to watch because of that.

I could really see the secular humanistic worldview throughout. Evolution was portrayed as the truth and the character who upheld the more "Christian" perspective of existence was the evil villian Dr. Zaius and furthermore, he deliberately hid the truth. This parallels with the secular humanist belief that there is no God and their strong foundation on evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. It follows locially that they would be against the church and religions that teach about God. Thus they depict the church and religion as bad, bigoted, and very rigid. The belief that there is no God is certainly a core part of the secular humanist foundation.

Also, science is upheld as a means to acquire truth in secular humanism. In the movie, Cornelius discovered truth via scientific finds and although scientific advances (ie. the revelation of the truth) were hindered by religion, those who were "true scientists" came accross and recognized the truth by science. This movie centers very much around the scientific community.

Another big aspect of secular humanism is the veneration of nature and the tendancy to be naturalistic in ideology. They often value nature as equal to or above human existence. The movie definitely intended to send the message that mankind is destroying their earth, or is the culprit and the responsible party for the destruction of their world. The message is that the world would be better off without humans and that humans should not be allowed to damage the earth further. As Dr. Zaius says, to this effect, "I may have just saved the world" by sending man away (possibly to his ultimate doom).

POSTMODERN: "Stranger than Fiction"

This was our postmodern movie selection. I think the most obvious way that it was postmodern was through its metafiction, the fact that Harold Crick knew was the protagonist and knew it. There is also a sort of sense that there is no God. Perhaps fate is determined by chance circumstances or other people, but there is no supernatural being who oversees everything. The most powerful character in the movie is the author and she is not even aware of the influence she has on others and she is not omniscient and is not aware of their lives outside of her writing. Also, there is a hint of the idea of celebrating chaos in that Anna is an "anarchist".

However, there were some aspects of the movie that I felt were un-postmodern. In the movie, I liked the line the author said when she was explaining why she kept Harold alive, saying something to the effect that "when a man dies without knowing he's going to die, that's one thing, but when a man knows he's going to die and still willingly does it--isn't that the sort of man you want to keep alive?". By the end of the movie, Harold had transformed from a mindless sort of tax-machine, to a man driven by his desire to preserve his own life, to a man who saw the world through lenses bigger than his own two eyes; in other words, he saw the greater picture outside of his own interests. Thus, he was willing to die for the sake of something that was greater than just himself. For this reason, he was saved. If he had maintained his sense of self-centeredness, he would have died, but he lost himself and gained his life by doing so. This is very much the Biblical idea of Matthew 16:25, which says, "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." This aspect of the values that Harold learns is quite unlike the Postmodern way of celebrating disorder and chaos as well as the belief that there is no absolute truth.