Land of Plenty

In honor of this Wim Wenders film, I feel the need to go more in depth than just a typical blog entry. It's the kind of film that demands examination and response, which is what I intend to provide. Be forewarned, the following will be as much a political discourse as film analysis, so if that's bothersome to you, then don't keep reading.

Mr. Wenders is undoubtedly one of the world's most important filmmakers working today. In that sense, it's unfortunate that this film has not (and probably will not) pick up a distributor in the U.S. It's been well-received around the world, but won't be shown here, and I think I understand why. Apparently the distributors liked it but aren't sure how to market it because it's either a liberal film with Christian undertones or a Christian film with liberal undertones, so who is it to be marked to? As a politically conservative Christian, I felt those same reverse pulls.

It tells the story of Lana, a 20-year-old girl who is returning to American after living most of her life as a missionary in Israel. Michelle Williams, who plays Lana, deeply surprised me -- after seeing a handful of episodes of Dawson's Creek, I decided I really didn't like her, but here, under Wenders' direction, she blew me away. Simultaneously, it tells the story of her uncle, Paul, a Vietnam vet who, in recent years (i.e. post 9/11) has taken to surveillance across the streets of Los Angeles, determined to single-handedly stop terrorist cells opperating in the U.S. He's not working for the government, he's working for himself, but sees himself as doing his duty to the country that has always been good to him. John Diehl, an actor I was unfamiliar with going into the film, is superb as Paul. In fact, I think he brings a depth and humanity to the character, that I felt may not have even been intended. It's a difficult role because he spends most of the film acting to himself and talking to himself, recording his findings in a tape recorder. It's a tough role that he makes work. Paul is Lana's only living relative, so when she arrives back in Los Angeles, she determines to find him. She works a Christian mission in inner city L.A., where she feed the homeless and provides shelter. One day, while Paul is following an Arab, that he suspects has terrorist intentions, Paul follows him to the mission where Lana works. The Arab is shot in front of the mission, bringing Paul and Lana together. She then becomes a "source of information" to him from the inside. Eventually, they find themselves taking the body of the dead man to his brother in a remote, California desert town. All the while, Paul is uncovering the trail to the heart of a terrorist organization.

Now, for the politics of religion. Lana is a sincere and genuinely sweet, nonjudgmental woman. I only wish the film could have been as nonjudgmental as she was. The pastor of the mission she works at is one of those Christians who comes dangerously close to saying that you can't be a real Christian unless you're in the inner city caring for the homeless. A few times he goes off on how Washington (i.e. the Bush administration) has spent so much money on a war across the ocean and virtually ignores the poverty and homeless situation in America. Perhaps a just criticism, and one that I don't know enough about to respond to. However, this seems to be the kind of film that has a truthful and profoundly orthodox view of Christianity (which it does), yet believes that Christianity in America has been high-jacked by the Right. After all, the Gospels are all about helping the poor and needy, right? Yes and no. The true teaching of Jesus lend themselves to the political Left. Herein, I have a problem. First of all, American liberals have a bad tendency to say that the Left is about the people and helping those in need, while the Right is about patriotism, loyalty to a country rather than people, and helping those are already wealthy while ignoring the poor. You'd be hard pressed to find someone in this country, liberal or conservative, who would say "to hell with the poor" and mean it. No one wants to see their fellow countrymen suffering and impoverished. So, once that fact is understood we can move on to the real difference between conservatives and liberals: how to go about fixing the problems of poverty. We differ in methods, not concepts. The Left leans towards saying that the government should allot funds to various programs that directly deal with the poor (welfare, MediCaid, food stamps, etc). The Right, however, tends to shy aways from these large government programs, and instead believes that through incentives to businesses and investors, people will be more encouraged to spend and produce, thereby creating more economic capital. It is a capitalist system after all. It is the governments job not to provide for people, but to encourage and foster the opportunities for individuals to succed for themselves. Now, granted, this is simplified view of both sides, but hopefully it gets the point across. All that is to say, I get upset when conservatives are branded as the heartless rich who only care about greed and bombing unsuspecting Middle Eastern countries. My second problem, is in saying that Jesus advocated liberal values. Jesus didn't advocate liberal values, neither did he advocate conservative values. Jesus did not adhere to any manmade political doctrine, He only ahered to Himself and the work of God. Political doctrines should adhere to His teachings, not the other way around. This is where we can rejoice is honest difference of opinions, because not everyone is going to agree on the specifics of His teachings, but as long as we, as Christians, are all focused on the work of Christ in this world, then Left and Right should cease to matter. I feel the need to do some honest, self-reflection at this point because I have to admit, that if I were to see movie of this quality that supported the idea that Jesus endorsed conservative values, I would probably be singing its praises, and not writing lengthy blog entries about it. I admit, this is wrong by my own statements. But as a political conservative, I like to see my values supported, and I would imagine that the same is true of liberals.

Now, on to the next issue. This is the first honest, post 9/11 film that I have seen. It is a film for now, that might have some univeral applications. It has the kind of passion of a filmmaker who has something to say and has to say it right now. I has the passion of immediacy and succeeds brilliantly. It has that kind of Christian, humanitarian liberalism that's very anti-war and pro-peace (as if those in favor of the war in Iraq are all turned on by the idea of death and destruction). Paul is determined to protect America and won't let terrorists undermine all that we stand for. Innocent people died in the World Trade center. A character responds to that by saying that the people who died in the towers would want others to die in their name. A clever emotional appeal (as if to say that the war on terror is just an American revenge ploy). The thing is, the world is safer thanks to the war on terror, and Iraq is a free country no longer under the tyranny of Islamic fundamentalists. There may never be an answer to those long asked questions of Christianity and Christians as to whether or not there really is such a thing as a just war, that can be reconciled by Biblical teaching. Some say yes and others no, and I can respect and honest pacifict even if I ultimately don't agree. All I can say is that I sleep soundly knowing that America and the world is safer thanks the actions we have taken in the Middle East.

Back to the film. While I may not always agree with its politics, I respect its complete honesty. It's a film that I feel that I can also respond honestly towards, and causes me to think about why I believe the things that I do. What more can you ask from a work of art, and this is a work of art. It was shot on DV (oh yeah), over an 18 day shoot, and it looks fantastic. Los Angeles has never seemed so real. It feels like a real city and not merely a place where a movie is set. Wenders has always been concerned with places and the search for home. His two greatest films Paris, Texas and Wings of Desire are two of the finest examples of this theme in film history. Here, however, Wenders almost seems to be maturing as a person and a filmmaker, by taking the next step. In this film, while place and home are two very important factors, he is moving beyond and trying to say that ultimately people are more important than places, where in his earlier films he seems to be saying the opposite (even if he never believed it). The importance of people and places merge beautifully in this film. Paul is a man concerned with a place (America) while Lana is concerned with people and showing God's love. She may be finest openly Christian (non-saint or apostle) character in film history, certainly in the pantheon of greats. I love American and what it stands for, not what it should stand for or what it could stand for, but what it does stand for, but God values people more than He values land or even ideas, and this film demonstrates that.

My one problem with the film artistically is in the handling of Paul's character. He's the kind of guy that liberals can look at and either pity or laugh at for his blind patriotism, nationalistic cliches, and naive devotion to a lie (i.e. America); or they fear him for being that guy who actually believes that we could be in danger. He would end up being borderline one-dimensional if not for the fact that he's an ex-vet messed up with Asian Pink. The fact that he's an ex-vet becomes the "explain all" for his behavior. If he seems odd just chalk it up to the fact that he's a messed up ex-vet. As I mentioned earlier, it's also a testament to John Diehl's performance that he makes Paul feel much more human and sympathetic than he was probably intended to be.

I honestly wish that more people would get a chance to see this film. It has the courage to address issues that others shy away from, or address in only the most superficial kinds of ways. As you might know, Scott Derrickson, a Biola grad, is credited with story credit on the film, and a solid backbone he provides. Wenders works carefully off of Derrickson's story and creates two memorable characters, an enlightening relationship, and a few things to say about where we are today, right now. I appologize if this feels a little bit disjointed, but I really care about this film and its integrity, and feel the need to provide my honest responses, because that's what it asks for.