Logan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HRx_0fimc


Few trailers have moved me as much as the first official trailer to Logan. You may think that silly of me, but it's true. There is an art to cutting good trailers and James Mangold the director of Logan has got it down to a fine art. This trailer is masterful in its conjunction of music and visuals; the lyrics and dialogue of which complementing each other, adding layers of depth and emotion one upon the other blurring the lines between poetry and screenplay.

The visuals in the trailer convey a beautiful sense of desolation in their themes of loneliness, age, infirmity and loss. The acting is sublime with every inflection in voice, movement of body and facial expression carrying with it a kind of nobility, whether savage or refined. A sense of nobility that comes with bearing the mantle of two of the most beloved and iconic comic characters in the X-Men franchise for 16 years. It's as if the actors Hugh Jackman and Patrick Steward metaphorically are able to clothe themselves in the skins of these characters.

This trailer is a piece of art. A self contained piece of art. As in any work of art there is an inherent beauty to it, an aestheticism that is intuitively enriching and enlivening. I am not a film critic. I am a layman. But, I have a sense of beauty as we all do. This trailer appealed to that sense of beauty in me. I would go so far as to say this trailer is even an example of high art. You could contest that, and perhaps I am just ignorant of what real high art is. However, I think this trailer elevates the comic book genre. Relative to its genre, I believe this trailer has managed to transcend how we view "superhero" movies. As James Mangold explained regarding the tone of the trailer;

“Hugh and I have been talking about what we would do since we were working on the last one, and for both of us it was this requirement that, to be even interested in doing it, we had to free ourselves from some assumptions that had existed in the past, and be able to change the tone a bit. Not merely to change for change’s sake, but also to make something that’s speaking to the culture now, that’s not just the same style — how many times can they save the world in one way or another? How can we construct a story that’s built more on character and character issues, in a way as if it almost wasn’t a superhero movie, yet it features their powers and struggles and themes?” (Empire)

I think Mangold's philosophy is the correct one. In so doing, I believe this trailer has been able to invoke something deeper, something more profound than your average comic book fare. As Mangold said they had to free themselves of some of the assumptions of comic book movies, and if ever the idiom 'the gloves are off' bore figurative meaning it is surely with the character of Logan. Batman v Superman was a zeitgeist film in many respects and one which was not afraid to broach real world issues. Yet, as much as I love that movie, Logan captures something special in its focus on character. Even the name of the movie 'Logan' speaks volumes to the focus of the movie not being on the superhero Wolverine, but on the person of Logan himself, thus stripping the movie of much of its superhero trappings and distancing itself from the X-Men movies that came before it. The trailer and marketing campaign are far more nuanced and subtle than Batman v Superman. Even the first official poster was ladened with meaning.

So far the marketing campaign for Logan has been flawless. The young girl's hand holding Logan's symbolises vulnerability, dependence and guidance; not to mention affection and tenderness. The simple act of holding someone's hand is one of the most profound expressions of love and affection. Then there is Logan's hand that is simultaneously nurturing and protecting. His claws are protruding symbolising protection and yet his hand is not clenched into a fist thus showing care and affection. Logan has fresh wounds on his wrist, knuckles and thumb indicating that he has recently had to protect her and also that he is doing so without the full strength of his regenerative healing abilities, making his actions even more an act of love and self-sacrifice.

As I said, the photography of this movie both motion and still is absolutely beautiful. There is a true sense of majesty about them. While this movie will no doubt contain scenes of violence, even graphic violence as the red band trailer suggests, nevertheless there is still a sense of the majestic about this trailer. I believe the sense of aestheticism connected to this movie (and all other forms of art as well) comes from the image of God in us. God is beautiful. God's creation is beautiful.

Psalm 27:4 says;

One thing have I asked of the Lord,
    that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
    all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord
    and to inquire in his temple.

 Psalm 96:5-6 say,

For all the gods of the peoples are worthless idols,
    but the Lord made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before him;
    strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.

Our hearts have a natural inclination toward beauty. And even though the beauty of this trailer is but a dim reflection, a faint shadow and a hollow echo of God's divine beauty, it nonetheless contains something of the divine beauty by virtue of it being made by divine image bearing people. Yes this movie will contain sin and the distorted morality of a fallen people, but it also contains truth and beauty in its own limited way. Logan is a character most known for his unique adamantium clawed hands; hands which in this movie are scarred and wounded. There was another man whose hands were scarred and wounded for the sake of others, whose hands were pierced on our behalf. And while his death was torturous, the redemption that it accomplished was truly beautiful.

meditations upon being made in God's image - the imago dei

Have you ever wondered what made mankind special? Is man any different from other animals? Are we being guilty of 'speciesism' by asserting that mankind is unique and special amongst the rest of creation?

According to Genesis 1:26-27 (as well as 5:1-2 & 9:2) mankind is unique in as far as we alone are made in the image of God. This is an extraordinary truth. The imago dei is the quintessence of our humanity. So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Early church fathers understood the image of God to be in man's rational capacity - our mind, will and reason. A linguistic study into the semantic range of the words for "image" and "likeness" resulted in there being a correlation between our physical appearance and anatomical design as well as our rationality to the likeness of God. 

Yet, our uniqueness does not end with our reflection of the image of the God as profound as that thought is. An event in human history amplifies and draws into sharp focus our ability to not just reflect, but actively express the divine nature: the birth of Jesus Christ. 

The birth of Jesus is otherwise known theologically as the incarnation. Without the incarnation of the Son of God there could be no salvation. Scripture such as the book of Hebrews teaches why Jesus had to be both fully God and fully human for our salvation. But, it is not the redemptive aspect to the incarnation that I want to pause and meditate on here. 

Rather, I want to think about one of the most important implications of the incarnation for our understanding of our humanity and our uniqueness in creation. In becoming a human being, Jesus - who was eternally coexistent with God the Father (John 1:1-3, 17:5, Col 1:15-17) - in one sense deified all humanity. Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that we as human beings are gods. Nor am I speaking of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis in which people are believed to be able to achieve deification. However, in one very profound sense, Jesus by condescending to become human and partake in human nature did deify mankind in so far as the triune God personally identified Himself with mankind. 

Jesus is described as the Word in John 1:1. The Word, or Logos in Greek, was with God and was God (John 1:1). The Word then became flesh i.e. human (John 1:14). Logos Christology dominated the theological formulation of doctrine in the first few centuries of the early church (as it should have). Indeed the incarnation of Christ remains a more prevalent theological focus in the Eastern Orthodox Church than it does in the Western Church. 

Recently, I was part of an astronomy workshop, in which the staff member gave us an idea of the size of our solar system and position of it within the milky way. He then continued to show us the size of our milky way galaxy in comparison with the universe. One website I looked at said to imagine our sun as a coin placed on a desk. The nearest star to our sun would be 350 miles away. By this scale the milky way galaxy would be 7.5 million miles across. Though an exact estimate of how large our universe is is very difficult due to the fact that space is still expanding; the universe is estimated to be about 93 billion light years across! These numbers blow the mind. Imagining these sorts of distances is really incomprehensible to our human minds. Yet, the Bible says that God created the heavens and stretched them out (Isaiah 42:5). The Bible also says God determines the exact number of stars and knows them all by name (Psalm 147:5).

Rather than the unimaginable size of the universe being a stumbling block to belief in the incarnation, I think it actually supports it. For if God can create the universe ex-nihilo (out of nothing), and can create a universe 93 billion light years in diameter, then the universe is a testament to God's omnipotence. Indeed, the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). The more we learn about our universe, the more God's glory is magnified. The semantic range of the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" as discussed earlier may also provide further evidence of God's omnipotence as to His purpose for the incarnation, which was built into the very design of our physical anatomy.

Jesus, the Logos, became human. Jesus' incarnation makes God the Father's immanence among His creation personal (Col 1:15, 2:9). In becoming a human being, Jesus elevates mankind in ways we could never achieve without the incarnation. Jesus' hypostatic union (between his divinity and humanity) remains a beautiful mystery. Though I use the expression " beautiful mystery", the fact of the matter is that truth always precedes the language and vocabulary needed in order to explain it. As such the very theological language I am using in this blog took centuries of formulation and revision to adequately describe the truth of Christ's two natures found in Scripture.

While mankind will never develop a hypostatic union the same as Christ's, nevertheless Peter does speak of partaking in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). This partaking in the divine nature is only partial now, but will be become more fully realized when we receive our glorified, resurrected bodies. Nevertheless, the Christian is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) and as such becomes a partaker in the divine nature of the Godhead. Indeed, the Christian is also the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). Thus, not only does the Christian partake of the divine nature of the Godhead in the grace-activated transformation of the heart enabling us to practice holiness, not to mention being given eternal life; but also, we in fact become the very dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, housing the Spirit in our sanctified bodies.

This reality of the Christian experience further reduces the gap between God and man. We are image bearers of our Creator God by virtue of our humanity. And as Christians, we are transformed - or transfigured in a way - to bear the image of Christ (who Himself is the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15). It is this relationship with Christ and the subsequent Christlikeness that Jesus imbues to His followers that acts almost synecdochically for the deification of mankind. Christ in becoming human becomes the new Adam - the heavenly Adam (1 Cor 15:47-49) - and as such the new federal head of mankind. Just as we all are borne after the likeness of the first Adam in our sinful state, so too for the Christian he is borne after the likeness of the second Adam, the heavenly Adam (Christ). And so Christ Jesus comes, in a way, to represent all humanity in His own humanity, thus synecdochically deifying mankind.

This blog cannot plumb the depths of the implications and riches of the incarnation. Nor can this blog adequately survey the catechism of Logos Christology and the Hypostatic Union. I am not even trying to do so. No, this blog is designed to be more of a devotional meditation on our uniqueness among creation as being made in the imago dei and what Christ's incarnation means for us in that respect. I will leave it to you to contemplate what the incarnation means for us spiritually and societally, as well as for yourself personally. I hope this blog has inspired purifying, soul-quenching meditation in that regard.

Blessings.

a call to prayer for our politicians

For those of you who have read my recent series of blogs you will know that I have been meditating upon and animated by the theme of spiritual sojourning. Our faith and hope should not be misplaced in the ability of men (or lack thereof), but in our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, our sojourn in the world does not automatically entail our abandonment of it. Yet, how do we reconcile our sojourn with following the affairs of the world? Paul speaks metaphorically in 2 Corinthians 5 of living in our earthly "tent" (i.e. body) and yet longing to put off the earthly in favour of the heavenly (2 Cor 5:1-2). Here we see another example of Paul's holy discontentment that we saw in Philippians 3:10-11. What is Paul's resolution to this frustration of our eager anticipation of the resurrection body and eternal life? In v.9 Paul says;

So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 

2 Corinthians 5:9

Our aim as Christians should be to please God. How do we please God in our sojourn? One way to please God relevant to the theme of this blog is by making intercessory prayers and supplications for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-3). Paul says our prayers for all people, including those who rule over us are "good" and "pleasing" in the sight of our Lord (1 Tim 2:3). So if it pleases God to pray for our leaders, and the aim of our Christian walk is to please the Lord then we should pray for those in government.

Therefore, I am exhorting my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in the UK (and elsewhere) to heed the call to intercede for our government and politicians.

Pray with me for the Conservative Party leadership contest. Pray for the Labour Party that is in crisis following the result of the referendum. And pray for the general election that will inevitably take place once the new leader of the Conservative Party has been chosen.

How then should we pray for our government and politicians? We may be jaded or disillusioned with our politicians. We may even resent them and feel bitter towards them. When we feel so negatively towards our politicians it dampens our zeal to pray. Our instinct is not to pray but rather to complain and protest.

Yet, the Christians of the first century whom the New Testament was originally written to had no say or power in choosing their political leaders. And in fact historically, the early church came under enormous pressure and persecution under the Roman Empire. And still, despite such severe treatment - even to the point of shedding blood (Heb 12:4) and martyrdom - the church was still commanded to be in subjection to the ruling government (Rom 13:1).

That command to be in subjection to our rulers is still in effect today. Peter commands the church to be subject to rulers and governors (1 Peter 2:13-14) for this is the will of God (1 Peter 2:15). Peter goes so far as to say that as Christians we should honour everyone, including the emperor (1 Peter 2:17).

We don't have to agree with every policy, decision or belief of our politicians. But we must respect them. And that means praying for all our politicians not just for the political party we vote for.

So, are there any biblical principles we can use to guide us in how to pray and what to pray for? I have been giving this some thought, and I think that we can draw inspiration in our prayers from the qualifications for church elders in 1 Timothy 3:2-7. Now I know that we should not judge the moral character of those outside the church by the same standards for those inside the church (1 Cor 5:9-10); but nevertheless when it comes to appointing or electing leaders and prime ministers of our country, then I think many of these same qualifications apply.

Paul says elders should be the husband of one wife (1 Tim 3:2). Boris Johnson has been married twice, had three affairs and has fathered a love child with one of his mistresses. Therefore, even before Johnson pulled out of the leadership contest, his moral character made him a highly dubious candidate for such a position.

Speaking of the qualifications for deacons later in the same chapter, Paul says deacons should not be greedy for dishonest gain (1 Tim 3:8). While I wouldn't go so far as to say Michael Gove's leadership bid was entirely machiavellian as the conspiracy theory claims, it did reveal that he is a callous and utterly ruthless politician with his own political ambition and agenda. Gove has lost the trust of many Conservative MPs for his last minute sabotage of Johnson's campaign to be prime minister. Therefore, is Gove of the right moral character to be the next prime minister?

My point is not to character-assassinate every candidate for prime minister. My point is that we can use the qualifications for elders and deacons as principles for what to pray for in our leaders. We not only want, but need men and women of integrity, honesty, humility and valour. We need leaders who are qualified, experienced in government and the art of statecraft as well as moral character.

I am a meritocrat. I believe in meritocracy. I believe those who are most qualified for the position should be given the responsibility. My desire is to see every leader of every major political party in Britain be equally qualified to lead our country as potential prime ministers. This is how I will be interceding for our politicians and government in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Join with me in making prayers of supplication and intercession for our leaders. These are disturbing times and dark days. Our leaders need our prayers. Whether they recognize it or not, let alone publicly acknowledge it, our leaders need the Church to intercede for them. Let us not fail them, nor displease our Lord and God for whom we live to please.

a holy discontentment

that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Philippians 3:10-11

Dear friends,

This morning, one of my pastors gave a message about holy discontentment from Philippians 3:10-11. This idea of a holy discontentment in our relationship with Jesus really resonated with me. It resonated with me because of how closely it parallels the theme of sojourning that I have been meditating on just recently.

Are we striving forward in our faith, eager to know Christ better and the power of His resurrection? Are we hungry for a deeper relationship with our saviour? Do we have a burning desire within our souls to become like Jesus in His death? And are we prepared to share in Christ's sufferings?

Those are challenging questions. For me, the thought of becoming satisfied with my relationship with Jesus should be a warning sign that something is wrong. It could be one of the first indications our faith is growing lukewarm (Rev 3:16). And being satisfied with our relationship with Jesus could also reflect another closely related danger of loving this world more than God (1 John 2:15).

If we are spiritual pilgrims sojourning in this world, then we will be more likely to feel that sensation of holy discontentment in our relationship with Jesus. This theme of holy discontentment is profound. Are we content to know we are saved or do we live to make our election sure? (1 Peter 1:10) Are we satisfied with our spiritual walk or are we pressing on towards the goal? (Phil 3:14) Are we content to attend church and call ourselves Christians or are we running the race, throwing off all sin that entangles us? (Hebrews 12:1-2)

Paul speaks in Philippians 3:10 of knowing Jesus and the power of His resurrection. The power of the resurrection! As Christians we all have access to and can live in the power of the resurrection (Rom 8:10-11). And we await our resurrection on the last day. If we as Christians will one day be given resurrection bodies and be transformed putting off the mortal for the immortal and the perishable for the imperishable (1 Cor 15:53), then shouldn't we seek to live not just in the light of, but in the actual power of the resurrection of Christ now?

Paul also speaks of sharing in Christ's sufferings in order to become like Jesus in His death (Phil 3:10). Do we have a holy discontentment to become more like Jesus, even if this means sharing in His suffering? If we are not sojourning in this world, then we are less likely to desire to become more like Jesus, especially in sharing in His sufferings. Is it little wonder Paul wanted to know the power of the resurrection as otherwise, even as an apostle, Paul probably would not have had the ability to share in Christ's sufferings.

The more I live the Christian life and meditate upon what it means to call oneself a Christian, act like a Christian and develop a truly biblical and Christian worldview, the more I am convicted that we must love Jesus above everything else and live for Him before all else.

Jesus said whoever loves father or mother, son or daughter more than Him is not worthy of Him (Matt 10:37). Jesus also said if we wish to be His follower we must die to ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Do we have a holy discontentment to love Jesus more than anything or anyone else in this world? Are we taking up our cross daily and following Jesus in our sojourn through this life? Whatever our priorities are, if we do not have a holy discontentment then we probably do not have our priorities right.

sojourning in the midst of uncertainty

To my brothers and sisters in Christ in the UK,

This blog is not about telling you how you should feel politically about the decision to leave the E.U. I am sure there were many of you who voted on both sides. Voting on a matter as weighty as leaving the E.U. is a matter of conscience and we will all have different positions that we sincerely hold.

The decision to leave will have further political ramifications, that much has already been confirmed with the resignation of our Prime Minister David Cameron. Scotland too will almost certainly seek a second referendum for independence. And of course, we now have our relationship with the E.U. to negotiate and clarify.

However, I want to come back to the theme of sojourning: spiritual sojourning.

Paul speaks of spiritual contentment (Phil 4:11) as well as the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Phil 4:7). It is in uncertain times such as these that we must look to Christ for our stability and assurance.

Our country has a long history of political change: the waves of Roman, Saxon, Viking and then Norman conquests. The Civil War that resulted in us becoming a republic under Oliver Cromwell and the beheading of King Charles I. The Acts of unions with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1800). The decline of the British Empire. Times change. Politics changes. And if our contentment is placed in governments, or institutions or political treaties then our worlds will inevitably fall into confusion and we shall have no peace.

Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's vision of a great statue made of gold and silver, bronze, iron and clay (Daniel 2). The statue represented the various kingdoms of the ancient world, each one succeeding the last. And a stone cut from a mountain was hurled at the statue smashing it to pieces. This stone represented the kingdom of God. It is an everlasting kingdom.

As Christians, we are sojourners in this world precisely because we belong to this everlasting and enduring kingdom. Despite the tremendous change that has taken place in the world over the past two thousand years, God has faithfully preserved for Himself a remnant: His Church. We are members of God's Church - the bride of Christ - and as such we are part of something bigger and greater than any one country or even group of countries. We are part of a history and tradition and kingdom that goes all the way back to Christ. Take heart in this fact. Draw strength from this continuity. And ultimately find rest in the cornerstone of the Church, Christ Jesus Himself (Matt 11:28).

Paul suffered tremendous hardships in his ministry to the gentiles and still found contentment in plenty or in want (Phil 4:11). Let us look to the example of the apostle Paul. The referendum result has been described as a seismic shift in the political life of the UK. The result tells of a nation divided (52% to 48%). Our country is in need of healing. How though will we be able to provide the hope, counsel and reassurance people will be looking for if we ourselves are so caught up in our political affiliations and directing our energy in a political cause?

Please don't misunderstand me; I am not disparaging politics or the importance of our civic duty. There is nothing wrong with supporting a political party. However, my point is that there is something profoundly liberating about being first and foremost a child of God, rather than a British citizen; about finding our identity in Christ (Gal 2:20) rather than in our country. The Church is the pillar and foundation/buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, let us be the pillar we are called to be. Let us provide our country with the hope, light and truth of the Gospel that it so desperately needs at this time.

Remember, Jesus said foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head (Matt 8:20). As Christians this is fundamentally our reality in this world. We are not of the world (John 15:19).

We are sojourners.

But our sojourning does not mean we are impoverished or to be pitied. We have something the world can never take away from us. Something the world looks for in vain. Let us treasure the kingdom of God as we should (Matt 13:44) and remain joyful amidst all the disappointment and uncertainty this world brings.

the sojourner

Sometimes, I get the distinct impression that the world doesn't want Christians to be part of it, nor cares about what happens to Christians as a result of this rejection.

As a Christian this shouldn't come as a surprise to me, for Jesus says the world will hate us (Luke 21:17, John 15:19). In one respect, the world's indifference to the suffering of Christians, its positive discrimination against Christians (be it refugees or natives), and it's vitriolic disdain for Christian ethics & morality in the aftermath of the "culture war" is a fulfillment of Jesus' own words and therefore circumstantial evidence of the truth of the Bible. It also means that as a Christian I am given opportunities to love my enemies (Matthew 5:43-44). Indeed, a correct biblical response to society's actions will lead to a greater Christ-like character in the believer as we look to Jesus' example of loving His enemies in the face of false accusations and crucifixion.

So, in one sense I should be grateful to be living in our modern, contemporary world. And yet, observing society's drifting from biblical norms and its recoil at God's sovereign authority over every sphere of human life leads me to wrestle with my place within it. Should I passively embrace the anti-Christian sentiment I see so prevalently nowadays (for reasons stated above) or should I seek to speak the truth - gently and in love - but no less courageously?

I deliberately remained silent on the Orlando shootings as I honestly didn't know what to say that would adequately convey my sincere sympathy for the victims and yet indignation at the media for deliberately putting LGBT lives above those of Christians and others who do not enjoy the privilege of the media's support. I think of the genocide of Christians and other religious minorities in ISIS held territory. I think of the Yazidis who have been taken as sex slaves by ISIS; or the victims of Muslim honour killings across the Islamic world, and the resurgent anti-Semitism in Europe and the West.

Western leaders have no problem declaring themselves to be "Je suis Charlie" in an act of solidarity with freedom of speech, or walks of solidarity with the LGBT community, yet there was never a "Je suis Christian" in support of freedom of religion and the Christians who died as a result of retaliation in the Islamic world for their act of defiance.

As one article I read put it, progressives believe in diversity as long as that diversity doesn't extend to conservatives. And both Britain and America seem to be prejudiced against Christian refugees who are fleeing religious persecution from within the Islamic world as evidenced by a recent BBC article as well as statistics released about the number of Christian to Muslim refugees who are accepted into America.

What does all this amount to? As far as I can see, a sustained anti-Christian inclination and bias within government institutions and the media. The recent exposure of Facebook whose trending feed censored conservative topics in favour of liberal ones is a good example of how intolerance towards anything resembling moral conservatism or evangelical Christianity is slowly influencing the way society thinks of and about religion and Christianity in particular. In the realm of social media this is being compounded by the filter bubble.

Does this mean I want Christians to be given priority in society? No. That is not what I am saying. I am not arguing for greater Christian "rights". This is not a "civil rights" issue. This is not about having a "martyr complex" either. As Christians we are sojourners in this world (1 Peter 2:11, Philippians 3:20). As such we should not love or hold onto the things of this world (1 John 2:15). I understand this intellectually and theologically. Understanding this emotionally is more difficult.

At this juncture I just want to take a few moments to express my feelings about the Orlando massacre. I grieve for the victims of the shootings as everybody, whether LGBT or not, is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God says explicitly that murder is wrong because mankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 9:6). The murder of homosexuals and others in the "LGBT community" is wrong. I am saddened that there are people living in free countries such as the USA who feel that those freedoms should not be extended to certain groups within it.

I know Christians will continue to be at odds with society. We are walking along two parallel tracks, one heading to eternal life, the other destruction (Matthew 7:13-14). There is not a lot we share in common, except our humanity. And yet, our common humanity will not be enough to protect us from further progressive measures and societal prejudices against traditional Christian values.

So what I really want to say is that I see how the world is changing. I acknowledge the transformation taking place culturally. And while I continue to be a member of this world by virtue of my physical locale, I am living in another kingdom...a heavenly one. You may never agree with my worldview or beliefs, but I will still love you. You may oppose everything I believe in and stand for, but I will still speak the truth in love and so I want you to know it is not personal. If you are a fellow Christian reading this, then perhaps you can relate to what I am saying and in someway this blog has resonated with you? Let us take this sojourn together.

signed,

the sojourner.

Superman v Superman: Singer v Snyder (features spoilers)

Having compared and contrasted Nolan's interpretation of Batman with Snyder's in my previous blog and concluded that Snyder's Batman is the more interesting character in the moral and ethical decisions he faces as well as more comic book-esque in his aesthetic, fighting style and physique, I have decided to write a second blog this time focusing on Superman. One comment that struck me in one of the reviews I read about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a comparison made between Snyder and X-Men director Bryan Singer, claiming Singer would have produced a better movie. One of the reasons this comment struck me as odd and why I disagreed with it is because Bryan Singer has already directed a Superman movie - Superman Returns - though the reviewer never mentioned this fact. Therefore, I am going to compare the two with my thoughts on both adaptations.

Singer's Superman Returns was released in 2006 and though it received positive reviews from film critics, it's global box office return was lackluster leading to WB rebooting the franchise in 2013 with Snyder's Man of Steel. The movie takes place after the events of Superman II and acts as a pseudo sequel imagining the events of Superman III & IV never happened. Singer's Superman is very much a throwback to the archetype created by Christopher Reeve. Played by Brandon Routh, Singer's Superman emulated Christopher Reeve in almost every respect. The movie's tone both in casting and musical score was designed to be nostalgic, especially as the plot acts as a sequel to the original two Superman movies.

Singer's Superman is once again shed in a messianic light as he sacrifices himself to save the world with very overt Christian symbolism. However, despite the Christian symbolism, Singer's Superman also breaks with traditional Christian morality, fathering a son to Lois Lane unbeknown to him. When Superman returns to earth (as the movie's title suggests) he finds Lois in a new relationship and with a young son. Believing at first that this child is the son of her fiance, played by James Marsden (Cyclops), Superman later finds out that the child is in fact his. Superman's sacrifice on behalf of humanity by destroying a giant kryptonite island created by Lex Luthor, acts as his redemption in Lois' eyes who had harbored resentment towards him as an absentee father and unreliable boyfriend leading her to write an article for the daily planet masking her personal resentment towards him in questioning whether the world needs Superman anymore as its hero.

Singer's Superman is deliberately nostalgic, not so much to the original source material and vision of Superman in the comics, but to the version created by Christopher Reeve in the late '70s and early '80s. It is this emphasis on nostalgia and trying to recreate the character in the spirit of Christopher Reeve's performance that I find uninteresting and uninspiring. Singer's Superman wasn't attempting to reimagine the comic book character or represent Singer's interpretation of the character so much as recreate the success of another director's vision for Superman. In paying so much homage to Christopher Reeve's portrayal, Singer was holding the original two Superman movies up as being definitive and therefore superior.

Snyder on the other hand, brought to Man of Steel his own interpretation of the character while remaining grounded in the original source material, as is his trademark. Synder's Superman was a Superman who had been taught growing up to conceal his super powers for fear of xenophobic reactions and public panic. Jonathan Kent, his father, believed the world wasn't ready to discover that it was not alone in the universe and that there were other intelligent species, especially ones with extraordinary powers such as those Kryptonians possess on earth. In deference to his father's concerns, Clark goes through life jumping from false-identity to false-identity as he searches for information about who he really is and who his people are.

Synder's Superman received a lot of criticism for allowing so much destruction of Metropolis in his battle against Zod. However, Synder's Superman was also inexperienced. Superman had no sooner learned the truth of his Kryptonian heritage than Zod invaded and attempted to terraform earth in order to rebuild Krypton. Zod was Krypton's military general with a lifetime of combat experience. Superman had only just assumed the cape and mantel of Superman and was forced to fight Zod to the death in order to protect humanity from being genocidally annihilated.

As well as creating a young, inexperienced Superman, Snyder's interpretation of Superman was influenced by his own philosophy of bringing comic book characters to life in movies. For Snyder, characters with such extraordinary power and abilities would inadvertently cause a lot of collateral damage. Snyder's philosophy comes through as he explores what the consequences would be to a duel between two super powered people. In essence, Snyder's Superman is an exploration of a type of realism: the realism of what would happen to the world if aliens with god like powers lived among us and when those aliens are forced to use those powers either for harm or the greater good.

This is where Snyder's Superman, in contradistinction to Singer's, meets the realism of Nolan's Batman with the fantasy of the comic books. Synder's Superman more closely mirrors that of his comic book antecedent. Henry Cavill embodies not Christopher Reeve's Superman, but the Superman sketched by the likes of Jim Lee. Cavill in his physique and look brings Superman straight out the comics onto the screen. The controversial ending to Man of Steel also has its justification and precedent in the comic books as Superman has on occasion killed for the greater good.

Snyder's vision for Superman continued through into Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice portraying a Superman not yet fully in control of his powers when he becomes emotionally enraged, but a person both as Clark Kent and Superman who is fundamentally committed to doing good and helping the world. As Clark Kent, he pursues Batman believing it his moral duty and obligation as a journalist to expose Batman's vigilante justice. As Superman he continues to save innocent people such as girl trapped in a burning building, as well as victims of severe flooding. Superman's first priority is always to help others.

However, with the memory of the battle for Metropolis still fresh in people's minds and being framed for murdering a terrorist faction by Lex Luthor, the public are divided as to whether Superman is a force for good in the world or not, and even the U.S. Senate calls Superman to Washington in order to answer for his actions. Even in his battle against Batman, Superman is manipulated into fighting him against his will. Snyder's interpretation of Superman is at one and the same time true to the comic books and yet distinct in positing a Superman whose actions bring him intense scrutiny, make enemies and sometimes lead to effects outside of his control.

Overall, once more I find Snyder's Superman, just like his Batman, to be the more compelling and interesting interpretation and adaptation. Snyder's passion for the source material shines through in his characterization and aesthetic of Superman every bit as much (if not more) than his characterization of Batman. Cavill and Affleck make a great pairing on screen as their physical presence and uncanny resemblance to their comic book characters brings Superman and Batman to life like never before.

Batman v Batman: Nolan v Snyder (features spoilers)

4 years after the concluding chapter to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Zack Snyder brought Batman back to the big screen in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. However, Synder's Batman was not the Batman envisioned by Nolan. Far from it. Snyder's Batman was a vigilante of 20 years experience. A Batman full of indignation and righteous anger against the manslaughter and negligence he perceived Superman guilty of. A Batman paranoid that Superman's superhuman power would eventually corrupt him resulting in a genocidal and fascist dictatorship that would enslave and destroy the world. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice met with poor reviews by the critics. The film was heavily criticized for being too dark, too violent, too CGI heavy, and for woefully misconceiving one of comic book's most iconic characters. What the criticism boiled down to in essence was inept directing. The fault solely of Zack Snyder. One review I read claimed that the germs of the ideas in the movie would have been handled better in the hands of a different director, someone like Nolan or Bryan Singer of X-Men fame.

So, I've decided to compare and contrast Nolan and Snyder by looking at their different adaptations of Batman.

One of the biggest differences between the two adaptations of Batman is that Nolan's Batman and his rogue gallery were completely demythologized. Batman's origin was orthodox enough with the death of his parents inspiring him to fight crime and protect other innocent citizens of Gotham from experiencing the same injustice. However, Batman's suit, gadgets and vehicles all were created by Wayne Enterprise's R&D department under the curatorship of one Lucius Fox. The Batmobile originally had a completely other purpose and was designed as a military vehicle to jump rivers and help bridge construction. The Batsuit was originally designed to protect soldiers on the front line, yet proved too expensive to mass produce. Bruce Wayne appropriated these archived projects and gave them a new purpose as Batman.

Likewise, Batman's rogue gallery were also demythologized: Ra's al Ghul was not a man hundreds of years old and given immortality through the regenerative powers of the lazarus pit, but an ex-mercenary who fell in love with a war-lord's daughter and became the leader of the League of Shadows. Bane, the man who broke Batman's back, was not enhanced by the drug venom to give him superhuman strength, but was rather a man who wore a mask to provide pain relief for an injury he suffered while attempting to save a young Talia al Ghul.  Perhaps the closest Nolan got to a more mythical villain was the Scarecrow in Batman Begins, however, as the trilogy progressed the realism became stronger.

The world of Nolan's Batman was a world of organized crime, corrupted officials, and assassins. Batman's dependence on Lucius Fox to supply and equip him in his war against crime in Gotham brought a level of realism as Nolan carefully crafted a Batman who could be conceived to exist in our own world. However, in so doing Nolan had also deliberately restricted himself and the new Batman mythos he was creating. Batman had no allies such as Robin or Nightwing. And thus Nolan's Batman purposefully broke tradition with his lineage and heritage in the comic books. Not only did he limit the scope and scale of Batman's operations, he also shrunk Batman's world. Nolan's Gotham was a city of mafia families, crime syndicates and political as well as corporate corruption. In this Gotham there was no place for crime lords such as the Penguin, or criminal geniuses such as the Riddler. This was in part a reaction to the poorly received Schumacher movies of the mid to late '90s.

Nolan purposefully distanced himself from building a world that could resemble in any way the fail that was Schumacher's Batman and Robin. Also in the interest of giving fans and audiences something new, he didn't want to revisit super villains previously portrayed in the Tim Burton Batman movies. It was this desire for originality and realism that helped Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy to be so successful. As a director, Nolan had brought Batman into the real world and proved that comic book characters could be the source of great movies. Due to the rationalization and demythologization of Batman and his world through the realism and anti-supernaturalism that Nolan created, his use of CGI was therefore minimal. This emphasis on real stunts and sets helped further undergird the realism of his movies and added to their success. Nolan was able to take his strengths as a director and apply them to Batman. This was a Batman who general audiences as well as comic book fans could enjoy and love.

Zack Snyder's Batman on the other hand, is very much a Batman taken from the pages of the comic

books. The anti-supernaturalism and demythologizing of the Nolan Batman is gone, replaced by a Batman who now not only exists in the same universe as Superman, but goes toe-to-toe with him; a Batman who has trained and fought alongside various incarnations of Robin and a Batman who is a totally self-made and self-reliant superhero having designed and built all of his suits, gadgets and vehicles. Visually and aesthetically, Snyder's Batman looks far more like the comic book counterparts. His suit is heavily inspired by Frank Miller's Batman; the Batmobile resembles the Arkham Knight video game Batmobile, more stream lined and aerodynamic than Nolan's but also militarized too with an arsenal of weapons at its disposal. Snyder's world is very much the world inhabited by the character's comic book counterparts. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is much more a comic book movie than the Nolan Dark Knight Trilogy. One thing both directors have in common is the dark tone of their movies. Snyder's Batman is a man hellbent on stopping Superman, even if that means having to kill him. This more ruthless Batman created quite a bit of backlash among the critics and some fans. However, Snyder's Batman is no mere coldblooded killer. Compared to Nolan's Batman, Snyder's Batman has not only experienced more, but has suffered more leading to more ethical dilemmas.

Snyder's Batman is the Batman who suffered the death of Robin at the hands of the Joker. Given this reference in the movie itself, it is reasonable to conjecture that in this universe the Joker also paralyzed Barbara Gordon by shooting her in the spine and then kidnapped Commissioner Gordon and forced him to look at images of his naked paralyzed daughter in the hope of driving him insane. It was this event in the graphic novel that drove Batman to want to kill the Joker to prevent him from committing any more acts of evil and was stopped only by Commissioner Gordon himself. Nolan's Batman could never make such moral choices because in Nolan's world Robin didn't exist and neither did Barbara Gordon. Yes Batman made some questionable moral decisions in the Dark Knight in his hunt for the Joker, as well as suffering the death of Rachel. But, Nolan's Joker did not have the history with Batman to create such deep wounds and drive Batman to the edge of breaking his own moral code. The context of Snyder's Batman is completely different.

Then you have the presence of Superman and the question of how the world would react to his existence. Nolan's Batman was a solitary superhero. Batman was the only superhero of his kind. Whereas in Snyder's world, Batman coexists with Superman. Snyder also approaches the existence of Superman in his movies from the perspective what would a person with superhuman power be capable of - either deliberately or inadvertently - and what consequences would there be to his actions. And if there were other superhuman beings who were evil or who had no regard for human life then what would be the ramifications and casualties of such a battle/struggle? Batman has witnessed firsthand the destruction of Metropolis during Superman's battle against Zod and so Superman is the cause of a paradigm shift in Batman. Once again, this was not even possible in Nolan's world. Batman did not have to make moral choices based on the existential threat super powered aliens pose to humanity as there were none.

Another divergence between Nolan and Snyder's adaptations is the quality of action and fight sequences. Nolan's Batman was meant to be a world-class martial artist, but fight choreography is not one of Nolan's strengths. Snyder on the other hand is well known for his penchant for hyper-violence and very graphic style of fight choreography. Snyder's Batman therefore is much more the embodiment of the world-class martial artist he is meant to be. Snyder's Batman has an economy and efficiency of movement, yet at the same time a brutal and visceral fighting style. Because of Zack Snyder's directing style, you feel the weight and strength of every strike and movement as Batman is fighting. This Batman is far more physically imposing and intimidating - Ben Affleck's screen presence far outweighs that of Christian Bale's. Affleck's Batman is far more similar in size and proportion to the comic book Batman than Bale's and he fights far more like him as well.

Due to the nature of Snyder's world, a world which parallel's the comic books so closely, CGI is a much more important and necessary component. Man of Steel heavily relied on CGI too. Yet, the amount of CGI in Snyder's universe is necessary because of the vision he has created for it. A super powered hero with the abilities and powers of Superman could not be portrayed or adapted without the use of CGI. So too with the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Neither Batman's fight with Superman or their battle against Doomsday alongside WonderWoman would be possible without CGI. This dependence on CGI may drive some viewers away or infuriate critics, but the alternative is then just not have a DCEU. The problem with that approach is that then you limit yourself and ultimately hinder the amount of stories you can tell and movies you can make. There is a reason Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy was a trilogy - there was only ever a very limited number of stories he could tell with the world he created. Snyder's world is far more expansive and imaginative and his Batman reflects his creative direction. *note: I am choosing not to compare the DCEU with the MCU in this blog, as that is not the purpose of this blog.

Overall, as a director and film-maker Nolan made some very important creative decisions that allowed him to make a Batman divorced from the comic books while still being adapted from them. It was this divorce from the Batman mythos as established in the comic books that helped Nolan to create a trilogy that emphasized realism, which translated well with adult audiences and teenagers alike. Nolan's movies were also original and breathtaking in their stunts and cinematography. I still love the Nolan trilogy, and if they were the only Batman movies ever created I would still be happy with them.

However, as a fan of the comic books I know there is more to Batman than Nolan portrayed and a rich history and rogues gallery that could never coexist in Nolan's world. For this reason, as well as his visual aesthetics, fight choreography and the more interesting moral character and choices he created I prefer Snyder's Batman. Is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice as good a movie as Nolan's Dark Knight? Probably not. Is Nolan a better story teller than Zack Snyder? Probably so. But Nolan is also a much safer and less risk averted director too (at least when it comes to retelling comic book stories). He's a director first and then comic book guy second (if he truly is a comic book guy at all). Nolan makes some difficult creative decisions based on what is best for the movie, not for what is best for the Batman mythos.

Snyder on the other hand is unashamedly a comic book guy. This is reflected in every frame and

every shot and every single creative decision he makes in his movies. He adapted 300 and Watchmen before directing Man of Steel and now Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. His visual aesthetic is completely influenced by his love of comic books and the decisions he makes reflect his priorities to reproduce the mythos and aesthetics of the DC comic book world. Both Nolan and Snyder are artists in their own ways. However, Nolan's style of art is much less influenced by the medium and genre of comic books than Snyder's. Snyder loves bringing comic books to life in movies. This much is evident from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Even though Snyder has his weaknesses as a director, his movies are much more gratifying to me as a Batman fan. Do I want to see more of Snyder's Batman? Absolutely yes. Do I want Snyder to direct Justice League Parts 1 & 2? Unequivocally yes. They may not be perfect films, but they will reflect Snyder's love for the source material and certainly feel like a comic book come to life. Snyder has brought the DC universe to life for the first time. This again is something I think he should be given credit for. Never before has it been done. Maybe in 20 years from now someone else will come along and do it better. In many respects every director should have that mentality of laying down the gauntlet for the next generation of directors to take up. Just as in the comic books so too in movies, several adaptations exist. These adaptations each add their own interpretation to the characters. This I feel is incredibly important. If every director wrote Batman the same way, it would become stale and boring. Variety is necessary and healthy. For now, I want to see Snyder take Batman forward. But, as a Batman fan I am happy to have both his and Nolan's Batman to enjoy and compare.