I saw the Fellowship of the Ring yesterday and it was sooooooo awesome! The casting, costumes, sets all exceeded my expecations. The black riders are so much scarier that even my imagination. I think the sound effects helped a lot with that. Speaking of fright--some scenes had me so scared I jumped a few feet out of my seat more than once.

I expected to be annoyed by the imposition of Arwen where she hadn't appeared in the book, but I thought her role actually worked fine. I would have preferred less time with Saruman and his orc contingent, mostly because they are so gross. I realize the director was trying to build tension about the imminence of war with these half-rotted skanky beasts, but please, these guys made me really nauseated.

Instead, it would have been nice to have some of the restful in-between scenes back. They don't add anything to the plot, but they keep you from becoming exhausted from all the intensity and stress.

Elijah Wood made an awesome Frodo, young and determined yet so vulnerable. The camera work and special effects that made the halflings appear so tiny and fragile were seamless and really added to the pathos of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin.

My favorite character was Legolas. He was so even keel, yet more alert than the others, faster in battle and amazing with a bow. Rohan was always my favorite realm in the books, but the film's depiction of Legolas gave me new appreciation for how cool elves are.

The past few days I've had some really strange e-mail communications with a guy I knew from high school. I'd mentioned that Joel and I are interested in liturgical worship, and he said he'd never heard of it. I guess this is pretty typical among Baptists.

When I explained what it is and what we like about it, his response was really bizarre. Mostly it was a long stream-of-consciousness rant about how hymns are too hard to sing (like all praise songs are easy? Ever sing the "verses" of "Our God is an Awesome God"?), that traditions make dead churches, that weekly communion is too boring. Another thing he said that really struck me as odd was this: "a 12-15 minute music format progressing from maybe one up-beat song to a final, slow song before the message involves too great a mood change in a short period of time. So we do not really achieve the Biblical goal we aim at. We provide emotional change in the music faster than people are capable of opening up their hearts to the Lord."

I don't get this at all. What "Biblical goal" could he be talking about? This sounds to me like emotional manipulation using music. I agree that there need to be seasons of joyfulness and quiet meditiation in a service, but using music as the only schtick to let this happen seems very shallow. I tried to explain that in liturgy, there is an emotional ebb and flow of the overall service that is part of our response to God calling us, forgiving and comforting us, speaking to us, feeding us and sending us.

Well, I sensed that we were kind of talking past each other, so I explained in great detail what a liturgical service is like. This time I think he got a better sense of what I was talking about. I found it kind of sad, however, that he thinks his congregation is too stupid to do anything other than settle for what they have now. Because many in the congregation come from non-church backgrounds or only have an 8th grade education, he seems to imply that the best thing for them is elementary-school-level worship. How disheartening! And also, how seemingly false. Liturgy is the primary style of worship in most of the third world, despite low literacy levels. My understanding is that liturgy has a framework and rhythm that is not difficult to grasp.

Well, I wasn't really trying to "convert" him to my point of view, just explain where I'm coming from and be understood. I just find his situation sad and don't really know how to respond at this point in the conversation. How do you talk to someone who's convinced that the pragmatic thing--dumbing down--is the only alternative?

Thought I'd pass along a Christmas poem a friend sent me:

The Nativity of Christ
Robert Southwell

Behold the father is his daughter’s son,
The bird that built the nest is hatched therein,
The old of years an hour hath not outrun,
Eternal life to live doth now begin,
The Word is dumb, the mirth of heaven doth weep,
Might feeble is, and force doth faintly creep.

O dying souls, behold your living spring;
O dazzled eyes, behold your sun of grace;
Dull ears, attend what word this Word doth bring;
Up, heavy hearts, with joy your joy embrace.
From death, from dark, from deafness, from despairs,
This life, this light this Word, this joy repairs.

Gift better than himself God doth not know;
Gift better than his God no man can see,
This gift doth here the giver given bestow;
Gift to this gift let each receiver be.
God is my gift, himself he freely gave me;
God’s gift am I, and none but God shall have me.

Man altered was by sin from man to beast;
Beast’s food is hay, hay is all mortal flesh.
Now God is flesh and lies in manger pressed
As hay, the brutest sinner to refresh.
O happy field wherein this fodder grew,
Whose taste doth us from beasts to men renew.

Alas, I have to post something quickly or risk a blank Blog. Horrors!

On the train this morning, I read an excellent article from the latest Re:Generation Quarterly by Read Mercer Schuchardt on the cultural victory of Hugh Hefner. I agree that Christians do too little to combat porn and its attendant philosophy. As a woman, I'm disheartened to see the ways in which femininity is disdained for a kind of new perverse masculine womanhood. Porn culture has done a lot to help that along. Here's a quote that I think is right-on:
In Hugh Hefner's world, meanwhile, equality for females has come to mean synonymity with males. Unisex clothing is male. Equal pay for equal work is: male (inasmuch it assumes the irrelevance of childbirth, and certainly of childbearing). Thanks largely to Hefner's pioneering spirit, men have won every battle in the modern war of the sexes. Where women are free to be equal, they are free to be equal to men. Just go shopping at the Gap. [I can't! My body is too womanly instead of boyish! --LWG] Or pick up any woman's magazine published in the last few decades. In it you will find an article, essay or questionnaire demonstrating or demanding that women should have more sex than they are currently having. Is there an escape, a way out, a means by which a woman can choose not to have her social norms and sexual drives dictated by porn culture?
Here's another kicker..."Porn culture demands of women precisely what real women don't need or want: skinny bodies, huge fake breasts, no babies and men who are unwilling to commit to anything more than a quick shag."

What I'd like to see is a new feminism that doesn't try to turn women into men. Anyone with me?

Germs seem to have me in a headlock today, so the only joyful noise I'm making this Lord's day is a lovely bark of lungs trying hard to clear themselves of gunk. I'd forgotten that expectorant syrup makes you cough more. Somehow this is good. Go figure.

I have some catching up to do here. In the past week I have seen the Harry Potter film and finished The Sparrow. Both are worthy of comment.

Joel and I read the first four Potter books with great relish. They work within so many traditions--fantasy, coming of age, fairy tales, and of course boarding school tales. I was relieved to hear that the cast and director for the film were British. I shudder at the thought of the likes of Spielberg getting his hands on the script. So much of the story's flavor appeals to me because it is about being a kid in Britain, where boarding schools have a long tradition of excellence. I think the film is excellently cast, except for Dumbledore, who I've always pictured as being like my father-in-law, except with white hair. They cast a too-ancient Gandolf-type. But I guess that's the archetype of great leadership (think Moses in The Ten Commandments).

I also thought the sets and costumes where fantastic. At Hogwarts, the kids wear grey uniforms with ties and scarves in their house colors. Over the uniforms, they wear open black robes, just like the undergrads at Oxford on exam days. It's a nice touch that's more academic than witchy, and seems in keeping with Rowling's treatment of magic as a kind of science that must be studied and practiced. The uniforms for their magical sport quiddich are based on polo uniforms--it's brilliant because this is also a game that requires riding skill. Hogwarts school itself is full of wonderful Gothic architecture. I think that does a lot to dispell some of the sense that this magic is in any way demonic. How could that happen in a place that looks so church-like with valuted ceilings and cloister walks?

I was only disappointed that so much had to be cut out to make this fit into an "acceptable time frame." Many of the characters are underdeveloped as a result. The Dursleys scenes are cut down to almost nothing. Harry's rivalry with his nemesis Malfoy are only hinted at. Harry's sense of alienation, which makes him such a sympathetic character, is also drastically downplayed. My husband commented after the movie that if we hadn't read the book, the movie probably would not have made much sense.

I'll come back to The Sparrow later because I'm getting too tired to continue. Darned germs. :-(