The movie is superbly done regarding; sets, costuming, battle scenes, and the horrors of medieval war. The use of CG technology [computer generated imaging] really added to the movie. The producers went to great lengths to use authentic looking battle equipment. The movie buff that watches this film is sure to be entertained.

The movie is rated (R) because it depicts a brutal rape and the battle sequences are very intense and particularly gory. There is no nudity but a lot of colorful adjectives.

The story centers on the near mythical figure of Joan of Arc. Joan was born in about 1412 and she died May 20th 1431. Joan was known to hear “voices” of various entities; St. Michael, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret to name a few. In the beginning these “voices” told her to “drive out the English and bring her Dauphin (Charles the VII) to Riems for a coronation.

The main characters were played by:
Milla Jovovich………….Joan of Arc
Dustin Hoffman………..Joan’s Conscience
Faye Dunaway…………Yolande D’Aragon (Charles VII’s mother-in-law)
John Malkovich………..Charles VII (the Dauphin)

The setting of the movie starts with a specific event in Joan’s upbringing where English forces burned her village, which is historically accurate according to Catholic anthologies.1 The movie depicts her sister being impaled on a sword then raped, as Joan helplessly observes in horror. This detail is not a proven historical fact, but appears to be a way the moviemakers attempted to explain how or why Joan may have been motivated or affected in her life. The movie is a mixed bag of historical facts as well as artistic license being taken with the actual facts.

“]

Dustin Hoffman questions Joan [her conscienceas the English court dogs her in questions trying to entrap her late in the movie."

In this movie Joan appears to be a fairly regular young person, with the note that she was extremely pious. She soon becomes affected by “voices” and “visions.” The movie depicts these experiences in psychedelic sequences of blurred, slow motion and avant-garde imagery. The sound and visuals shift into a series of choppy segments where Joan is swept up into it all. One particular event is both fundamental to depicting the moviemaker’s contention that Joan was a bit unusual, while it also sets the stage to deal with some profound questions as Joan struggles with her conscience later in the film, which was masterfully played by Dustin Hoffman.

This early epiphany is continually referenced throughout the movie. The sequence depicts Joan frolicking in a field close to home when she suddenly has a “vision” in which she ultimately discovers a sword. After picking up the sword she is suddenly in a different place that perhaps becomes the impetus for her to take the English occupation more personally. In the movie the religious community, unable to process these experiences [the rape and Joan’s epiphanies] can only console her with platitudes. Thus these factors continue as a compelling force in Joan’s life.

The rest of the movie is a series of historical reenactments, which hold to some accounts of Joan’s life. Some of the events are altered in the movie sequences but this appears to be because of objectivity and maintaining an audience, not because of any malicious revisionism on the part of the moviemakers.

What can be gained from this movie:
This movie great fodder for thought; chief consideration should be what constitutes “God speaking to us.” Secondly, we must question if God specifically sides with a particular country in a war? Thirdly, how do we interpret if a religious experience is sound or questionable? Additionally, this movie depicts Church-State relations in perhaps the worst possible situations but one that is stereotypically and uniformly representative of ecclesiastical history. This movie provides us the contrast to see that the church [the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men] needs to become the alternative Christ set it up to be, rather than being an intrinsic part of the world’s problems as it has become.

God speaking to us:
Joan said that God [singular] spoke to her, which some French theologian inquisitors also accepted. Yet Joan also referred to these occurrences as “voices” [plural] that were accompanied by blazes of light,2 which the movie depicts. The character of, or exact identity of Joan’s “voices” and “visions” are never divulged in so many words in either the movie or in real history. The movies leaves a lot of room to interpret what was put on celluloid, as the historical accounts vary widely on the point of what is esactly historical fact concerning Joan. It would appear that the movie attempts to depict the “voices” Joan hears as coming from Christ, which has some historical precedent. This is fine except we probably need to question this assumption a little closer. God has given us the means to test experiences, which, either historically or even in the movie; the ecclesiastical order failed to use this approach. Rather they used subjective theological ideals and downright political expedience as the means of “testing” Joan and her experiences.

The idea of God communicating with us, or in this case Joan, is something of a great controversy. Jesus said that He did nothing of His volition but only that which He saw the Father doing (John 5:30, 6:38, 8:28-29). None of us even Joan of Arc can claim this, however it is biblical to know and expect God to communicate with us.* The Apostle John wrote: “He, who has ears, let Him hear what the Spirit is saying” (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22 NLT). Notice the perfect present tense of this statement, “the Spirit is saying”. In other words, if we have ears to hear we should be listening [able to hear] because the Spirit is continuing to speak.

In any case, Joan’s experiences do not confirm or disprove anything as far as her “voices” emanating from God, either directly or indirectly through “intermediaries.” Though she was pious, we cannot assume anything regarding the exact nature of her communiqués without figuring in other factors. Number one is the religious construct in which she was raised, namely: the veneration of saints. While revering people of faith is admirable, thinking that we should pray to them or thinking that they will communicate wisdom to us is highly questionable. In addition, it sets the stage for communication from unexpected sources. The Bible does make significant reference to “familiar spirits” and angels of light, who are actually demons. If we can’t say that these aren’t real possibilities in Joan’s case than we could be ripe for deception ourselves.

*God speaking to us does not mean in an actual voice such as Joan submitted. It can be through another person [word of knowledge] (1 Cor. 12:8) or it can be through a quiet understanding (1 Sam. 3:1-13) yet it will be personal and consistent with Scripture. In addition, it will not draw a person’s attention to the experience of the communication, but directly to God Himself for a better relationship with Him. Joan’s experiences drew attention to themselves and only passive reference to God. The message was not one of directing the Dauphin (Charles the VII) or the French people towards God, but towards freedom from foreign domination.

God siding with one nation over another in war:
One question that is not even considered in the case of Joan of Arc, historically or in the movie or even regarding “Christians” in general, deals is with whether God specifically sides with one nation over another in military action. In the movie, Joan tells the English that they should obey the King of Heaven and leave France. This is representative of the historical facts. It is also the basis by which to question both the validity of God supposedly siding with one faction or another in a war and whether the “voices” Joan heard was really God or something else pretending to be like God.

We can see in the Old Testament that God definitely was on the side of Israel (Jud. 6:16, 1 Sam. 7:10, 23:2) and definitely on the side of some of Israel’s enemies at other points (2 King 13:3, 24:1-2, 1 Chron. 6:15, Jer. 21:2-7, 22:25-26). However, there is no such evidence in the New Testament. Christ ushered in a new era of a spiritual world Kingdom [the Church] amongst the world.* This kingdom is not made with hands and it is not of this world (John 18:36). God may have interests in nations fighting one another, yet in the gospels Christ quite passively states that “nation will rise against nation” without the slights indication that God was interested in any of it. This is not to say that God is not involved, but rather to question the active thought of mankind that God is supposedly always on one side or the other in any given military action.

To go as far as Joan did, as well as countless others have done historically; emphatically declaring that God is on our side against another group is without precedent in the New Testament. And nobody can claim to be like Israel in the Old Testament where God in fact sided with Israel or another nation in concerns to Israel. In fact, the statement or notion that God is on one side or the other denies Christ’s stated purpose that He created another “nation” bearing fruit [doing what He wants], one which is not founded on men’s ideas or that is of [conditioned to] this realm [the physical world], (Matt. 21:43, John 18:36, Phil 3:20, Heb. 13:14).*

How do we interpret religious experiences:
As mentioned before we need to consider other details than just an experience itself by “testing the spirit” of an incident. We can do this through several means:

1. The experience should not abrogate scripture.
2. The experience should not become a focus itself.
3. The experience should press us into a deeper relationship with God, not further “doses” of the same experience.
4. The character of the experience. Is it personal/impersonal, condemning/convicting focused on the temporal/eternal?

Given that God is not in the business of justifying man’s self-centered, temporally purposed, activities; depicted in war and the motives behind it, we must seriously question Joan’s religious experiences. The “epiphanies” both in the movie as well as real history have conflicting characteristics. In this movie “jesus” appears as both young and old, he questioned and directed Joan [opposing concepts] concerning the same things. In both history and this movie the “voices” had a nationalistic appeal. The deliverer of Joan’s “voices” both in history and in the movie were both impersonal, even though he/they [it] made a personal visitation to Joan. Joan was the one, even in historical accounts that identified “god” and various “saints” in her “visions” and “voices.” This note is a specific feature, which puts Joan’s “voices” into question because in the Bible record, an angel or the Lord specifically identify themselves to the person they visited, (Gen. 20:10-13, Exod. 3:2-6, Josh. 5:13-15, Dan. 10:7-14, Luke 1:11-19, Acts 26:12-19,Rev. 1:10-18).

*Yet the church, or what is thought to be the church has became very much of the world, as this movie illustrates quite lucidly.

*Christ stated this fact of His realm not being “physical” while He stood physically before Pilate. What was Christ physically on earth for, saying these types of things to Pilate, if His only purpose was to die for sins? Either He was crazy or He was speaking metaphorically about a spiritual reality lived out within a physical realm.

Joan’s “voices” supported a nationalistic/patriotic agenda, not the agenda of the Kingdom of God on earth. Though this “grid” was not used in historic considerations about Joan, it is clear that if one is going to be of a Kingdom of God mindset, premonitions to free ones earth homeland are meaningless. There are only two kingdoms; the kingdoms of darkness [those are the ones fighting all the time] and the Kingdom of God [which contains people from all over the globe (from every tribe tongue, people and nation) with whom there is no distinction between] (Acts 15:9, Rom. 1:14-16, 2:9-26, 3:22, 10:22, 1 Cor. 1:24, 12:12-13, Gal. 3:28, Eph. 2:11-22, Col. 3:5-11).

Church-State Relations:
The Catholic Church [which merely represent every form of the organized church in any era] was a pawn on both sides of the war between England and France. England, which did not leave the Catholic Church for another 100 years after Joan’s execution used the Catholic bishop of Beauvais, an unscrupulous and ambitious man,3 as the means of conducting an English court; convened with a verdict already in hand before the proceedings started. This is historical fact, which the movie illustrates clearly. The French maintained the church as a part of its’ court, almost like having a court magician, a court jester or the court pooch [who can be beckoned or ignored at any moment]. In other words, the church was nothing more than a superstructure underneath the State at best or a leech at worst. But it certainly was not an alternative to the State.

If the church wasn’t in bed with the politics of the day, to keep a safe place in the world with which to manipulate for its own ends, it could have been an alternative. An alternative causes a reverse dialectic where the State has to synthesize towards the church in order to keep its’ constituency from going in the direction of the church exclusively. If the church stands for what is right and society knows it, the State will not be able to sweep us under the rug. An alternative brings about change without manipulation, political intrigue, or compromise.

The organized church of Joan’s era let her down by playing the State’s game rather than being something outside the State’s identity, policy or culture. The church used Joan of Arc as a pawn, as it has used many others down through history. It used the situational ethic of cutting off an arm in sacrifice to the State, so that the body [the institution of church] could continue within the State’s provision.

Final Thoughts:
It may appear to some that I have been hard on Joan and soft on a movie. However, I look at Joan’s life and the movie from the point of view of essence. Yes, there are some specific details I point out in disagreement; but this is to learn, not condemn.

The movie sequence where Joan’s conscience, played by Dustin Hoffman, confronts her is actually an opportunity for us to reflect. The dialog about what Joan saw and why she interpreted it the way she did, is really immaterial concerning her historically. The moviemakers posed questions, which are worthy of consideration on a personal level in our own lives. If we quibble about Joan and historicity of the movie, we have missed the forest for the trees.

The essence of this movie is that is shows a church that is duplicitous and adulterated. It also shows how an institution can use a person and then leave them hanging. The movie helps us to step away from our thoughts and feelings about a touchy matter and see a bigger picture, if we are willing to.

1. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_arc, also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
2. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm

Amen

The movie is fairly authentic, maybe it’s because it’s not a Hollywood production. Amen! is loosely based on the true story of Dr. Kurt Gerstein (1905-1945), an atypical SS officer, see: (http://www.kino.com/amen/amen_gerst.html). This movie takes a few liberties with the actual chronology of real life events; fabricating dialog and depiction to aid the viewer in understanding what can be learned from this man’s life.

Germany’s religious community was divided and conquered by Hitler’s programs, which the movie does not depict. One such division took place in the organized church [see: Kingdom Citizenship’s book review on Hitler’s Cross].* Since Hitler took power in 1933 churchgoers found themselves being divided between nationalism and what was thought to be more biblical beliefs, only not really. The “biblical beliefs group” was also nationalistic, just not to the extreme of the Nazis. This deception Amen! illustrates very well. The “more biblical” church in Germany [a close relative of religious conservatives in America] was insignificant and impotent against what the state was doing. Their beliefs, as with ours leave the church without an ability to be an alternative. The church has no means of being set apart to do anything except go along with the state while pinching its nose and complaining from time to time.

Gerstein is a depiction of one of those who hold to the confessing-church** ideal, meaning those churches with allegedly a more biblical view. What is lost on many people even today is that the confessing-church was no badge of honor because it was significantly weakened by the duplicity of claiming a belonging within the state. This duplicity was sharply noted in the confessing-church, depicted by Gerstein and his pastor, constantly concerning themselves with an alleged relationship with the state. Thus their reaction or action was buffered because of having to serve two masters.

Religious Ignorance & Foolishness

Gerstein:

A conservative devoted man, with convictions consistent with any modern pro-lifer. He thought he should “serve his country” in a war: a country (political system) whose intellectual positions included eugenics, racial superiority… Wow! How does a “christian” end up in that mess?

He thought he should stay in “that hell” [the Waffen SS] to help and draw attention to the evil. He was most certainly overwhelmed by the evil and very much complicit with it; even while trying to find a ways to obstruct it and stop it. Many times his efforts to expose the evil were hampered by his belonging to the organization most know for evil in Germany during WWII.

Thought the religious community could be effective against the evil of the state while the organized church, at the same time, was trying to benefit from the state. It tried to be secure and safe within the states’ provisions.

Gerstein’s Pastor:

A devout man, who mistakenly thought the state’s evil can be stopped buy protests. This is like asking a fox to be decent and guard the hen house with the hens’ interests in mind. In the churches’ selfish affair with the state, the church is of no consequence to the state. If the state chooses not to comply with the churches protest, what is the church do? As in the movie, it’s sits on its hands or tries weakly tries to tread water on issues. The state already controls the church because of the church’s dependence on the State, so why should the state listen? Why should the church protest to the ones perpetrating the evil. Does this not defy logic or what?

Protestant Church:

Historically it generally goes along to get along. The Protestant church is just a compromised as the Catholic church because of looking to survive within the state, by the state’s provisions. German church-goers were first of all German’s and a distant second Lutheran’s or part of a confessing-church.

Catholic Church:

Rome was even more indifferent to the Nazi regime than the Protestant church. Rome was afraid of potential reprisals and perhaps being looted by the Nazi-regime. The Nazis posed a real threat of loss, in human materialistic and collateral terms, concerning art collections, buildings and cultural prestige. Look at what the Nazis did to France. Can you see where the churches’ real allegiances are? So complicit, and afraid, the Catholic Church was that it signed a concordant with Hitler to secure its perpetuity.

The Jesuit:

To think that if evil becomes so overwhelming, one must automatically give into the evil machine and experience the state’s atrocities by purposely encountering the same fate, is certainly more admirable than the confessing churches’ but it is a cop out. This approach totally removes any means of maintaining a presence in the world in order to provide, protection, hope and alternatives. This priest, though admirable in some senses, depicts a total abdication of resistance or alternative.

Religious people in general:

Their mindset is very temporal and does not recognize evil until they are overwhelmed by it. They tend to think things are ok in this world until they are besieged by its evil on a personal level. They do not take warnings of distant symptoms as being a sign to start plotting a different path. Religious people only plot when there is no time or ability to respond and after the evil machine has gained total efficiency. If religious people were intelligent they would keep the status quo changing so that the state could never dismiss the followers of Christ as being no consequence, as they have been able to do with the organized church.

Many believers will pay the ultimate price in stepping outside the place the States’ set for the organized church, but this does not mean that         we should automatically surrender to the eventualities. Resistance and providing an alternative as long as we can, should be our goal. Be creative and astute, when there is no more opportunity to continue we can face the ultimate price with grace. It is then that we can fully identify with all those who have passed in a similar way.

Final Thoughts:

While there are many ways of looking at this movie, few reviewers will see it as I do. The religious see no problem with carrying an identity with the state they were born in or now live within. However, it is this very thing, which has become the Achilles tendon to the church since it married the state in Emperor Constantine’s time. The church is most effective when it is not looking to the state for anything, but rather to God for everything to including survival.

When there is nothing to be gained from the state there is nothing to loose from it as well. We become much more able to do what God wants since He is not married to the state either. We can become the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men, an independent force that the world cannot assimilate into its culture. It will not be able to duplicate who we are or what we do. We will not be ignored, nor can we be stifled for God is infinitely more capable and provisional than any state.

*Note: In Hitler’s Cross, Erwin Lutzer articulates how Hitler used nationalism with the organized church first, and then loyalty to national belong to make the first divisions amongst the religious. Then, Hitler used a reinterpretation of “Christians,” adding the adjective concept of “positive” to remove the old thoughts and whimsical convictions and instill warm fuzzy feeling of what it meant to belong to Hitler’s society: The 3^rd Reich. The churches’ greatest weakness was that it considered itself to be German, the rest of the compromises and divisions were just natural progression of a manipulator, preying upon people who didn’t know who they really were, that wanted to belong to something.

**Note: Hitler’s Cross, coins the term “confessing church” to mean those of evangelical convictions and tendencies.

Man of the Year

Man of the Year is one of Robin William’s funnier films in recent years. He rattles off his usual rapid-fire improvisations. He employs bawdy humor, but with a point to it. Religious people have great difficulty with subtlety, irreverent humor, and biting satire; categories they do not understand or tolerate very well.

Cast:

Robin Williams – Tom Dobbs
Christopher Walken – Jack Menken
Laura Linney – Eleanor Green
Lewis Black – Eddie Langston
Jeff Goldblum – Alan Stewart
Faith Daniels – Debate Moderator
Tina Fey – Herself
Amy Poehler – Herself
Doug Murray – Mathias
Chris Matthews – New Anchor #1
James Carville – Political Commentator #1
Rick Roberts – Hemmings

One of the major flaws of this movie is the presupposition it is based upon. An Independent candidate is not going to be the silver bullet that will fix the corruption and partisan gridlock of a two-party political system. Another detail, the political arena is not going to let some Johnny-come-lately candidate take center stage in political debates or campaigns and get on ballets across the nation as this movie depicts. There is also a lack of plausibility regarding certain parts of the storyline. Additionally, a presidential candidate, especially after a win in an election, is not going to allow just anybody to get close to them. In real life, Eleanor Green [Laura Linney] would not last a New York minute posing as an FBI agent, as a means to get a word with the President elect. Aside from these flies in the ointment this movie still has significant value.

Overview:

Tom Dobbs [Williams] is a typical stand up comedian. During one of Dobbs’ monologues a fan suggests that Dobbs run for President. He brushes aside the notion, however after a ground swell he reconsiders.

Dobbs moves into the political arena. Questions fly about his background; is he solid, is he married and has he done drugs. A crescendo of the usual campaign drivel drowns the airwaves with everything but substance.

Dobbs feels that a presidential campaign is about issues, but comes to the stark realization; it’s about everything else. Instead the campaign forum is about posturing and giving the appearance of attention to issues. He finds himself buried in the superficiality of what political issues appear to be about. Dobbs begins to loose what people initially loved about him; his flippant and sardonic exposure of the political charade foisted on the public.

Dobbs goes back to barnstorming the political arena with total disregard for protocol and convention. At a presidential debate he wrestles control with a few quips. He follows with a string of attacks on issues, which the other candidates avoid. His barrage invigorates the debate, bumping him in the polls.

The implication is of course, the typical candidates in the two political-party system are obstacles to progress. This is where the movie exposes its presuppositional thinking. Man of the Year tacitly floats the idea that an independent candidate will give the voters what they want. This is at best simple-minded thinking.

While Dobbs hammers away at the hypocrisy of presidential party politics, Man of the Year veers into questioning the electronic voting systems. This secondary plot picks at a sore in the memory of the America voter because of the controversy surrounding the ‘04 Presidential election. Man of the Hour succeeds in raising some significant questions, even amidst the improbabilities of the secondary plot.

The electronic voting system in the movie alleges the minimization of fraud and disenfranchisement while simplifying vote tabulations, yeah right! This proposition is not without skepticism in the movie as well as real-life.

Eleanor Green works for, Delacroy, a manufacturer of electronic voting systems. As Dobb’s is pounding away at the political arena, Green tests the voting system contracted for use in the upcoming presidential election. Green runs one test where fictitious candidate “A” wins over candidate “B” even though the second candidate has three times the votes. At first failure appears to be an anomaly. No prior tests exposed this kind of problem.

Green continues to test the problem while she tries to warn Delacroy’s CEO: Hemmings [Rick Roberts]. Green’s emails go unanswered, which weighs upon her. Green continues her inquiry out personal contentiousness because the potential impact on an election.

Green has been watching the presidential campaign. She notices that Dobbs is not up in the polls as much as he should have been to win the election, it defies logic. During the election a corporate celebration is held. Green sees Delacroy’s CEO, Hemmings, and approaches him about the software’s tabulation problems.

Delacroy’s fast talking lawyer, Alan Stewart, [Jeff Goldblum] intercepts Green. Instead of validating Green’s discovery Stewart takes the party line of corporate success; never mind the consequences of false results or suppressing them. Stewart’s mindset is that the public trusts the process; actualities are trivialities. Stewart states, “Why destroy the pubic trust in a system [voting] just to make sure the right candidate is put into office, when the public believes that the system works fine.” He argues, being honest maybe more harmful than being pragmatic.

Stewart represents how business can bend rules, smoothing over the harsh corners of truth, in the pursuit of profits. Green becomes a liability to Delacroy’s continued success because she knows something is wrong with their voting system. Public knowledge of a real glitch could ruin any accomplishment the company may seem to have achieved thus far.

The company musters “dark” means to discredit Green and keep her from going public. As a result she ends up melting down at work being dismissed in disgrace, thus effectively silencing her. The movie demonizes big business in this segment. There are examples of this type of malfeasance in corporate dealings but it is certainly not a typical mark, at least not to the degree depicted in Man of the Year.

The rest of the movie deals with how the characters handle the situation caused by all the pressures of their individual situations converging on one another in the presidential election. Amoralism runs head-to-head with almost obsessive contentiousness. The guy with a heart of gold wades through the caldron of dirty national politics only to be conflicted by the awareness of a system everybody trusts has gone awry without the public knowing it. What should be done? Can a little bad be done that great good might come of it? How will the country respond? Can everybody live with themselves once what’s done-is-done?

Why is this movie interesting to Kingdom Citizenship?

Man of the Year capitalizes on the fact that many people in real life are frustrated with partisan politics; the kind that promises everything from either side of isle but delivers very little. Christians, who in many ways are much like Dobbs; underneath his comedic critique of the political system, believing that an election is about issues… This movie effectively depicts that elections are only about gaining power, issues are merely means to an end, period!

This movie illustrates why believers should become Kingdom people and stop empowering the political system by cooperating with it. Man of the Year utterly fails on one point. A third party candidate will not be a boon; it will most certainly be a bust. It will make it easier for either of the candidates causing the gridlock to win. The foolish hope in a third party shows why a non-political alternative will be more effective. This is where the Kingdom of God comes into play.

We can make statements by what we do. We can decentralize and depoliticize the real problems issue are built around while we meet needs; utterly disenfranchising and upstaging the political arena.

This movie accurately shows that elections are not trustworthy. People of the Kingdom of God ought to be surer of leaving an election in God’s hands. Security does not come from the ballet box or a candidate. The Kingdom approach is not about stick your head in the sand, it’s about pulling out of political sand and putting it into action in the Kingdom of God, just as Christ did.

Kingdom people should see the foolishness of the election process, effectively depicted in this movie. Kingdom people should see that it doesn’t matter which party wins, it’s the same party: the ruling class of the world’s system. God’s way cannot be politicized unless God’s people abdicate to the politician’s ways of solving problems. Kingdom people realize that looking at issues the way the world does merely disenfranchises our position as an alternative.

Man of the Year is funny, yet poignant, exposé but not totally plausible, crass but not without reason, symbolic but yet very much true to life.

Cast:
John Newton – Albert Finney
William Wilberforce – Ioan Gruffudd (Fantastic Four)
Thomas Clarkson – Rufus Sewell (Zorro)
Lord Fox – Michael Gambon (Harry Potter)
William Pitt – Benedict Cumberbatch
Olaudah Equiano – Youssou N’Dour
Barbara Spooner – Romola Garai
Lord Tarleton – Ciaran Hinds (Persuassion)
Duke of Clarence – Toby Jones
Henry Thornton – Nicholas Farrell (Mansfield Park)
Marianne Thornton – Sylvestra Le Touzel (Mansfield Park)
Richard the Butler – Jeremy Swift
James Stephen – Stephen Campbell Moore
Lord Dundas – Bill Paterson
Sir William Dolben – Nicholas Day

In the Movie:
Wilberforce ponders what to do with a religious re-awakening depicted in the movie. He seeks out an old pastor friend John Newton, who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace. Newton—accurately depicted as reactively affected by his own involvement in slavery—tells Wilberforce, “You have work to do.” The import: politics is only means to do anything about slavery. Both the moral concern of the “cause” and pursuing it through politics is has never been the way followers of Christ are to deal with social evils yet this has been the thinking of the church for centuries.

Wilberforce vacillates between a “public life in politics” or “private life of ministry.” Meanwhile, William Pitt, a close friend and future prime minister, seeks to pull Wilberforce out of his wavering. Thus, Pitt craftily plays a card that is sure to reel Wilberforce back into political action. For years Wilberforce had been the most outspoken member of the House of Commons concerning slavery. Pitt arranges for Wilberforce to meet elite abolitionists from around England.

WIlbeforce, presents signatures from around England protesting slavery.

Wilberforce is radicalized by the experience. No longer would he just present an annual bill in the House of Commons. Now, he joined forces with various people who would orchestrate clamor; creating a public groundswell. Abolition became an arresting cause for which Wilberforce felt selected by God to deal with. There is no way to authoritatively establish that God directed him this way. However, there is significant scriptural content in the New Testament [NT] to disprove it.

Perspective:

The old “sensitivity ploy” is used to introduce guests to a docked slaver ship in order to demonstrate conditions and cruelty.

Virtually every issue in modern society—from the concept of evolution to the cultural normalization of homosexuality and “new” morays concerning marriage—are in essence focused on proving God wrong.

Evolution attempts to “prove” God does not exist by intellectually unshackling mankind from an “imaginary” force so that he can be his good-self without the crutch of religion. Modern approaches concerning adult relationships attempt to “prove” God’s declared order as not only incorrect but that man can do quite well at doing it “other ways,” which include variations all of what God has declared wrong. Modern democracy is built on the notion that people, given education and information, will choose what is best for their country rather than personal selfish gain in the political process. This would “prove” that man can be “good” which is opposite of God’s declaration. These examples are not the few and only examples, rather they are a tip of the iceberg.

This onslaught did not start with the counter-culture of the 1960s or even gestations of Enlightenment thinking by late-1800s. Wilberforce’s story merely depicts another of the many situations where institutional church reasserts itself as moral shaman of society, taking what is thought to be the “moral side” of whatever issue is in play at the moment. In Wilberforce’s case he achieved success on abolition but it came at the cost of an utter loss of understanding of scripture and a tool that would show mankind how rotten he is.

Commentary:

Barbara Spooner, who becomes Wilberforce’s wife, encourages him to continue the political fight.

Amazing Grace depicts Wilberforce as quite humanistic. He served whoever sought a hand out where they clearly took advantage of him. He thought in terms of “changing the world” and animals as having a sort of higher place than just beast of the field.

Wilberforce and those who laud him cannot look at scripture to support the humanistic—man can be better than he has been—mindset. Humanism promotes not merely that man is capable to be better. It worships anything that could appear to make man better than he is. It is a form of narcissism.

The ideal that we can make the world a better place, floated throughout the movie, remains to be supported in history not to mention scripture. The mere idea is another denial of what God said and is another attempt to prove God wrong, (cf. 1 Jn. 2:17, Jn. 3:19, Eph 5:15-16, 1 Jn. 5:19) Evil is natural to man not goodness and justice.

The movie depicts the typical dualistic notion that either one has to be reclusive to serve God or that one has to actively serve God purposes on a politic stage. The two are always pitted against one another in the logic of most church people I have ever met.

There is not much to disprove about recIusiveness. Christ was not so. We have few examples in scripture from which to base this ideal. On the other hand, scriptural support for political activeness has proven to be an easy prevarication. Yet, one text might reel us into reality.

For 40 years, Evangelicals have saddled themselves with the notion behind Wilberforce, political activism. It has become an arresting involvement for anyone who is honest, just as it was for Wilberforce. So, what about the text where Christ declares, “no one can serve two masters…” Evangelicals will say they serve God by their political action. In so doing, they call Christ a liar because he is not concerned about all issue politics uses as bait to gain a following. Instead he is doing things that distract from political interests.

Secondly, the polar opposite options [religious reclusiveness or total immersion in the political process] are the only options commonly offered. But what about a third option: the kingdom of God? Few teach credibly about this in America. However, the pendulum swings between these two extremes. Within 60 years, the opposite view comes to the forefront and thought inertia then moves in the opposite direction. The kingdom of God never is gotten around to in this scenario.

Christ seemed to upset the political order of his day. He constantly taught about the kingdom of God as a now-reality. Neither side, Pharisee or Sadducee, would claim him; nor he them. However, both sides were upstaged by his teaching and actions. Christ managed to significantly impact society and people yet he had nothing to do with the political order of his day.

Thirdly, where are the followers of Christ ever given the charge or even the latitude to think they should attempt to make the world a better place? This ideal cannot be found in scripture. We can say that people’s lives were made better in some aspects by Christ’s work but this was never an objective. When Christ said, “if they persecute me, they will persecute you” how could this statement be seen as making people’s world better, much less the everyday reality of the world entirely? No, this “better world” ideal stems from when Christianity married the social/political order of the world under Constantine. This is how the world’s thinking has molested the understandings and perspectives of those who read the bible.

Conclusion:
The point of commentary is not to find fault but identify error and learn from it. This movie stands on par with any historical Hollywood movie to date. However, this is not the full measure a movie or the story it represents; Amazing Grace while excellent on many levels, it simply put reinforces a religious sham.

The abolition of slavery no more represents God’s heart than do astronauts. Huh, you say? Let me explain. Abolition was not a big victory for the church as depicted in this movie. It has been the means of helping to dupe mankind about what he really is and removed some of the most key biblical understandings for anyone in western culture.

The church has seen abolition as helping to make the world a better place by getting mankind [even non-believers] to be more humane, which is a secular moral value not God’s. The world is made to think it has improved itself through abolition as well as many other meanderings of the institutional church. Therefore, the church is guilty of feeding the delusion in non-believers, atheist, “enlightened” types and agnostics who want nothing else than to push God out of the picture.

The second failure in the “success” of abolition was what this event did to the people in the pews… In the NT, Christ and all the authors of the NT used tremendous amounts of servile terminology to describe the follower Christ. One reason was to depict what the relationship of the believer to society, which should be parallel with the relationship of the slave to the society around him, e.g. not belonging to society. Therefore, what happens when slavery is done away with and everybody belongs to and is a benefactor of society? Further, what happens to the servile terminology Christ and the NT writer’s used to describe believers when society is made to feel embarrassment for what it had done for many millennia and the “church” counting itself as part of society?

Servile terminology in the NT is now moot for the highest percentage of church people specifically because of abolition. Today, Christians enthusiastically rid themselves of even allegorical usages of slavery Christ and Paul commonly used because of the stigma of the subject. Thus, the very terminology used in the NT to depict aspects of the followers of Christ has become invisible and non-understandable to church people, even the elect. Wilberforce and those who admire him today are duped and weakened in their understanding of what Christ wants for his followers, to be the servants of all. We cannot understand today the value of not-belonging to society to be more able to influence it by the ministry of service. Therefore, we are bound to it in everyway as the non-believer and we become as selfish for survivalistic for our piece of the pie. Our existence as followers of Christ is undermined from an eternal in-the-now of the kingdom of God to the temporal mindset of the kingdoms of men.

No story is new there are just different ways to dress them up for delivery. The appearance of the characters [as ants] in this movie is different, but this is merely the means of “dressing the story up.” This animated movie features an all-star list of big name actors, which is a real treat. The people who did the casting could not have picked better talent.

The character Z-4195 or “Z” (Woody Allen) was the perfect role for the actor. His character is a psychologically conflicted ant [not to far from true life reality for Woody] who is torn between the alleged potential of individualism and the frustration of being pushed into a role in the group dynamic of an ant colony. Azteca (Jennifer Lopez) is a light-hearted worker ant that doesn’t get caught up in all of Z’s sarcastic analysis. General Mandible (Gene Hackman), another great pick for his character’s role, is the consummate political soldier with an eye for conquering his own social structure, rather than just defending it from outside predators. Colonel Cutter (Christopher Walken) is the dutiful, “just-following-orders,” hatchet man for General Mandible’s political machine. Princess Bala (Sharon Stone) is heiress to the colony. She is bored with “court life,” hung up on herself and the dream of romance. The Queen (Anne Bancroft) is the dutiful Matron of the realm. She is sentimental and blindly trusting of “what is” and “who is” in various roles. The character Weaver (Sylvester Stallone) is the fun-loving army ant, who doesn’t discern much of anything in the issues surrounding the colony, or his role; he merely undertakes his duty with relish. Barbatus (Danny Glover) is another army ant that accepts his role; philosophically justifying it. Chip and Muffy (Dan Akyroyd & Jane Curtain) are cameoed as a couple of emo-tionally, syrupy wasps; woven into the story to add a little color comedy.

This movie is a collision of incongruous characters. Antz presents many aspects, which are true of an actual ant colony: classes of ants, the immensity of the work the colony does, and their group dynamic. However, these aspects are all seen and interpreted through the human mindsets and tendencies; i.e. anthropomorphism. While there are some regions in the real world where similar realities are common, i.e. Communist states and India with its caste system, few people in the Western world know of these sorts of experiences personally. Thus this presentation lends itself to question. Why make a presentation that is not a reality for the people to which it is presented? You’ll be able to answer this question for yourself before it’s over with.

Secondly, there is content throughout the movie that is very interesting, if we are to believe the simplistic assessment that “its just entertainment.” If it were a matter of an isolated line or depiction, we could say the instance was “artistic creativity” and leave it go. Yet, when virtually all the characters utter line after line that is consistently beating an ideological drum, can we really say, “You read too much into things”.

Many movies are somewhat allegorical, though they are not always meant to be. Then again, maybe they are meant to be allegorical but the common moviegoer never perceives them in this way because they only look at the surface–its funny…it’s entertaining… Christians in America are too ready to enjoy things as “entertainment” rather than carefully thinking about them to see if they aren’t something else altogether.

Here are just a few lines that lead to questions in my mind:

1. General Mandible said, “Now you can see how dangerous individualism can be…it makes us…vulnerable.”

2. Z’s therapist’s response in a therapy session. Z is self-analyzing his situation in the “super-organism.” Z states, “The whole system makes me feel insignificant,” to which his therapist confirms, “you’ve made a real breakthrough today…you are insignificant.”

3. Princess Bala said, “In the palace, I guess we let the General make all the decisions.”

4. General Mandible said, “There comes a time in evolution of a perfect colony, when the strong are meant to rise above the weak; now is that time. Below us right now the weaker elements of the colony are being washed away (in a flood induced by Mandible’s secret plans)

5. Z stated as the end of the movie, “Average boy meets girl, boy likes girl, boy changes underlying social order, story…”

Let’s consider these lines further…

General Mandible spouting the dangers of individualism is consistent with lines that come straight from the fear-mongering ideology of the Communist state propaganda. Under Communism, people were taught not to think individually, but rather through a group-collective, which was guided by a propaganda system. Examples were made of anybody who thought or acted in any way that could be construed to be individualistic, capped with the endless, mind-numbing rhetorical pronouncements such as Mandible uses in this movie. Coincidence? Maybe.

Z’s therapist reinforces Z’s feelings of “self” within the scheme of the colony, by saying, “you are insignificant.” Since this movie is anthropomorphic, people will connect with the humanization of the story. They do not have to personally identify with the realities of “colony living” or “ant culture” or even what these may be subtilely depicting. This line bothers me because the audience will feel with Z as he struggles with his own view of things. While they feel Z’s pain, they potentially may ingest the subtlety that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things in our own life and existence. The movie writers could have made the character of Z’s therapist say any number of positive things that would foster a better mindset… Is this coincidence? Maybe.

Princess Bala passively makes the comment that, “in the palace, I guess we let the General make all the decisions.” This is where anthropomorphism breaks down because “the queen” in a real ant colony is the leader and total chaos would occur in her absence. This line appears to buttress the other lines, which subtlety depicts an acceptance of totalitarianism. This line floats the idea that the sovereignty of a political system or realm is really just a puppet for a military group that really controls things, just like in Communist states. Is this coincidence? Could be.

General Mandible’s audacious comment, “There comes a time in evolution of a perfect colony, when the strong are meant to rise above the weak; now is that time…” This too is an anthropomorphic reach. Ants do not function as operatives of practical evolution nor do they spout the Nietzschian ravings bordering on the “power of will,” which have historically been characteristic of various totalitarian regimes in the 20^th century. Is this coincidence? Maybe so.

This movie also presents the specter of starting wars just to cover up other agendas or weakening community-resolve so that takeover can be managed much easier. The “military” in this film is depicted as being the will behind the political realm, not necessarily its protector from outside forces. This too bothers me as it depicts the reality of the totalitarian systems of modern times and how they use their military. A totalitarian military is for deterrence, but more importantly, it is for keeping a group of people in line with the “state’s” ideal.

Where am I going with this stuff?

The screenwriters have gone beyond anthropomorphism as a means for an audience to identify with story that takes place between non-human characters. The statistical probability of any of these lines occurring in a single movie is highly unlikely. Any of these lines independent of one another would be innocuous anyhow. But, the combination of all of them along with a bunch of other “little stitches” of screenwriter magic; quiet frankly screams something other than “just entertainment.” Statistical improbability tells us what this movie is about. Lines, ideas, and subtleties do not occur by chance, especially when they occur in quantity. Let’s take a cue from the underlying philosophy of the Intelligent Design crowd; doesn’t the product point to a purpose and a designer? In the case of this movie, what does the inclusion of all sorts or references to totalitarian ideology say about this movie?

The fact that the movie plays to an audience of pre-teens and even young adults also reinforces in my mind that there is greater purpose in this movie than just “entertainment.” The young are the next generation of leaders and subtlety is as great a means of teaching or perhaps renditioning them over and against harsh or direct methods. A message can be “laid between the lines” as the Peter Paul & Mary once sang in their ditty, I Dig Rock Roll Music, “if I really say it, the radio won’t play it,” or in this case, the movie house won’t show it.

Conclusion:

For various reasons almost everybody denies that movies have the ability of, the power of suggestion; that is to shape the mind of a viewer or cause them to accept ideas that are not typical to them. The movie industry denies that sexual, violent material desensitizes. The reality is there is a direct increase in “creative” copycatting incidents, of things that movies depict, in real life. This denial is of course so that an industry can continue to produce the kind of material they do. On another front, the pew-warming, religious folks deny that many so-called tolerable movies, are not really saying some of the thing they really are. This denial allows the religious to maintain the appearance of being able to identify with and partake in the enjoyments this culture affords them and so that they can continue to appear “mainstream” to the non-believing world around them.

Regardless of whether the religious deny negative impacts from the movie industry, or the movie industry denies the negative impact of their own material, even the most naïve should be able see that over the decades; indeed there is huge impact on the way people think and live as a direct result of this particular media. Further, what is calling itself “the church” is just as manipulated by the content of commercials and various forms of media as non-believers are. This “church” succumbs to the power of fear, lust, greed, or keeping up of appearances, just the same as non-religious people. Thus, we can conclude that more is going on with movies than just entertainment.

The final line I mentioned earlier is also one of the final lines in this movie. The line is Z saying of this story, “It’s just your average boy-meets-girl, boy-likes-girl, boy-changes-underlying-social-order story.” This line says it all. What does changing the underlying social structures have to do with boy meets girl? Of course, the populists will say it has reference to the system of the ant colony, yet this is really allegorical. But to add to the confusion, there is nothing in the social reality of the crowd watching this movie where they can relate to Z’s problem of being stuck in a one-size-fits-all social structure. So one is still left with the question as to why this movie’s makers would make a story with dynamics that are unlike anything to which a crowd can relate. Could it be imprinting, or how about desensitization…nothing like this could happen in America, right? I have given you enough information; you can draw your own conclusions.

A Man For All Seasons

This movie is a classic from 1966. It won 6-Academy Awards and features an All-Star cast. The sets, costuming, and scripting are excellent! The music is a bit dreary, but is a minor detractor. The story deals with the political situation of King Henry the VIII putting Queen Catherine away [over her alleged bareness] and the extreme measures taken to “legitimize” taking Anne Boleyn as a new wife to provide the king with an heir. The extreme measures have to do with the crown of England’s relationship with Rome concerning the divorce and what happened in order to allow it.

Cast:
Paul Scoffied as Sir Thomas More
Leo McKern as Cromwell
Robert Shaw as Henry VIII
Orson Wells as Cardinal Wolsey
Susan York as Margaret More (daughter)
John Hurt as Richard Rich
Wendy Hiller as Alice More (wife)
Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn

The movie accurately depicts the church [Rome’s brand] as the watchdog over society, lording over the culture to maintain its own importance and place, ostensibly in the role of maintaining religious orthodoxy. In this important position “over” society,* the church created a whole list of observances, protocols and traditions that form the basis of what is sacred; which is the church’s active means of maintaining control. Divine Succession, the church’s oversight into the state’s political affairs, the creating of dispensations (reinterpretations of policy, scripture or traditions) for political expedience all were part of the mechanisms the church used to put controls on the state.

*Note: Dr. Greg Boyd, in his recent landmark work The Myth of a Christian Nation, makes this same observation of “power over” which is the world’s tactic; compared to Jesus’ “power under” approach. The difference is manipulation over and against love and freedom. Additionally, the difference is between belonging to a realm that is supposed to reflect whom we are over and against belonging to another realm which we represent in the earthly realms we live. We are no more or no less significant by what the world does, when it does not reflect our views or ideals. Whenever the church seeks to maintain its significance within the realms of earthly power, to do so it must revert to the means by which the worldly powers seek to maintain their own power. Jesus never did this and so the church who does use earthly means to maintain itself within earthly structures, finds itself being opposite of Christ.

The movie dialog is contrived but the writer [Robert Bolt] obviously sees the essence of what really goes on between “church” and state. He weaves a tight story depicting the duplicity of the characters that represent true to life realities in both the state politic and sadly those who claim to be of the church. Wolsey, a Cardinal and Lord Chancellor of the realm, put himself between serving “God” the church and serving his king. Sir Thomas More also enters this same meat grinder later. The king has a sword in his hand concerning either issues of the state or his own personal goals which he makes part of the state. The Pope also has a sword and allegedly, powers pertaining to the hereafter. When religious enter public service in the domain of the state, over which the Church is trying to maintain control or manipulate, those people will find themselves in deep trouble at some point if they have more loyalty to one or the other. In fact the amount of their loyalty to either will constantly be tested, to where one would have to question if one is loyal to both, can they really be loyal to either. They end up either capitulating to the state; and in trouble with the church, or they will take up the Church and face ostracism and possibly death by state action. Didn’t Christ say something about serving to masters?

In the film, Wolsey is more of a compromising-scheming politician than he was a man of the church. The movie opens with More summonsed to meet Wolsey late in the evening. Wolsey confronts More for opposing him at counsel concerning the divorce of Henry. Since the Cardinal is a liaison between the church and state, there is great chance for the issues and loyalties to be unclear, thus compromise follows.

Wolsey’s comments to More illustrate his tendencies, “If you could see facts–flat-on, without that horrible moral squint…a little commonsense and you could have made a statesman.” As the Cardinal he seemed more sold on action than prayer. He later says, “In addition to prayer, there are efforts [meaning action] to give Henry an heir. England needs an heir! Certain measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not as much in the church –that needs reformation– all right regrettable, but necessary to get us an heir.”

The movie depicts More as a moral man, upright, honest, thoroughly versed in oral debate and engagements of legality. He feels compelled that he can do right [according to the church’s perspectives] in the realm of the state through his position; a typical thought throughout church history. Wolsey dies, reluctantly passing the Chancellorship to More. More does not take a frontline on the divorce discussion but the discussion comes to him by way of the King himself.

This movie illustrates More’s quite dissent, but even this speaks louder than certain people of the realm want. The king pays a visit to More’s estate at a point after More becomes Chancellor. After a spectacle of an entry, Henry takes More aside to get at the real issue; the motive of the “visit.” Henry starts in with a typical manipulative question; “Thomas, you’re my friend, right?” More sees what’s coming and takes the kings reference to the past concerning Wolsey as a path leading away from confrontation. The king, not fooled, cinches up the confrontation bring it back around to the issue of divorce, becoming so loud all the entourage that is with him in the house can hear it. Henry continues the clash by noting Wolsey failure on a divorce annulment and quickly moving to asking where More sets. More plainly states that he cannot be supportive, but that he will be quite. Henry’s diatribe is interspersed by calm with comments unrelated to the issue at hand, almost a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde switch.

The king, seasons his whole approach with manipulation as noted earlier. At another point the king says, “See how mad you’ve made me? I hardly know myself…” Henry even quotes scripture to parlay the religious [More] onto his side. More does not take the bait, to his credit, but he does take issue with the king concerning scripture, as if the king really cared. This is so typical of religious people, they take the political realm seriously in regards to scriptures and values they hold dear, as if the political realm really cared. They fail to see that the political realms use of scripture or various other enduring references are merely a means to an end for the political realm.

Henry ends up stating that he will leave More out of the divorce issue, but that there will be no opposition! Henry then asks, “why can’t you see what everyone else does [that the king needs an heir]? More in his wit ask the king, “then why does your grace need my poor support.” The king responds, “because you are honest and know to be so.” The king was truly afraid of “honest” dissent and More should have seen it.

The story does not end here, the plot thickens. In a realm there are always unsavory types, enter Cromwell and Rich. Cromwell, by the Kings own estimation, was a jackal. Richard Rich on the other hand parades through the early part of the movie as someone who was able to get through the ranks of higher-learning but who had no moral compass. He was clingy and sought out powerful people, such as More, for a place that would take him to court. In a word, he was hungry for position and significance. More tolerated Rich but would not recommend him or give him a position that he desired. Thus, Rich had to grovel elsewhere, and Cromwell knew how to use such a person to his own purposes.

More ends up resigning Chancellorship because of the divorce issue and his attempt to stay out of things. Since he could not exert his spiritually based influence in the realm, he felt to be quiet and reclusive would suffice. Cromwell, anxious to satisfy the crown and motivated by rivalry, went to work to bring Thomas More into either compliance with the King or riddance of a superior foe. Rich was a pawn in the game and it wasn’t long till Cromwell used the system to put More into checkmate.

The story grinds on, as Cromwell drags More through all sorts of political wrangling, posturing, rigmarole and cajoling. The attempt was to get More to say anything about King’s divorce or that would seem opposititional to the crown [seditious]. Meanwhile, Henry sought to rid himself and England of papal control through the founding of the Anglican Church. Since Henry could not acquire the Pope’s “blessing” on divorce, he recruited clergy and established his own brand of church. Henry wanted a church that would go along with his corruption, foolishness and trumpery. This is why the church must stay away from making statements about public policy, for which it can do nothing about. In doing so the church becomes just like the state. Once it places itself within the state’s culture, then it becomes a pawn or commodity that is bought and sold in the process of acquiring power and maintaining it.

This movie is a tragedy, not so much because it depicts a church person being executed by an oppressive state. It’s a tragedy because the church bows to the state to merely become a support to a larger organism, while loosing its ability to be the alternative Christ was to the madness of His day. It is a tragedy that the church is seen as a part of society rather than something to which people must seek at a high cost: i.e. rejecting nationalism, political affiliations and all the other affairs of world which feed enmity, evil and divisiveness. To More’s credit he stood on his beliefs and calmly went to his end at the hands of a tyrannical state. Yet, could we celebrate More for not having sullied himself as a believer by trying to use political means to stand for something moral, and moving away from harm in order to continue being a light in a dark world? Thomas More did not have to die the way he did; neither did Bonheoffer and countless others who saw themselves as part of the nation where they lived instead of the Kingdom of God. Those who live like Paul are free to move on to whatever is next until God shows them that it is the end of the road, as with the Apostle Paul when he said I am now being poured out as a drink offering…