Josh Larsen
Autor de Movies Are Prayers: How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings
Obras de Josh Larsen
Etiquetado
Conocimiento común
Todavía no hay datos sobre este autor en el Conocimiento Común. Puedes ayudar.
Miembros
Reseñas
Estadísticas
- Obras
- 2
- Miembros
- 66
- Popularidad
- #259,059
- Valoración
- 2.9
- Reseñas
- 2
- ISBNs
- 5
In the foreword, this book is recommended to anyone, religious or no; but it's pretty plain that the content is geared toward Christians, and I'm genuinely surprised to find positive reviews from both sides of the camp. It could be a pleasant, moderately interesting outing for the casual film fan who also happens to be religious, but I expect more serious movie buffs may find the pick and mix, surface-level approach tiresome. Larson is clearly passionate about film, though he surprised me on occasion with some rookie blunders (like confusing match cuts and jumps cuts) and occasionally making baseless leaps in logic to fit his outlook.
I would say that the book starts well enough, if only because the premise (while cringe in presentation) is an interesting one. The essential relationship between film and prayer here is that movies can be seen as deeper expressions of something internal (the idea conjures one of a few interpretations of Romans 8:26). I don't think Larson's definition of prayer is made abundantly clear though (one minute he'll be arguing movies as prayers, the next he'll be arguing for movies as uttering prayers), so I was left wondering initially whether he was arguing for the movie as a prayer of its creator, or merely that the movie substitutes itself as a prayer for the audience. It soon becomes clear that, at least for the most part, Larson is arguing the latter. I found this a pretty weak and convenient interpretation of the definition of prayer for the sake of marrying pop film commentary with Christian values (and if we zoom in on the Romans 8 parallel made in the introduction, then in that context the movies are really a parallel with the Holy Spirit and not the prayer itself). The former would have been a much more compelling exploration; if film and prayer are to become synonymous then surely the issuer/creator of the prayer/movie should be the source for determining whether indeed the parallel holds up? But instead Larson is content to navigate each chapter by listing his favourite movies, highlighting some themes, injecting subjective meaning, and then sticking the words 'prayer of' in front. This quickly becomes repetitive and many of the observations are frustratingly simplistic; some of the analysis can even be boiled down to "this film is sad - it's a prayer of lament!". And even then, the film isn't so much a lament as it is that Larson is observing that a character laments. This isn't the same as the film, the art object itself, being a lament, which would (again) depend on the position of the artist. Seeing the tenuous way Toy Story was justified as a prayer of confession was pretty much the last straw for me. I nearly threw the book into the fire (until I realised that it was the hot season and I didn't actually own a fireplace).
Putting all that aside, the format in which a selection of unrelated films are navigated at Larson's whim is equally annoying. If I want to hear this much detail about a movie, I'll have seen it first, in which case, I don't want a full summary. If I haven't seen it, I don't want a full summary spoiling events for me before I watch it. This approach does nothing for me whether I've seen the film or not. It's either tiresome or invasive.
At the end of the day, this is Larson using spiritual parallels to justify his hobby. I for sure think that film has a lot of value and that viewing it as expressing something spiritual subconsciously is a fascinating subject. But it's not explored here.
I'll leave you with the same facepalm Larson ends the book with:
… (más)