Movie reviews and the Church as a local SV team. Here’s today’s postcard!
This is a discussion post. Opinions in the text are the responsibility of the writer.
James Bond condescending irony
Is it worth visiting the cinema with the latest James Bond movie? That should be the purpose of a movie review. Movie website Rotten Tomatoes says that out of 163 reviews, 82 percent are positive.
Critic Kjetil Lismoen devotes most of the column space to a condescending irony of a cinematic concept that he admits he has always experienced as a “waste of time that we have to go through.” Lismoen informs us that “it’s almost just the gadgets left, as well as the drinks and the supervillains.”
“The attempt to give Bond a more complex background … is paying off,” we learn. But then there is no longer any attempt. What is positive is generally condescendingly discussed. For example, we get opinions on what is “an excuse to create a compelling action”, which is basically just “moving” to watch.
It’s quite strange when Lismoen talks about author Ian Fleming’s “old-fashioned” spy “washout” that takes place in the movie. On the contrary, in this film, Bond is closer to the partially depressed and alcoholic Bond that Flemming created in his books.
And as a hint, it’s hard not to see: the film’s retired Bond now settled on the same island where Flemming also lived as a retiree.
When a movie critic generally doesn’t like the type of movie he is reviewing, it becomes uninformative to the reader if he leaves the review based on it.
Jostein Bakke, Nesodden
Has the church become a “SV with sacraments”?
Aftenposten’s readable commentator Frank Rossavik asks in the newspaper columns where and who are the Christian leaders of our time. The Norwegian Church describes itself as a “SV with sacraments”. I think it is a very good description of the church.
Over time, we have seen a church take more and more partisan political positions on difficult and complex issues. This applies to the bishops’ fight against oil drilling in the north, the church’s criticism of the government’s asylum and refugee policy, and not least the church’s commitment to climate and environmental issues.
Just a few days ago, the Church of Norway’s Interchurch Council issued a clear call to the government to end the search for oil as soon as possible.
Against this background, I well understand that the representative of the Storting, Sveinung Stensland of the Conservative Party, asks: “Is there a place for me as a man of the right in the Church of Norway?”
After 30 years in the church, I also feel alienated and uncomfortable in a church that increasingly acts like a local SV group.
Support for the Church of Norway has dropped dramatically in recent decades. Is making the Church more partisan and red-green the way forward to restore trust and credibility? I really doubt it.
Professor Terje Tvedt says quite thoughtfully in the book The international advance that the Interchurch Council in Norwegian has been concerned more with politics than theology, or more with multiculturalism than with the Trinity. In other words, the theological and evaluative commitment of the Church has been reduced to red-green political slogans.
Theology professor Øyvind Norderval described the diocesan college of the time a good number of years ago as the “least interesting and colorless in the memory of a man.” “The theological competence of the university is not impressive, and you do not see visionary personalities that can spark interest or initiate a commitment,” wrote Norderval.
Sadly, the same can be said of today’s Norwegian Church leaders.
Einar Gelius, priest and author