"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
The missus and I went to see this film this weekend. It really was a wonderful film that was very enjoyable. The first 20 minutes are somewhat boring, but, after that, the film picks up and doesn't look back. A very good film that represents some very good Christian values: peace, sacrifice, love, forgiveness, cooperation and courage. Do not let the Baptist Press disuade you from seeing this film; it really is worth the price of admission.
Theological Synopsis:
Native groups keep dying at the “end of a spear”. Rival clans, families and sons keep avenging the deaths of fathers and et al. This leads to a vicious cycle of violence. Missionaries visit the natives in hopes of ending the killing. The natives kill the missionaries. The widows of the missionaries (and one son in particular) go back and help the natives. The natives are surprised that the families are “turning the other cheek”. The missionary widows tell the natives that the Creator-God-Father had a Son who taught not to kill. Others were angry that the Son was preaching that the Creator was teaching not to kill. The others killed the Son on the end of the spear. The Son turned the other cheek. The Creator-God-Father turned the other cheek. Some of the natives listen to the missionary widows and stop killing. Most of the natives want to continue killing other natives. When other natives get sick with polio, the missionary widows and some of the natives “turn the other cheek” and help these natives. This act of love ends the killing among the different native groups. Slowly the native groups who are upset about the end of the killing adapt into the new way and even the head native who killed the father of the missionary boy’s father becomes a believer. When the boy becomes an adult, the head native tells him that it was he who killed his father and the head native wants the grown missionary boy to avenge his father and kill the head native at the end of a spear. The boy forgives the head native, “turning the other cheek.” With no one seeking revenge and no more killings at the end of the spear … what then do we have? … we have THE END of “the spear.”
2 comments:
Hmmm... Whose advice to take...
Founder's
or yours?
I suggest you see for yourself. See the film and make up your own mind.
“The story behind the movie is amazingly inspiring. It has been told in various books through the years (most notably Shadow of the Almighty and Through Gates of Splendor by Elisabeth Elliot). Unfortunately, that story gets lost in the movie.”
1) I knew practically nothing of this story before seeing the film. I knew (minutes before walking into the theatre) that missionary men die by the natives, the missionary widows help evangelize the natives, the son of one of the murdered missionaries befriends his father’s murder.
2) I do not care that one of the actors is gay. That is a separate matter from the film and its message, the message being of primary importance. For that matter… I do not care that Mozart was a Mason and an adulterer. I do not care that James Joyce was a “what he was.” I do not care that Gilliam is foul-mouthed. I do not care that Whitman was omnisexual. I do not care that Kafka was Jewish. I do not care that Orson Welles was “what he was.” I do not care that the author of some of the Psalms (King David) was a war-monger, a polygamist, a rapist and a murderer. In terms of ART, I separate the art from the artist.
3) The movie is not great, but it is good. Three stars, I said. Is it Ben-Hur (which would be 5-stars)? Is it Chariots of Fire (which would be 4-stars)? Is it the Song of Bernadette (which would be 3 and ½ stars)? No, but it’s better than much of the dribble that the American Film Industry has been putting out. But, of course, this is generally a subjective matter.
“I appreciate those who can take a good story and, with artistic license, make a good movie. This has often been done with sports stories, as in "Chariots of Fire," "Hoosiers," "Remember the Titans" and most recently, "Glory Road." In order to translate historical narrative to film certain liberties are inevitable. But those liberties should serve to strengthen the telling of the story and not detract from it. Unfortunately, "End of the Spear" fails at this point.”
He doesn’t explain what he means.
“They have taken a great story and, with artistic liberties, have produced a not-very-good movie. I am still wondering just what the point of the movie is. Had I not been familiar with the events surrounding the deaths of Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully and Peter Fleming, I might have enjoyed the movie more, but I still would be left wondering, "what is the point?"”
Again, I knew nothing of the story going in but I found the whole movie a tightly-wound story about “forgiveness”, “turning the other cheek”, “sacrifice” and “peace.” The film’s title “End of the Spear” says it all:
Native groups keep dying at the “end of a spear”. Rival clans, families and sons keep avenging the deaths of fathers and et al. This leads to a vicious cycle of violence. Missionaries visit the natives in hopes of ending the killing. The natives kill the missionaries. The widows of the missionaries (and one son in particular) go back and help the natives. The natives are surprised that the families are “turning the other cheek”. The missionary widows tell the natives that the Creator-God-Father had a Son who taught not to kill. Others were angry that the Son was preaching that the Creator was teaching not to kill. The others killed the Son on the end of the spear. The Son turned the other cheek. The Creator-God-Father turned the other cheek. Some of the natives listen to the missionary widows and stop killing. Most of the natives want to continue killing other natives. When other natives get sick with polio, the missionary widows and some of the natives “turn the other cheek” and help these natives. This act of love ends the killing among the different native groups. Slowly the native groups who are upset about the end of the killing adapt into the new way and even the head native who killed the father of the missionary boy’s father becomes a believer. When the boy becomes an adult, the head native tells him that it was he who killed his father and the head native wants the grown missionary boy to avenge his father and kill the head native at the end of a spear. The boy forgives the head native, “turning the other cheek.” With no one seeking revenge and no more killings at the end of the spear … what then do we have? … we have THE END of “the spear.”
I am not really sure why this guy didn’t get the point; it seemed very obvious to me.
“I get the impression that Steve Saint is wanting to tell his story in this movie. Thus, he is portrayed as an older boy than he actually was when his father was murdered. The other missionaries who served with his dad are almost an afterthought in the film. Even as a portrayal of his own story the real reason that he has a story worth telling was completely sublimated. The serious--as it turns out, deadly serious--faith of his father and his father's friends is almost completely skirted. It is as if there was a concerted effort not to portray the character and content of their faith so as to cloud some other, elusive point. But what that point is escapes me.”
The reason the “father-son” motif is so highlighted in the this film is because it was that relationship that kept the cycle of violence continuing. It was also that motif that ends the violence both in terms of the Saints (pretty subtle, eh?) and the Creator-God-Father and his Son.
“Greater accuracy would have provided greater poignancy. Yet, the movie goes out of its way to downplay the very real Christianity that motivated these men--and their widows and Nate's sister after them--to take the Gospel to the Waodani people. This was a strategic mistake, in my opinion. I am not criticizing the movie because it was not more evangelistic, but because it was not more accurate. Had it been, the Gospel could not have been omitted.”
I almost wonder if this person knows what the Gospel message actually is. Which is not really a criticism because very few believers really know this. The Gospel was at the forefront of all that the missionaries were doing: love, kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice, mercy, peace, God as Father-Son, escape from death, cooperation … the list goes on. Heck, the reason I did like the movie so much is because they did focus so heavily on the Gospel. I said that the first 20 minutes is boring … and I thought so, but I imagine that if I went back and saw it again I might not be so bored because it is setting up all the vices that the Gospel message brings to these people. A whole culture is transformed and brought into the kingdom of God!
“The acting was too noticeable throughout and the music score was too unrelenting in its intensity.”
I didn’t notice. Again, this might be subjective.
Post a Comment