The Moviegoings Podcast #1: Signs

First, a few words of introduction: A few years ago, I kicked around the idea of doing a movie podcast with my younger brother, and fellow moviegoer, Micah (who lived in the same town at the time). We discussed the idea at some length, and even went so far as to play around with an intro and plan an initial episode, but times got busy and it just never happened. Several months ago, as Micah was preparing to move away, we were both still thinking about that podcast episode we’d never gotten around to recording, and we decided to just sit down and do it.

The result was a fun, enjoyable, half-hour conversation about the movie Signs. It is decidedly unpolished, and there are some technical issues that may prove distracting in places. I suppose it could just languish in private obscurity as an unaired pilot to a series that never happened . . . But I don’t want that. I’d like to go ahead and put it out here as the first of what I hope will be some (many?) more episodes, in the hopes that someone may find it enjoyable in an amateurish sort of way as we work to plan and improve our next attempt.

So, without further ado, the inaugural episode of “Moviegoings: The Podcast” . . . Enjoy!

[audio|titles=Moviegoings #1: Signs]

(Do recall that this was recorded sometime last May, in a spirit of benign hopefulness, and do not judge us too harshly for expressing cautious optimism about the at-the-time-forthcoming After Earth. We should have known, but we did not.)

~ by Jared on March 8, 2014.

One Response to “The Moviegoings Podcast #1: Signs

  1. Ok, So I’ll have a go at this. I have to first say that my comments wold probably be more accurate if I went back and watched the movie first. But since I’m not going to be able to do that, I will just give you my thoughts based upon what I remember. I dont have much to say anyway, so I dont think going back and watching the film is warranted, here. Before I start, let me comment on your podcast as a whole. I enjoyed it, giving it an 8 out of 10. I think the only thing that would have made it better was if you guys had stuck more to the movie rather than go off on Night’s career. I found myself losing interest and getting a bit distracted during those moments but found myself more into the discussion as you talked about Signs, specifically. But I realize that its just a casual discussion and veering off the road is bound to happen, especially when some of that is relates back to some of the movie discussion. So, this is probably a moot point. Ok, couple things:

    1. The Village. Since we *did* go into this in the podcast, I’d like to comment on it just a bit. I cant remember if you guys gave your overall impression of the movie or not, but what stuck out in my mind was that, as Micah (I think) stated, it suffered from a very unfortunate marketing campaign that set everyone up for disappointment. I myself too, was disappointed – the FIRST time I watched it. Given it’s predecessors, having our expectations managed improperly, and what you guys described as it “being a contrived situation (the plot),” I’d agree that it was a big disappointment – again, the FIRST time I saw it. However, every other time after that I found it to be quite enjoyable. Why? Few reasons. Despite it’s aforementioned failures and disappointments, I find that the movie has other things going very well for it. Music, gorgeous and fitting. Cinematography, at times, very compelling and also fitting. Acting. Great. Dialogue, not the best, but still good. Character arc, yes, I think it was there for the elders. They had all experienced great deals of pain, and were willing to go to extreme lengths to protect themselves. I can identify. Overall, I think the film was a beautiful film, aesthetically and otherwise. There are other things I could say about it, but perhaps I will save them for later.

    2. Is Signs a Christian film? No? Yes? Maybe. My first thought was that it was a film about general faith in Christian wrapping. More accurately, I think Night (or the producers) wanted to tell a story that appealed to everyone, and thought…”hmmm…how do we wrap this in a familiar context….ah! yes! Catholicism. Thats a pretty normal religion, right?” Or at least thats how it came off to me. Now, on execution. Mel Gibsons character arc was essentially “how can God let this happen to me? Im done with Faith, I’m mad at God. Im no longer a priest.” In the end, the moral of the story is for the religious: “God is sovereign over all affairs, even if we cant fully comprehend why things happen.” And for the non religious: Everything happens for a reason. So, is it Christian? Sure. Is it non Christian? Sure. Is the sovereignty of God a Biblical theme? Yes. But is it the main theme in this film? I dont think so. I think this was more a film about faith, which is not limited to Christianity. And since the main character happened to be a Catholic priest, we are quick to say “ah, yes so I get it God is sovereign and in control. Just like my Sunday School teacher taught me. This is a Christian film.” But in the way the plot rolls out, I feel it was more just a film about fate, faith, or “everything happens for a reason.” This film is a film about faith, even if it does, by accident, come off as Christian. Or at least that’s what I think the producers wanted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: