Inglorious Basterds

I finally got around to watching Inglorious Basterds last night. I think I really liked it. There were a few pretty disgustingly graphic parts, but as usual- Tarentino did an amazing job of telling a story and setting up a climatic ending that kept me interested in how it would end. Just when you felt like the story was leading to a certain ending there was enough of a plot twist to make you nervous that it wouldn’t work out. Inglorious Basterds is a typical Tarentino movie. The movie was divided into chapters, much like Kill Bill. The storyline built up to a climactic ending scene like Reservoir Dogs. The dialogue followed the normal Tarentino patterns. The violence was gruesome and, at times, way over the top.

But there was one element that I took from this movie that I never have from any other Tarentino film. And perhaps it wasn’t intentional, but I think it was. I have really enjoyed some of Tarentino’s other films: Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2, the scene he directed in Four Rooms, etc. All of those movies had unique story lines and were entertaining to watch. But when the movie was over, that was it. There was definitely nothing to take away from those films aside from appreciation for a movie that doesn’t follow the usual rules of Hollywood films. But this one was different.

If you haven’t seen the movie, basically the 2nd half of the film is setting up for a final scene where the top four members of Hitler’s Third Reich, including Hitler himself, will be in attendance for the premiere of a new movie about a Nazi war hero who was left alone in a bell tower and killed over 200 enemy soldiers from his post over the span of 3 days. The group led by Brad Pitt’s character- The Inglorious Basterds (whose mission is to kill, and scalp, as many Nazi’s as they can) realize that this is their best shot at taking down all 4 of them at the same time and plan on blowing the building up. To complicate the storyline- the premiere is being held in a theatre owned by a Jewish woman whose entire family was killed by Nazis years earlier. She plans on locking the audience in and burning the theatre down with everyone trapped inside. Without doing the play by play of what ensues, Tarentino paints the picture of these Nazis, and especially Hitler- clapping, laughing, and celebrating during the movie premiere at the sight of the enemy soldiers being shot by the sniper in the bell tower. And then towards the end of the movie, the theatre is lit on fire and everyone in the audience runs towards the exits only to find them locked. From the balcony, two of the Basterds use machine guns and empty round after round on the Germans piling up by the doors below. Tarentino is brilliant because this type of story and this portrayal of carnage would only work in a movie like this. During that scene someone commented, “Well that’s an interesting alternate ending to what really happened.” Someone else responded, “That’s how we wished it had ended.” Don’t you think that is exactly the response Tarentino was going for? What other storyline could he have presented where the killing, and the way they were being killed (scalped, beaten with a baseball bat, etc) would make someone watching feel as though it was justified? The way the movie moves along you find yourself hoping that the plan leading up to this scene doesn’t fail. You want the theatre owner to have her revenge.

And yet, do you see the irony? They are sitting in a movie theatre watching people they feel are less than human being killed. They feel these people deserve to die. They are sickened by these people. To them, it’s not really “killing.” And there I am- sitting on the couch watching a movie theatre full of Nazis cheering and laughing as their enemies are being shot and killed. I am disgusted by this. I feel as though they deserve to die. It is as if they are less than human. And I feel relief and justice as they are trapped inside of a burning building being gunned down from above.

I once heard a speaker talk about human nature and how he knows the evil that humans are capable of. And he talked about how he knows the thoughts that go through his mind at times as well. And he wondered if he would have been any different if he was born in Nazi Germany at that point in history. And that made me think as well. Would I have believed the lie that some people were less than human and deserved to be tortured and killed? I hope not. But my lack of sympathy for the Nazis in the movie last night made think that answering that question isn’t as easy as I would like it to be.

No Room at the Inn

Have you ever tried to book a wedding at a church?

My fiancé and I are in the process of finding a place to do our wedding ceremony in October and we are having a difficult time doing so. I have worked on staff of a handful of churches and I understand that churches are in no means immune to politics. But I believe that churches have really missed the mark here. Some, like Lutheran and Catholic churches, will not even consider letting you hold a wedding in their building unless you are a member of that church (although many Catholic churches will hold fundraisers with beer tents in which they would gladly accept non-members cash- you figure it out). Other churches require you to jump through other hoops. For some, you need to attend a certain number of services before the wedding. Others require you to meet with the pastor so many times for pre-marital counseling, or require that you use their pastor or pianist, etc. in your ceremony. We were discussing the idea of requiring married couples-to-be to attend so many services before being married one day and my future mother-in-law said it was probably just a business decision. How sad that the church (universal) has given that impression.

Let’s pretend for a moment that these policies are set up with the “business” of church in mind. I assume and hope that the “business” the churches are into is making followers of Jesus. So let’s give every church the benefit of the doubt (gulp) and assume this is their primary goal. How would excluding non-members of your church from having their wedding ceremony in your church building be good for the business of making followers of Jesus? If anything, I would assume that if you opened your doors to a non-member couple and created an amazing memory for them on one of the most important days of their lives that they would always remember that church and that experience if they are looking for a church home in the future. Not to mention all the guests that attend the wedding as well. I remember always trying to think of ways to get new people into our building- whether it was for a special event, concert—anything just to get them in the door and make them feel welcome and want to come back. It’s odd being on the other end and seeking churches out and contacting them only to be turned away. What a shame.

The one reservation I could see churches having is the possible conflict on their view of what marriage is. Churches believe (as I do as well) that marriage isn’t a civil agreement but a covenant made between two people before God- an institution that God established. Perhaps (and I’m just making assumptions here) some churches don’t want to be a part of a wedding of two people if they aren’t sure that the couple is on the same page as they are in their belief of what marriage is. However, if that were the case why would a Catholic or Lutheran church first ask what our doctrinal beliefs were instead of closing it to just members? What is a member of a church, anyway? What special group does that put you in? I know for a fact that being a member of a church does not mean you have all the same beliefs as the church does. Most churches just require you to believe the certain tenants that the church as a whole believes. In my case, I went to bible college and am an ordained minister. I have worked as a minister in a couple of churches but yet can’t get married in most churches in town. Huh? I can’t express how frustrated I am with this. What an opportunity that is being missed. How sad it is that there are couples seeking out churches (perhaps for the first time in their lives) and being turned away because they’re not part of “the club.” I’m sure that’s not what the churches are trying to communicate, but I don’t see how else to take it. And for the small group of churches that do allow non-members to hold a ceremony in the building, why is there a different rate for members vs. non-members? This isn’t your local grocery store where you show your card and get a discount.

I understand what it’s like to be at a large church and constantly have to “fight” to reserve space in the building for events you want to put on. If that’s the case, put some policies on the maximum time ahead you can book a wedding so that church events take priority- because I believe they should. But churches should always remember the business of the church isn’t to make money or keep your members happy- it’s to be Jesus to the world. The church building isn’t the real church- every believer is. There’s nothing holy about the building, no matter how pretty the stained glass windows are. Whenever possible the goal should be to take as many barriers between a person and God as possible, not put more roadblocks in their way.
That’s my two cents.