Monday, February 06, 2006

The Crooked End of the Spear

Just recently I went and saw The End of The Spear; it is the story of Nick Saint, his son and a cannibal tribe in Ecuador. I was very disappointed to hear that they had cast an openly gay activist, Chad Allen for the role of Nick/Steve Saint which has bad enough implications as it is, but after seeing the movie I was even more appalled at its almost overt omission of the Gospel its self. Some of what I will say here might be mere speculation. I promise to keep that to a minimum. I must say that me, personally, I have not read any books on the story of these faithful men, but I have heard their stories. And have been impacted by quotes of the men who were martyred.

The Gospel was hidden.
There was only one verse quoted in the entire movie. It was the translated verse of John 3:16. And it was simply a means to pacify. I did not have a problem with the way they translated the verse. But it was the way they didn’t have any more translated that bothered me.
The need for the gospel was never really discussed. These people needing to stop killing each other was mentioned, the fact that the missionaries wanted to be ‘friends’ was mentioned, but the word hell, haa! , who uses that word any more, the way it is meant to be used. Christ lordship and sin was never mentioned in the movie, not once. Olsten would have been proud. There were so many places where the Gospel could have been introduced. No, the story was about how we could reconcile a son and his father’s murderer, and how to westernize a tribe and get it medicine. All this is great, but the gospel was scarcely there.
If I had no idea of the story, or the personal testimonies of the men who gave every thing, I could assume that they could have very well might have been UN aid workers. But no these men gave everything for the Gospel. It was foolishness, not just being nice to your fellow humans, it was greater than that. Sure they did not want the tribe to be wiped out but they did not want to see these people to die with out knowledge of Christ. They did not just want to be friends they wanted them to become brothers and sisters in Christ. It went deeper than to reform murderers. No it was about changing their hearts. Not with a message of peace, but with the message of Christ.
One point has been made to me, “But the movie showed a persons life changing, and them getting happier because of being a Christian�. Well to be honest a Hindu convert can be persuaded to be nice to people by doing good things like, administering medicine to mortal enemies and stop murdering people. Matter of fact a Hindu would have loved the verse that they quoted to the tribe’s man, about “not spearing back after he had been speared.� These are fruits of a Christian true, but it does not make us entirely distinctive from any other person’s good deeds, or an Atheist good deeds.
So what sets the Gospel apart is the distinctive person of Christ. Christ was left out. I know there was allusions to Him, very few, matter of fact. I tried asking my self during the movie why they were down there, from the perspective of the movie and knowing only what the movie told you. I challenge you to do the same. I would submit to you that Christ will not come to mind if you approach it with a fresh mind. This should have been a bold statement for the Gospel like the lives of the men and women who gave it all for this tribe of murderers.
The sovereignty of God was not explored.
When Steve Saint was comforting his son, Gods control of the situation was not mentioned like I would think it would be. God sovereignty over the situation was never even mentioned in the movie or even really hinted at. One would think that a missionary would have come to terms in a situation like this with the fact that they very well may die trying to show Christ to these people. The sovereignty was of great comfort in this stituation and would have been a great under lying theme for the movie.
Jim Eliot was portrayed as an Idiot.
I am sure that Jim Eliot was a fun guy. But the way He was portrayed in this movie was as, seemed to me, an absolute Imbecile. He said very few intelligent things although, he had one serious part. And he did not really seem to portray the gospel which, if anybody knows Jim Eliot, he was sold out for the cross. It was his life and death, and it seemed all for not in this movie. You never saw Jim’s real concern for the tribesmen.
The Last part of the film was weird
I really did not like the way the movie ended. It was really confusing. There was allot of crying, a lot of overly dramatic music. The part about jumping the boa was some what confusing. I understand that it may have been their god but I honestly did not get the hang up with the boa. It flashed back to show the death of Nick Saint and this time he was experiencing some sort of state of ecstasy and a vision of ghost like things swirling around his head. I can understand why Steve got so emotional visiting the site where his father died, but the best way to describe it was, trippy.
It tried to establish the Goodness of men.
The movie really tried to play off the goodness of the tribes men. I don’t know if the mercy really did happen with the natives that spared each other in the movie. I got the impression, from the movie, that Mincayani was really good down inside, and that he just needed a little help. He was getting tired of all the killing. I never really got the impression, from what I have heard, that the Mincayani was going around sparing anyone’s life, women and children for that matter. I always looked at the story as giving a picture of mans utter depravity, and Gods great grace.

On the whole if you are curious about the movie go see it. Dont see it for the great acting cause its non-existent, but if you want it accurate and in the sprit of the original story in all of its beauty then don’t look to the movie to do so it just isn’t.

3 comments:

Reapergirl said...

oh well...I was looking forward to a good movie...

Anonymous said...

To be honest - your review sounds like you were predisposed. I've read some reviews that give some analysis on the imagery, purpose in the way the messgae was conveyed, and so on.
You might like to check out the review at Common Grounds Online.
Also the one at Movie Ministry which reviews the themes in Brokeback Mountain excellently (why is has appealed to audiences by it's cinematogrpahy and contrived contrasts and how to see through that), and the Spear - how we approach it and what it achieves.
Your review struck me as influenced somehow - not by the movie but by something else. I didn't get a picture of the movie as much as certain opinions of what it should be. Which is not telling me how the movie as a whole flows, employs cinematographic artistry, calibre of the acting or the subtext of the themes.

Catez

Screaming Pirate said...

i guess you could say that was my purpose. i purposely left alot of those things, cause movie crtict i am not so to call it a review may be streaching. But my pupose was to say that i was greatly disapionted in the message and the lack of message in the movie. if it was there it was not clear enough. i guess that was my main point