Activity

A very good observation, Bethany @sparrowhawke.

There are many biblical allusions made in Shakespeare’s works.  I believe this one in the quote references:

What is the price of two sparrows–one copper coin? But not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it. And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows. [Matthew 10:29-31 NLT]

It speaks of not only God’s providence but also of how He values us personally in such a detailed and specific way.  It also speaks to how meticulous His attentions and intentions are toward us.

Because He demonstratively loves us so much, we can trust His intentions and instructions to be good, but our jobs is, as you said, willingness and readiness to respond to the calling and place He wishes us to go.

Emily @emily-waldorf

Yes, I do tend to prefer the Mel Gibson version.  You are correct.  I think it is the most respectful and appreciative of the actual text and it takes its cues from the wording, rather than attempting to impose the “artsy” filmmaker’s interpretation on it.

Too many film adaptations stray from the author’s original text and instead present the interpretation as the most important.  Think about it this way.  If one of your future novels were to be made into a film, how insulted would you be if the filmographer and by extensions the actors so reworked your novel that you no longer recognized it and instead used the popularity of your novel to promote some “woke propaganda” to the fans of your work.  I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty mad.  Especially if the movie’s message was immoral or mocked the Christian theme behind it.  It would drive away readers that might have wanted to check out my book, because of the movie.

I just don’t trust Hollywood to not do this.  Too many directors and producers are more in love with their own vision rather than appreciative of the artist that brought the story into being.

I think Mel does a better job because he seems to take his cues from the text to determine what the mindset of the character is, rather than breaking with convention and tradition.  I think he actually respects the text and this comes through in his acting.

When I was in grad school I had this self-styled “liberal” professor in a poetic literature class that seemed to try to make the text we were reading have “sexual innuendo” in almost every line.  It was extremely annoying.  I read and re-read the text and could never get the perverse vibe that she took from it, and finally ended up dropping that class and switching to a professor that was a little less “woke” and actually loved and appreciated the literature he taught, rather than pushing some agenda.

Unfortunately, that bad experience made me have more of an aversion to reading the works of the poet (Walt Whitman) we were then studying, because of the memory of the perverse slant and “modern” biases of the teacher.  Films can do the same thing, so I always recommend reading the original work to make your first impression, rather than letting Hollywood destroy the experience by their filtered reinterpretation.

If I were to run across that teacher again, I might be tempted to tell her exactly what she could do with her own “Leaves of Grass,” but my Christian conscience won’t allow me the momentary satisfaction.