Sunday, January 29, 2006

The End of the Spear

I figured I'd kick off a movie review series in the hopes that such a move will draw me blogward once more.

And, shockingly enough, I'm starting with the above-referenced film, Every Tribe Entertainment's The End of the Spear. We took Joanna's parents to see the film last night for their respective birthdays.

The basic story is as follows: In 1956, a group of five missionaries penetrated the Ecuadorian jungles to bring the gospel to the reclusive Waodoni tribe. The Waodoni were feared by the Ecuadoran government and other natives because of their reputation for fierceness and violence--and, indeed, their culture was defined by a warrior ethos and a constant cycle of revenge killings. The missionaries (Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Roger Youderian, Pete Fleming, and Ed McCully) made contact, but were killed by the Waodoni. Through some extraodinary examples of forgiveness and surrender, several of the wives of the missionaries went to live among the Waodoni, and through their efforts much of the tribe was eventually converted to Christianity. Nate Saint's son, Steve, was eventually to return to the tribe as an adult and confront his father's killer, giving us yet another remarkable example of forgiveness.

A few words are in order before I go into the film itself. I am in a strange position regarding this film, because my sister works for the organization that the missionaries were part of: Mission Aviation Fellowship, an organization that supplies transportation, supplies, learning resources, and a host of other services, spreading the gospel and humanitarian aid throughout the world. I was familiar with the story before going in both from my sister (the plane the missionaries flew in has been rebuilt and sits in the MAF lobby) and from the documentary Beyond the Gates of Splendor, which is a much fuller treatment of the events. So I do have some attachments to the subject matter and am not fully objective. Just thought you ought to know.

So, did I like it? Yes. Is it a great film? Probably not as great as it could have been, but it is quite good.

I'll get the bad news out of the way first (and I feel bad even typing that, like I'm letting down the team or I'm going to make Kathie sad--sorry, sis). The film is worlds above most direct-to-DVD Christian releases, with good production values and better acting. My major complaint was that large swaths of the story were missing. I know that such a tale has to be edited for length, but some jump cuts were far too quick. It appeared that only a day or two after the slaughter of the men, their wives were ready to move their families into the tribe of their killers. The initial contact, tentative first communications, friendly meetings and attack based on misunderstanding all flew by incredibly quickly; had I not seen the documentary, I would have been somewhat lost. I could have done with far fewer shots of well-oiled tribesmen running endlessly through lush tropical rainforests (beautiful as the scenery was) and a bit more on the story.

The acting is universally just okay. No one really stood out, apart from Louie Leonardo as Mincayani, Nate Saint's killer, who is generally good. Chad Allen, playing both Nate and the adult Steve, tries his best, but he's just not given much script at all to work with--few characters are, and some (like the other missionaries) barely register. Most scenes are set like those in Hallmark specials, with stirring music and broad emoting meant to choke us up rather than relay depth and complexity. Kathie was worried I'd dislike the "emotional manipulation," and I did. The culmination of Steve learning the truth about Mincayani and his reaction slip by in a matter of minutes at the end of the film.

Now the good news: the movie gets better as it progresses and gives the characters some time to come into their own. Interestingly, this is definitely the Waodoni's movie--though the narrator and the missionaries are white Westerners, the conflict among the tribespeople as they are torn both by their own continued violence against one another and the utter confusion the missionaries' sacrificial deaths sows among them is the centerpiece. The tension between the traditional values the warriors (with Mincayani as their leader) hold to, and Kimo, the warrior who begins to adhere to the women's talk of the new message from Waegongi (the Waodoni word for the "Creator god") and refuses to lift a spear against his enemies, is the real conflict of this film.

And manipulative as the film may sometimes be, there's no denying the real power of the story it tells. The elements are mythic: five men laying down their lives for the gospel (one nice quote, from Nate Saint trying to tell his son why they will not defend themselves if the Waodnoi attack: "They're not ready for heaven. We are."). The wives going to live among their husbands' murderers. A people torn apart by a few men refusing to offer them violence. A son confronting his father's killer. It's heady stuff, and the sacrificial heart shown by so many, and the amazing changes their sacrifices wrought is a story you would reject as being too incredible if it were not true.

It was also interesting on at least a couple of sociological levels, neither of which I have the time to get into fully here. But the first thing I thought of was the entire fiction of anthropological relativism, the idea (decried to me by Dan, who knows of what he speaks) that native cultures are sacrosanct, never to be tampered with--unless, of course, they're doing something bad. The modern world criticizes Christianity for destroying native cultures, but saving girls from genital mutilation in Africa, or decrying the mistreatment of women in Middle Eastern cultures is okay. The Waodoni were trapped in a cycle of violence which was decimating them--they are now a thriving community thanks to the missionaries who showed them another way. Not to mention the innovations they've seen in modern medicine, education and--oh, yeah. Salvation. Yes, missionaries (past and present) have been too cavalier about their actions and have stomped over native cultural traditions that perhaps should have been afforded more respect in many cases--but the idea that ever introducing change in a culture as promoted by the modern secular mind is cruel--and hypocritical to boot.

The second thing that struck me was simply the presentation of a non-violence as such a transformative power. In this age of militant Christianity and a sense of "we have to fight to defend our own," the amazing effects produced by those who lay down their lives willingly is amazing. Not that all are called to this, or that defense is never an option, but no other action but self-sacrifice is likely to have gotten through to the Waodoni; after all, Christ's initial sacrifice without resistance changed the world...

So, should you go see The End of the Spear? Most definitely. Go find Beyond the Gates of Splendor, and you'll be further rewarded (in fact, if you can only see one, see Gates). It's just a good film, but it's an amazing story.

ps--There. Was that long enough, Slater? Not funny, but you get quality or quantity these days, not both.

9 comments:

Chris said...

Awesome re-entry into the world of blogging. Nicely done Mr. Mikey Pants.

Nicely done.

Alexander M. Jordan said...

Hi Mike:

I though your review was quite insightful. I also wrote a review on my blog, Jordan's View. I spent a lot of time speaking on related issues--the Chad Allen controversy-- what makes a good movie in the first place-- so I don't give as thorough a review of the actual film as you do.

I wasn't really very satisfied by the movie, but it sounds like the documentary would be worth seeing.

Blessings,

Alex

Silverstah said...

Interesting review.

Personally, I have *very* mixed emotions about missionary work - both historical and modern. On the one hand, missionaries do phenomonal work in bringing food, medicines, education, vaccines, water filtration systems, etc. to folks who so desprately need that sort of thing. The missionaries give up *their own* modern luxuries so that they can give to others, and that is a wonderful and admirable thing to do.

OTOH, I *am* trained as an anthropologist, and I have seen the destruction of cultures by those who wanted to help - or those who just wanted to study them. Even Malinowski, the pioneer of participant observation, was not a saint in this regard. ANY outside contact is going to influence a culture - and we need to be careful and respectful when interacting with these cultures. And one of the main tenets of Christianity is sharing the message of God with others - so you start getting into this funny "I want to help but I want to be respectful" sort of thing.

Now all that said - I actually hadn't heard of this movie until I read a little blurb about it in Newsweek this morning. It seems that there are some Christian organizations out there who are all up in arms because Chad Allen is gay. Pish on that, I say - if he does a good job, and gets the message across, who cares if he's gay, straight, purple, or has three arms?

Chris said...

I personally would not support a movie by a purple guy with three arms. I just have to draw the line there.

Anonymous said...

I would support a movie by a guy with 12 purple arms and three yellow rhino legs--if it was good.

As a recovering archaeologist, I have strong opinions regarding missionary work. It's sad to see unique cultural traditions disappear--which invariably happens after contact with more "civilized" people.

But I agree the issue is complex when some of those traditions seem cruel or barbaric by our standards. Of course, one might ask what the Waodoni think about circumcision. We have the death penalty--isn't that really just a form of "revenge killing"? It's all relative.

By the way, it's my brothers' fault I started doing this whole blog thing, so blame him for any unwanted two-cents.

Silverstah said...

*snort* Recovering archaeologist. That's good, Kham. I'm going to have to start using that. ;)

Anonymous said...

The Waodoni would have nothing to say since anthropoligists say that the Waodoni would be extinct if things had continued. It was that bad.

Michael Slusser said...

Silverstah,

Well, that leads us back to the whole "what is truth?" debate, wherein some would assert that belief is just a matter of personal preference, so any belief is as good as any other, and Christians would assert that there is an objective truth. But that's way more than we have space for here--we can keep cluttering up Devin's blog with all that.

Kham,

As a people who ritually scar themselves and were willing to have their children buried alive with them when they died, I doubt they'd have much problem with circumcision. And if they saw the death penalty as revenge killing, it would make sense to them, I suppose. Of course, the whole "it's all relative" idea means that I can view the death penalty as the ultimate justice, or a way of controlling the criminal population, or a puppet show starring talking lizards and a sentient lava lamp.

Isn't relativism fun?

And you're always welcome to drop a couple of pennies into the comments. Since I'm usually so amusing and genial that I don't generate the kind of deep philosophical discussions that that meddling Parker boy does.

Anonymous said...

Actually, you made my point, the Waodoni probably wouldn't have a problem with circumcision or the death penalty because mutilation and the taking of life are a part of their culture as well. Call the death penalty "ultimate justice" or whatever you want, it's still taking someone's life because they took someone else's (just for the record, I'm not decidedly for or against the death penalty).

Since we have similar practices in our society, differing only in scale and degree, it's a little bit hypocritical to condemn their culture. But more technologically advanced civilizations have been doing that to "primitive cultures" for centuries, so I don't imagine it will ever change.