Category: Bulletin

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January. 

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.

I can’t wait to watch Dune: Part Two with my kids. Dune: Part Two is so good it lodges itself (and retroactively lifts its predecessor) into the pantheon of great epic movie trilogies. Depending on whether or not the third and final installment can stick the landing, I suspect it will be spoken of in the same breath as Lord of The Rings, The Dark Knight, and Star Wars.   Like the first two of those trilogies, however, the film is not right for young children. Dune deals with serious themes such as drug use, religion, violence, colonialism, gender, and terrorism. It does so in a way that avoids the overly simplistic explanations appropriate for younger kids, but that is honest and thought-provoking. The film provides easy access to difficult conversations with teens while telling a thrilling story, and adults will leave feeling satisfied and contemplative about some of the film’s broader implications.  The film picks up in the aftermath of the Harkonnen’s capture of Arrakis from House Atreides, and Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) taking a place among the local Freman. For a part two, the film is remarkably well contained with a clear beginning, middle, and end. I wouldn’t recommend coming into this film without watching the first, but if you did, you would certainly enjoy the story on its own merits.  For Latter-day Saints, the film’s most poignant themes revolve around the nature and abuse of power. Among the Fremen, Paul is believed to be the Mahdi, a Messianic figure they expect will return them to control of their lands. Paul is torn between seeking vengeance for the defeat of his family and moving on by integrating into the Fremen society. The faction of Fremen who view Paul as the Mahdi complicates this by holding out the opportunity for the power he needs to seek out revenge. The ethics of how Paul wields that potential power are among the most potent themes of the film, one sure to be further explored in the trilogy’s final installment. The director, Denis Villeneuve, is in top form here. His shots are each expertly crafted art pieces on their own merits. They lend weight to the themes he’s exploring, and he weaves them together like a composer weaving together the themes of a symphony. He even includes an extended black-and-white motif that just works. You don’t even question it.  The script is well paced. It never lags like sometimes happened in the first installment, but also gives plenty of space for its beats to breathe. It’s never confusing, but also doesn’t feel the need to over explain to its audience. Just as in the first film, the sci-fi is absurd—dragonfly-like helicopters, giant worms, and magic yelling. But the imagination here makes them feel completely authentic. You can’t help but buy in. Perhaps the most fun new element—riding the sandworms—is so thoughtfully considered it feels obvious, quite a feet for a film that wants you to buy the reality of riding a worm.    Chalamet leads a stellar cast here that has added Florence Pugh, Christopher Walken, and Austen Butler. Butler in particular inhabits the grotesque Harkonnens in a way that feels both terrifying and authentic. As for the returning cast, Javier Bardem, Rebecca Ferguson, and Stellan Skarsgård are standouts. A lot of weight is put on Zendaya in this film and she is substantially up to the task. Dune: Part Two is a great story wrapped in a world class sensory experience executed by artisans at the top of their craft. It is certainly not a film for kids, but I imagine many parents connecting to their teens over it, and I would heartily endorse it to them. Five out of five stars.

Gladiator II is a serviceable historical epic. If you loved Gladiator, you’ll like Gladiator II. Gladiator II opens as Rome is about to siege the “last free city in Africa.” Our nameless hero loses valiantly with his wife dying in the battle, and he is brought to be a slave in Rome. But if our hero can perform well enough as a gladiator, he can buy his own freedom. And with that, we’re off. The beats of this film will be familiar, with a massive twist only halfway through that changes the stakes for everyone. Our hero is really the son of our hero from the last movie! Which means he has a legitimate claim to the throne of Rome. The movie tries to follow three different stories. Our hero (Paul Mescal) is trying to win his freedom and avenge his wife’s death. Acacius (Pedro Pascal), the general of the armies, wants respite and time with his wife; he also wants to lead a coup against the emperors. Macrinus (Denzel Washington) wants to work his way up in Roman power through political scheming. And then on top of all of that, we are told that our hero must deal with his father’s legacy and discover who he truly is.  It’s a lot, even for an epic, and the screenplay is not nearly tight enough to keep all the storylines coherent and moving. We are led to believe that Macrinus is successful in maneuvering to the top of Roman society because of his exceptional political skill, and Denzel Washington’s delicious performance makes that believable, but all we actually see him do is win a bet and carry out an assassination. Pedro Pascal’s excellent work as the weary general does some of the work in helping reconcile the contradictions in his character, but a look on his face here or there has to carry a lot that a simple conversation could have fleshed out.  Perhaps the reason the script doesn’t have time to breathe is also its biggest contradiction. There is something grotesque about watching audiences cheer on the brutal violence taking place in the film. And yet, the entire film is centered on having us, the audience, watch one set piece of over-the-top violence after another. We don’t get to see Macrinus manipulate the Roman senate because, instead, we need to see our hero fighting with CGI rhinos or CGI sharks. There is a place for violence in a moral movie. It can be helpful to attune our senses to recoil from violence or recognize the rare places it is justified. But the violence on display in Gladiator II is so relentless and gratuitous that it dulls the senses instead.  This is not to diminish the craftsmanship that has been used to bring this world and its many battle scenes to light. Rome feels broad and alive in true epic fashion, and it’s easy to get swept away into its world—with the exception of a few uncharacteristic pieces of clunky CGI work. The opening battle sequence is perhaps the best ever put to screen.  The best part of Gladiator II was its opening. A 1950s style opening credits are shown over a lavish dreamy animated retelling of the first film. Everything about it screams that something epic is about to be shown. But throughout the movie I stayed fixated on what it could have been. What if it had been more focused on the characters I cared about? What if it didn’t try to connect so much plot to the previous film and let this story stand on its own merits? What if they had expanded it to a TV miniseries so that its many plot points had space to breathe? In the end, despite some good acting and a beautiful setting, the movie just left so much to be wanted.  Gladiator II is R-rated. It is not appropriate for children or, in my estimation, most adults. At its core, this film has a moral message: life is hard, but it’s worth fighting for. But the way it’s presented on screen does more to drag down the spirit than to lift it up. Two and a half out of five stars. Gladiator II opens nationwide November 22, 2024.

In a world marked by ever-evolving societal norms and nuanced perspectives, these podcasts continue to navigate the intricate intersections of culture and faith. This month, the featured podcast episodes present thought-provoking discussions in a quartet of episodes, each tackling distinct aspects of some of our latest or upcoming articles. Family Bro Evening: “Ex-Brother Bundy and the Gift of Discernment” In this thought-provoking episode, the hosts of Family Bro Evening dive deep into one of the Church’s most notorious members, Ted Bundy, and the circumstances surrounding his time in Utah. The discussion extends to the role of the gift of discernment in our lives, both in the context of Bundy’s rampage and as a broader concept in faith and personal growth. It’s a gripping exploration of the intersection between faith, discernment, and the darkest aspects of human behavior. For consideration as a companion discussion to the article “Moving Toward Zion in an Age of Chaos” Sit Down With Sky & Amanda: “Please Don’t Be My Ally – Allies vs. Advocates for Christ” In this compelling episode, our hosts delve into the multifaceted challenges surrounding LGBTQ+ issues within religious communities. The spotlight is on the limitations of moral relativism and the tendency for church members to adopt this approach. They explore vital questions, such as how church members should ideally handle LGBTQ+ issues and whether there’s an alternative to the term “ally”. Moreover, the episode dissects why so many individuals lean toward a relativistic approach to morality in these contexts and suggests ways to combat it. Consider alongside the article “The Illusion of Neutrality” The Raising Family Podcast: “Resilience, Family, and Identity with Jenet Erickson” This enlightening episode welcomes guest Jenet Erickson, a Fellow at the Wheatley Institute and Associate Professor of Religious Education at BYU. Jenet’s research specializes in maternal and child wellbeing, and in this discussion, she illuminates the sacred roles of both mothers and fathers in child development. She explores how children’s emotional and physical growth is deeply influenced by bonding with both parents and delves into the development of identity within these familial bonds. Jenet also touches on the concept of resilience in children and how it can be both a strength and a challenge. The episode concludes with insights on finding joy and happiness in life by nurturing strong relationships within families and society. Accompanying the article “When Loving Ourself Meets Loving our Neighbor” Pop Culture on the Apricot Tree:  “Redemption Through Rituals: The Mandalorian’s Religious Parallels” Joining hosts Liz and Carl are special guests Jacob Hess and Jared Esselman to explore the significance of religious community and rituals in Season 3 of Disney’s The Mandalorian. This Star Wars spin-off show intriguingly employs a Jewish template for Mandalorian culture, emphasizing the importance of ordinances and community in Din Djarin’s quest for redemption from apostasy. Don’t miss Jared sharing profound parallels between The Mandalorian’s narrative and his personal journey of excommunication and rebaptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For consideration as a companion discussion to the article “A Deeper Look Into The Power of Latter-day Saint Temples”

Welcome to this month’s lineup of Public Square Media episodes. We hope this month’s curated episodes inform your thinking, spark meaningful conversations, and inspire civil discourse. Family Bro Evening In this month’s podcast trio from Family Bro Evening, hosts Scott and JC explore the little-understood Law of Consecration with Dr. Steven C. Harper, and tackle BYU’s dating culture in an insightful two-part discussion. Steven C. Harper on the Law of Consecration Two-part series on toxic dating culture:  Toxic Dating Culture Part-1 Toxic Dating Culture Part 2   Pop Culture on the Apricot Tree Dive into the eerie world of Black Mirror in this episode, as Liz and Carl team up with Radical Civility for a captivating crossover. Unpacking the chilling “Hated in the Nation” episode, they dissect how social media’s hashtags can take a lethal turn. Explore with them the grip of online cruelty while discovering strategies to resist negativity and promote civil discourse. Black Mirror: Hated in the Nation #deathtosocialmedia   Raising Family Step into a world of transformation as hosts David and Linda chat with guest Jeff Carney, who teaches “7 Habits” to inmates, helping them uncover their divinity. Inspired by The Family Proclamation, Jeff shares his inmate interactions, unwavering belief in individual worth, and insights on shedding self-limitation. His perspective reveals how viewing ourselves as God does ignites profound change. Jeff’s wisdom culminates in the notion that purpose is discovered, not created. Prepare to be inspired to embrace your own potential through a divine lens and riveting conversation. Inmates, Divine Potential, and Pepper   Sit Down with Sky and Amanda In this episode, Sky and Amanda confront the controversial question: “What is a woman?” Delving into the contrasting perspectives of societal norms and divine definitions, they explore the disparities that arise. Their exploration extends to the intricate balance between valuing motherhood and the modern pursuit of equity, uncovering how societal shifts have sometimes led to the devaluation of this essential role. Join them for an enlightening journey. The Redefinition of Woman: Reclaiming Womanhood