Join my Italian Cinema Course

If you're in the Nottingham area you might be interested in coming to a 10-week course on Italian cinema that I am tutoring this autumn at Broadway cinema. The course runs on Tuesday nights, starting at 7pm and will cover "everything" from the earliest Italian silents to the Oscar winners and Netflix movies of the present. Obviously there will be generous helpings of neorealism; auteurs such as Rossellini, Fellini, Antonioni and Pasolini; and pepla, spaghetti westerns and gialli along the way.

You can get more details from Broadway cinema, ask me any questions, or book a place here. 

An Introduction to The King of Kings

Last week I had the pleasure of introducing Lobster films' new restoration of The King of Kings (1927) at its UK premieré in Bristol Cathedral, courtesy of South West Silents. As it was only a short intro, I thought I'd post it here to supplement my other posts and my podcast on the film.

=============

Whenever I come to these kinds of events I'm always intrigued as to what specifically attracts people to them. Are we film fans? People of faith? Both? Have we come because of our love of music? Or for something else? It's kind of ambiguity that cuts to the heart of Cecil B DeMille. He could oil up Charlton Heston, put him in chains and tell you that that was Moses, or begin his film about Christ with a woman in a gold coil bra stroking her pet leopard.

It's easy to deride DeMille's mix of titillation and piety, or see them as being cynical, but for him the combination was very real. As Fritzi Kramer puts it:

DeMille is an almost perfect split between his flamboyant actress mother and his bookish lay minister father... DeMille's religious beliefs were not exactly in the mainstream but they were from the heart. The conflict between faith and trash was very real for him. He loved both.

Indeed DeMille was critical of those who proposed more staid portrayals of the Gospels, arguing that "they must have read them through the stained glass telescope which centuries of tradition and form have put between us and the men and women of flesh and blood who lived and wrote the Bible."

We tend to think of cinema's silent era as time of beginnings, but in fact by 1927 when The Kings of Kings was released it had been around for quite some time. The first Jesus films came out in 1897, meaning they had been making them for 30 years by the time The King of Kings came along. It was DeMille's 51st film, and incredibly whilst today his name is synonymous with the biblical epic, at this point in time he was known mainly for melodramas and westerns. Only one of his previous 50 films had been biblical.

The film itself was written by one of DeMille's most trusted collaborators, Jeanie MacPherson. In contrast with the majority of Jesus films both before, and, indeed, after, it starts neither with Jesus birth, nor his baptism, nor even at the beginning of Holy Week, but instead it begins as Jesus' ministry is already in full flow. In that sense it's different from any of the Gospels, or the earliest creedal confessions found about him in Paul. As a whole the film blends elements of all four gospels together citing each in the various subtitles, though often wildly out of context. It opens quoting its role in the Great Commission from Matthew's Gospel, focuses its portrayal of Jesus as the healer of Luke's Gospel, whilst its lighting emphasises John's "Light of the World" and it depicts a young boy called Mark, with the implication that it is he who will go on to write the earliest gospel. Our first sighting of Jesus is a famous shot which I won't spoil for those of you who don't know it, but is paired with its opposite at the end of DeMille's Samson and Delilah 22 years later.

Another DeMille regular was H.B. Warner who played Jesus here, Mr Gower in It's a Wonderful Life. At 51 he remains the oldest actor to play the lead in a mainstream Jesus film, considerably older than the traditional 33. To us he seems a bit paternal but at the time he was hugely more human and approachable than the film Jesuses that had gone before. DeMille insisted Warner remained in character the entire time he was on set, he knew the damage that bad publicity could do to the film.

The film did cause some controversy, though not for Warner's hardened drinking. Various Jewish organisations were concerned about potential anti-Semitism, for many of the same objections to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If it's tempting to dismiss such criticisms out of hand then I think it's worth remembering that the two previous mainstream Jesus films released before DeMille's were both from Germany. The Jews were demonised and squarely blamed for Jesus' death. It's sobering to remember that just as people today picture Jesus as Robert Powell or James Caviezel, the German people in the 20s, 30s and 40s pictured those films when they thought of the gospels. Those anti-Semitic movies contributed to a cultural seachange that led to the Holocaust. After some discussion DeMille made changes and avoided most of those pit falls.

As a filmmaker DeMille doesn't get the credit he is perhaps due. He reproduces 300 paintings in the film going to huge lengths to perfect the lighting. The shot of the sandstorm as Jesus dies was technically immensely difficult. We'll be able to appreciate the intricacies of the design on the massive sets and the picture is full of memorable images, the expressionistic approach to the miracles. And the experimental use of two-strip Technicolor.

The film was so successful at the box office that screenings continued for years, well into the sound era. Missionaries took it with them abroad leaving a delighted DeMille to claim that "more people have been told the story of Jesus of Nazareth through The King of Kings than through any other single work, except the Bible itself"

And what about us? It's easy to dismiss the film for its soft-focus piety or moments of over-the-topness, but it's also a chance to see things in a new light. For theologians it's a chance to let the left brain and right brain to work together, for Christians it’s a chance to view the gospels from someone else's perspectives and notice things that might never have occurred to us on our own. For film fans a chance to reconsider the work or the motives of one of the most pivotal characters in the silent film era. And It's a chance for all of us to look back 90 years, to be enraptured, to be entertained, and to connect to those who have gone before us, and their faith, fears, hopes and dreams of a better world.

Book me to speak!

If you're interested in what you read here, or even if you're looking for something a bit different for your group / conference / course / church / festival then why not get me to come and speak?

I've done numerous talks at all of those over the years, on the Bible on film as well as other subjects, but at the moment I'm keen to do more and happy to travel if you'll pay the costs. I'm also happy to do podcasts.

In the past I've taken sessions on specific films, or about depictions of Jesus in film at various levels up to and including undergraduate; I'm published on depictions of David in film, Roberto Rossellini, the history of the Bible on Film and men in movies. In addition to the Bible and Film I've spoken on in before include numerous talks on the Bible and poverty, as well as talks for Greenbelt festival on the Bible and mental health and the problem of violence in the Bible. Most of my talks have been at churches, but I've also spoken at schools, universities, film clubs and conferences such as Spring Harvest. I also featured on the Channel 4 documentary The Passion: Films, Faith and Fury.

I'm pretty flexible in terms of subject, and I always bring a creative and interactive approach to my presentations, combining clips, strong visuals and group interaction with speech.

Obviously this depends on your dates being available and I reserve the right to turn down any bookings, but this is a genuine offer. So long as I'm not out of pocket I won't sting you for more money down the line.

Still interested? Drop me an email. I'd love to hear from you.

A Reworking of Hebrews 11

I had the privilege of speaking at this year's Greenbelt festival on "The Depressives of the Bible". Afterwards a couple of people asked if they could get hold of my conclusion to the talk which was a reworking of the famous passage on faith in Hebrews 11. So here it is. Essentially I was trying to make the point that people with mental health problems, including depression, made a significant contribution to the stories in and the literature of the Bible and so I reworked the Hebrews 11 passage replacing "in sadness" for "by faith". Hope people find it useful.
Edit (13/4/17): The whole talk is now available to download for free.
============================
"Now this present sadness is a loss of confidence in what we hope for and a lack of assurance about what we do not see. This too is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, but we also see that same universe full of pain and hurt and sadness.

In sadness Cain's offering was deemed inadequate and he felt the pain of rejection.

In sadness Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. Yet when he had seen the world condemned he felt a pain so deep that he tried to drown out his guilt with alcohol.

In sadness Saul saw his kingdom torn from him for acting with compassion and then saw the adulation he had once received transferred to another.

In sadness David, and those who came after him, found God in their pain and their music and wrote the words that would echo not just through one generation, but through the ages.
In sadness Solomon, and those who bore his name, found life meaningless, but were unafraid to wrestle with God and cry out at the darkness.

All these people were still living by faith when they died. Yet they did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and wished for them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. In sadness, they were longing for a better country

In sadness Job saw his family wiped out and refused to shut up and accept the perceived wisdom. He chose not to be ill-treated but nevertheless suffered at the hands of the people of God. He persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

In sadness Elijah cried out that God might kill him, even though he had witnessed an incredible miracle. And yet God did not reject him. He turned his back on the fire and the storm, hearing only the quiet sound, but still anointed leaders and put kings in their place.

In sadness Jeremiah heard God's words of destruction for the city and the world he lived in. In sadness he was despised and abused. He chose to be ill-treated by the people of God rather than to enjoy their fleeting pleasures. Yet despite his sadness God did not count him as unworthy.

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Ruth, Naomi, Ezekiel, Mark and Nehemiah. Who despite sadness conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; whose weakness was turned to strength; Women received back their dead. Some faced jeers and flogging. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and ill-treated – the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground. These were all commended in spite of their sadness, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders. And let us try to somehow pick ourselves up, and stagger on along the path marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, and he who himself was known as the Man of Sorrows. He endured rejection, loneliness, desperation and the cross, scorning its shame, and sits now at the right hand of the throne of God."
(Based on Heb 11&12 NIVUK)

Chinatown: An Introduction

I was asked to give a five minute introduction to Roman Polanski's classic neo-noir Chinatown at last week's Greenbelt Festival so I thought I would post up what I said. It's a film I've loved since I first watched it and preparing for this talk and watching it again a couple of times really deepened my appreciation of it. So without further ado I'll hand over to Saturday night's me.

=====

Well thanks for coming to our late night screening of Chinatown. My name is Matthew Page and I've been exploring the intersection between faith and film for about 12 years now, primarily about Bible Films, but more recently film noir, the genre in which Chinatown is one of the most pivotal examples, and so I've been asked to give a short introduction to the film.

Chinatown is showing as part of Greenbelt's 40th anniversary, we're showing a trio of films from the year Greenbelt started in 1974. For many Chinatown is not just the best film of that year - although The Godfather part 2 took all the Oscars - but one of the best of all time. It's a fitting film to look back on after 40 years, because the story itself is set roughly 40 years prior to that in 1930s era, great depression hit, Los Angeles. And if you go back 40 years before that, to 1894, oil had been discovered two years earlier and cinema would be invented the following year. In 1894 the population of Los Angeles was just tens of thousands. The discoveries of oil in 1892 and cinema in 1895 sent the population rocketing. Today it's 12 million.

The rapid emergence in such a short space of time of such a large city, essentially in the middle of a desert made water an incredibly precious commodity and therefore the key political issue. So it's the issue of water, and the power associated with it, that drives the plot, as private investigator Jake Gittis is hired to snoop on the LA water board's chief engineer.

However, it's all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking that what the plot is about is the same thing as what the film is about. Here things couldn't be further from the truth. The plot is essentially about what happens when Gittis snoops on the water engineer, but the film is about corruption, deception, oppressive structures and power. The plot has little to do with Chinatown the place, but Gittis' experiences there permeates the film in scene after scene.

Gittis, in a brilliant performance from Jack Nicolson, used to be a cop in Chinatown but seems to have left disillusioned. Gittis, with his sharp suits and almost celebrity status puts high expectations on himself, but the film offers little evidence of his ability to make the world a better place. His disappointment at his failure to resolve Chinatown's problems despite the police's intransigence, seep through in scene after scene. Significantly, Gittis is in every scene. The audience only see what he sees and experiences what he experiences. He is our way into the multitude of complex threads that make up the film's fabric. We see its events through his eyes.

But the question of who to link the director Roman Polanski with is more complex. He appears partway through the film as a hood with a knife, but as someone who escaped the holocaust and later saw his wife murdered perhaps Polanski is Gittis, seemingly impotent in the face of evil. Or is he Faye Dunaway's character? Or even, given his subsequent crimes, John Huston's character?

Huston himself provides the link between this film, arguably the first neo-noir and the earlier Film noir movement which emerged and peaked in the 40s and 50s. Huston directed many of the key movies in the film noir genre including the Maltese Falcon, Key Largo, The Asphalt Junction and Beat the Devil. Film Noir was a genre defined primarily by it's themes of paranoia, deception, male impotence and betrayal. Most of the films were set in the 30s, 40s and 50s, many involved private eyes and were very much notable for their expressionistic use of light and shade.

Chinatown embodies many of these distinctives, but brings a new twist. There are three notable differences, firstly the use of colour although far from all film noir is in black and white. Secondly whereas the earlier films very much focused on corrupt individuals, Chinatown is more of a commentary on a corrupt society. Lastly the golden era of Film Noir had very much been hemmed in by the American Production Code which inflicted certain standards on films, including that notion that bad characters had to get their comeuppance. Eventually this lead to a certain level of predictability as to how the film would end. But by the 70s the production code era was over and the tension as to how a film might resolve itself was reintroduced. I won't give away how this film ends but it's worth noting that director Polanski and writer Robert Towne disagreed strongly as to how the film should end.

But if it Chinatown could not have been produced very much earlier, it is also difficult to see it being made any later than 1974. '74 was the year that saw President Nixon resign over a scandal that came to be called Water-gate. The film's "fiction" about corruption and power had become uncomfortably close to real life. But more significantly 75 saw Jaws become a smash hit. The studios changed tack moving towards big adrenaline-fuelled action films and away from slower, more reflective films such as Chinatown which gradually unwind and relish tight dialogue, subtle acting skills and visual lushness. "Forget it Jack, it's Chinatown."

Reflections on 10 Days Bible-Filming

...not, I should say, making a film about the Bible, but just running a number of different group sessions on Bible films. As most of you are probably aware it's 400 years since the King James Bible was released and many organisations are marking the occasion with a campaign to encourage more people to read the Bible. As a result the last ten days have seen me preparing and delivering a number of projects/ sessions/ presentations on the Bible films, and so I thought I would share some of my reflections here.

The first session I actually got to run three times, although the last time was slightly different. It was designed initially as part of an initiative run by the Loughborough Churches Partnership. People from the different congregations gathered and chose three out of six workshops looking at the Bible in a different way. Fearing that all six may end up using the gospels I decided to focus instead on Moses. I started getting everyone to read the story of the burning bush. Then I took clips from five film interpretations of Moses, and got those present to think through various questions relating to them. I'm planning to upload my slides for this talk so anyone who wants to can have a look at them.

For various reasons I didn't want to talk very much in this session so I restricted myself to a one minute intro where I explained about how Bible films force us to look at the Bible through someone else's perspective; explained what we were going to do and then just set a timed PowerPoint presentation do the rest. That worked pretty effectively. I had previously put the clips into PowerPoint using the methods I discussed last year, and during the questions used a PowerPoint timer tool I built to let people know how long was left before the next clip (as well as a beep). What I didn't do was leave any time for discussion as I only had 30 minutes.

The first two times around I used 5 clips and my work looking at portrayals of the burning bush last year came in very handy. In the end though I cheated a little bit. Wanting to include a silent clip, but knowing that DeMille's 1923 version of this story did not include this encounter I used a clip from Curtiz's Noah's Ark (1928) instead. Whilst this is a little cheeky, I would argue that Curtiz's scene of Noah hearing God's command atop a mountain with a bush bursting into flames as God speaks is an interpretation of the Moses story to some degree. I also used the scene from DeMille's later film in 1956, Moses the Lawgiver (1975), The Prince of Egypt (1998) and 2006's The Ten Commandments. This meant I left out the two films from 1996 - Testament and Moses. I didn't really feel they added a great deal and I didn't really have the time.

The session seemed to go down reasonably well first time around. That said not having time for discussion afterwards meant that it was hard to ascertain exactly how people had found it other than the handful of encouraging comments I got at the end. The second time around I did it at lunchtime, the audience was significantly older and I only got feedback from one person (I didn't know as many) so I didn't feel that it went down as well, but I think that probably reflects more on my state of mind than anything else.

The third time I opted to run this session was at church weekend away which I oversee (at least from an administration point of view). Here I had a longer slot - 45 minutes - which enabled me to reinstate the Moses (1996) clip and hold some discussion afterwards. Here the audience was entirely students which meant that almost all of them had seen The Prince of Egypt when they were around 6-7, and had, in effect grown up with this image of Moses. All of them stated that this was their favourite portrayal. There were also a couple of interesting observations that came out. One liked how the 1975 clip captured the fear of seeing a staff turn into a snake and a hand become leprous. Another commented on how it would take Moses a long time to adjust to God's call and how the 2006 clip bought that out for them. I enjoyed this session in particular. It's good to run it without human intervention but the feedback at the end can be pretty valuable, and brings further perspectives out for those who are there.

The second presentation I was doing was running a similar session at our weekend away only using clips from different films covering different parts of the life of Jesus. The preparation for this session was rushed due to family concerns, and as a result there were a few technical issues, notably the last clip which hadn't converted properly, and an annoying blue line around the edge of the screen. I did like the effect though, having not really done something before. It was "quite intense" (in a good way) as someone said afterwards, and moving from one film to another with the marked changes in styles was quite jarring, preventing us from slipping into passivity. The clips I used were as follows:

Gospel of John (2003) - John's prologue
Mary the Mother of Jesus (1999) - Jesus' mandate
Son of Man (1969) - Sermon on the Mount
Last Temptation of Christ (1988) - Sermon on the Plain
Jesus of Montreal (1989) - Miracles montage in play
Last Temptation of Christ (1988) - Raising of Lazarus
Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964) - Dispute with the Pharisees
Jesus of Montreal (1989) - Little Apocalypse
The Passion (2008) - Crucifixion
The Cross (2001) - Resurrection

Having not actually sat through this session before I ran it (which would have eliminated the technical problems) I really enjoyed it and would be keen to run a tweaked version of it again.

The final project was to compose 30 minutes of clips from the Bible as a whole that would be visual enough to work without sound. They also had to be child friendly. This kind of thing is always harder because the people there haven't necessarily wanted to see stuff like this this, (it was just on in the background during worship) and without the balance of other clips there's a higher demand for something that is roughly on a par with what they are used to seeing from films. The lack of sound also means the visuals have to be stronger than normal and, of course, many films on the Bible struggle here in particular. In the end I went for these five clips:

The Bible: In the Beginning (1966) - Creation
Testament: Abraham (1996) - Isaac on the altar
Ten Ten Commandments (1923) - Parting of the Red Sea
Miracles of Jesus (2007) - Widow of Nain's son
From the Manger to the Cross (1912) - Crucifixion
The Cross (2001) - Resurrection

This went down quite well, particularly with the older children. I also got someone asking me about the 1923 film, and various people seemed to access it across the weekend.

The nice thing about doing all of this is it gives me a few presentations (they were all done using PowerPoint) which I can access in future. I've also sorted out my laptop so I have more of a central area for this material from now on.

Refelctions on Jesus Film Sessions at Regents Theological College

I was privileged to take a couple of sessions on Jesus films at Regents Theological College yesterday. I'd been invited by Richard Hasnip (star of the The Follower and The King) as parts of Regents' Performing Arts Track, which includes an entire module on Jesus in Film.

I was lecturing on Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal, with 40 minutes on each. The technical set up was surprisingly quick and easy, and, a couple of minor things aside, that bit went fairly smoothly. I'm still trying to work out the best way of combining clips with PowerPoint, especially if the clips are from Region 1 DVDs. I'm not sure that what I did yesterday - flicking between a DVD player for the clips and a laptop for the notes - will really ever work that well, unless the clips start at the beginning of a chapter. Next time I think I'll either rip, trim and embed in PowerPoint (though my ancient version of PowerPoint can't really handle this that well), or perhaps look more closely at VLC and see if it's possible to utilise a more precise playlist or something.

Anyway... I was fairly pleased with how the session themselves went, particularly given the various computer nightmares I'd been having in the days running up to the event. It was a great group: friendly, interested, plenty of insightful questions and (surprisingly) the majority had seen more than 10 foreign language films.

There were a few notable observations. Firstly, someone asked me whether I thought that the alien sequence in Life of Brian was an obscure reference to Jesus' temptation because of the way the Jesus figure falls and is swept up by angels/aliens. It's an interesting theory, not least because I'm never really sure what that moment is about (aside from a nod to the then recent and hugely successful Star Wars), but my hunch is not. In honesty, it's too early to tell. At the very least I'll have to watch if before I can decide.

The other observation that stood out was from Last Temptation. According to one of the class, the filmmakers made it look like you can actually see Dafoe's hand underneath his skin as he pulls out his heart. I'm not sure I have a high enough definition TV/projector to be able to see this, but again, next time I'm watching I'll certainly keep an eye out for it. Incidentally, I also owe that man an apology. At one point I said that Last Temptation was an 18 certificate, which of course it was at it's time of release (and is on my VHS copy. He challenged me on it saying he thought it was a 15, but being the big-head I am I stuck to my guns. However, it wasn't long before I started to get the odd nagging doubt - after all I have the region 1 Criterion Collection disc for this film, not the UK version - and, alas, when I checked out the DVD cover on Amazon it appears that the DVD release has been downgraded to a 15. So, on the off chance you're reading this this morning, sorry!

The first session overran, even despite cutting down on quite a lot of what I had to say, but that seemed to work out for the best. Far more of them were familiar with Last Temptation than were with Jesus of Montreal, and whilst the latter film is fascinating in it's own right, I don't think it's as insightful or as interesting as Scorsese' with respect to cinematic portrayals of Jesus. It was a shame, though, that I only got to show one clip from Montreal. Having written my notes, prepared my slides and produced some notes for the session, it would be nice to have the opportunity to revisit these talks, not least to be able to tighten the content and delivery.

I may at some point record some of this session and put it on the podcast, though it's probably unlikely to happen until next year now. Obviously I'll post news of that here if I ever gat around to it.

My Greenbelt Talk Available Online

I've had a number of people ask about getting hold of my Greenbelt talk. The majority of Greenbelt seminars are recorded, but I was on at one of the venues where that wasn't possible. So the bad news is that the quality isn't great here, as I had to record this on my laptop, but the good news is that it's free! (Greenbelt seminar downloads usually cost £2). Feel free to post any comments below or email me.

Anyway, you can download my talk - Biblical Horror Stories for Children - from my (currently hibernating) Jesus Films podcast site.

[To save a copy click on the download link under the "Audio MP3" icon. That will take you through to another page. Right click on the "download" button and chose "Save Target As" (Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Firefox) or similar for other browsers.]

Greenbelt 2009

I've been meaning to write a little bit about Greenbelt ever since I got back on Tuesday, but haven't quite managed it. Having not gone since 2007 due to having a 2 week old baby and no cash, it had felt like a long wait, but ultimately it proved to be well worth it.

The main thing for me was, I guess, my talk, something I had wanted to do for a long time. Inevitably I ended up speaking at the same time as (but in a different venue to) Greenbelt's biggest named speaker - Rob Bell. It was Bell's only speaking date in the UK for all of 2009, and though he was doing three talks, this was the only one that wasn't in a limited-number-of-seats venue, thereby guaranteeing everyone the opportunity to hear him. This was inevitable I suppose. I was the anti-Bell - an almost entirely unknown speaker discussing a difficult topic. Obviously it made sense to have me fill one of the least popular slots. Thankfully, I got a bit of perspective after a while. If, back in February, the Greenbelt team had offered me the chance to talk at Greenbelt, but told me this was the slot I would have had, I would have taken it with both hands and a big smile. And, as it turned out, my venue was reasonably full, so everything worked out well in the end.

The talk itself went well. There was a desperate, last minute, scramble to find something to put my notes on, and some background noise that made it hard initially to pick up the audience's reactions, but I felt I communicated reasonably well. The questions and comments at the end were interesting and positive, and one old lady made a comment about how the session resolved an issue she'd been struggling with for a long, long time. I almost shed a tear at that point, but thankfully avoided turning into a blubbering wreck.

Anyway, now I've blown all of my egomaniac chips all in one go, I should probably talk about the rest of the festival. I didn't actually get to a lot else this year. Having two, very active, kids made it quite hard work. I can tell you, though, that Bubble Inc. is cool, though not, apparently, as much fun as playing in the toy tents on your own.

I did get to a few grown-up things, mainly talks by two friends - Simon Hall and Stu Jesson. Simon's talk was called "The Thoughtful 'Charismatic'" and was an examination of the Charismatic movement 15 or so years after the Toronto Blessing. He made a number of interesting points, which I'd like to go over again. Stu's talk was "Simone Weil and the Search for Undivided Attention", and was, in honesty, too complex for me to sum up without the risk of getting it totally wrong.

The only other talk I went to was Symon Hill's "What Would Jesus Spin?" about Christians and the media. Given that Hill is the associate director of the Ekklesia thinktank, I was surprised that this was sparsely attended. I was tempted to ask him whether this was a reflection on his ability to communicate with a mass audience or simply an indication of how lightly most Christians take this subject. Hill's main point seemed to be that it is possible to get good media coverage, but it often doesn't happen, and it's usually the result of very creative hard work.

Sadly, I didn't get to much film stuff, having already seen Son of Man plenty of times. I'd have liked to introduce it actually, but assumed that someone else was already filling that role.

The good thing about going to Greenbelt with a large group is that you do tend to pick up what's going on in the festival. Often people speaking there pass comments as well, all of which gives you a good sense of what's happening even if you miss the events themselves. So, in no particular order: Rob Bell was very good and very full (or at least his sessions were); Ockham's Razor was apparently amazing; Musical highlights were Foy Vance, Duke Special and The Welcome Wagon. I also enjoyed hearing Sixpence None the Richer's "Kiss Me" and Cornershop's "Brimful of Asha" drift across the fields to my tent whilst I babysat the kids and finally finished James Crossley's "Jesus in an Age of Terror". More on that another time.

Sadly, just when I was getting into the swing of things, it all had to end, and so we packed up our tent, whilst some friends pegged down the kids, and drove back home somehow trying to communicate to Nina (3) just how long it would be until Greenbelt next year. Sad to say, I'm already pondering my talk proposal...

(Photos of Mel, Nina and Digory (left) and me (right) are thanks to Anna Purver)

My Greenbelt Talk 2009

I'm pleased to announce that I will be speaking at this year's Greenbelt Festival. Greenbelt has a unique place in my heart: an annual pilgrimage that has nurtured, shaped and challenged my faith, year in year out. I first went to Greenbelt 20 years ago (as a 14 year old) and this, I think, will be my 15th festival in all. Given that this is also the first time for me as a speaker at the festival, it's fair to say I'm looking forward to it!

I'll be speaking on "Biblical Horror Stories for Children": looking at the parts of the Bible where God has people killed, wondering why the place we're most likely to hear these stories is Sunday school, and asking how we should respond. I'm hoping to use a clip or two from Bible films, as there are some really good examples of how we selectively read the text to suit our sensibilities. I'm also hoping that I'm not on at the same time as this year's main speaking attraction - Rob Bell.

There's a 15% discount for anyone who books in by the end of April.