Our Man Buck, Left Behind
I just watched the Kirk Cameron version of Left Behind and I have a few questions.
1. I thought "all dogs go to heaven"? ;-) No dogs went to heaven in this film! They were all sitting by their disappeared owners' clothes. I don't get it. Did the dogs do something wrong? (Ditto for the gerbils, but we won't talk about what they may have done.)
2. Why does the guy playing the Antichrist look so much like Kent Hovind? ;-)
3. In how many films do I have to see someone pray in a public restroom?
4. Do Christian Dispensationalists, like Cameron, understand that atheists are people who live without a belief in God, not people who merely ignore God, then start spouting scripture when the plot calls for it as if they completely believed it all along?
5. How can ten people sit in a room with an armed Antichrist without rushing the asshole? Especially since he repeatedly turns his back on people? And why didn't the guards standing right outside the antechamber, who heard the staged shots, hear the real shots fired by the Antichrist?
6. Is there some commandment against having an intelligible plot? Maybe even some action, instead of people yakking the plot for the audience, as if this were a radio play?
7. Does Kirk Cameron honestly believe that anyone at the UN can keep a secret for more than 10 seconds?
8. Next time, could Cameron find a suit that fits him, or is he into Men's Gangsta Warehouse wear?
9. Why doesn't Cameron tell the story of the people who were raptured? Why tell the story of the people who were Left Behind? If the incentive is to get people to believe in Cameron's message, then surely showing how wonderful our reward in heaven is would be a more effective conversion tool than detailing the adventures of a bunch of womanizing, blow-dried, wealthy, selfish, oblivious, and tie-dye wearing (nice touch, that!) atheists, or at least what Cameron thinks is an atheist. (Oh, and the name "Buck," coupled with the repeated exhortations to "follow the money!" Subtle, man. Cameron's a real Checkhov, for sure.)
After all, if God didn't care about these twits, why is the audience supposed to? Why make a movie about them, instead of one about what happens in heaven?
Could it be that such a movie, with such characters, would not be, uh, very interesting? Because it wouldn't have an, um, plot? (Not that this one did. No, I don't care about the car expoding - I saw that coming.) And does that say something about what Sidney J. Harris courageously called the "necessity of evil"?