The following is an interview with Abigail Disney, producer of the documentary Pray the Devil Back to Hell, which recently won the award for best documentary feature at the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival.

What sparked your interest in wanting to make a documentary about Liberia?

The fact that the newly elected president of Liberia was a woman was notable, especially since the continent had had so few women in leadership, and that women had been so peculiarly and sadistically targeted during their war. I knew there had to be a backstory. She hadn't just arisen spontaneously.

How were Christian and Muslim women able to come together for a common cause?

They were all so completely fed up with war that they were willing to overcome their reluctance. There was some mistrust at first, but the longer they spent time together in prayer and fasting the more they came to understand and empathize with each other. Friendships were forged on the field that will exist for a long time—it is quite possible that the nature of the relationship between Christian and Muslim was forever changed in Liberia.

Elaborate on the role that religious leaders played in helping to bring about peace to Liberia.

While it may seem unlikely, the fact is that the warlords and even Charles Taylor were quite religious. Religious leaders therefore were among the only people who could influence them, even in the chaotic atmosphere of war. But women were dissatisfied with the limited way in which the religious leaders wielded that influence. So the campaign really began with the women bringing pressure on the leaders via their religious confidants. This pressure ultimately was one of the reasons Taylor and the rebels decided to come to peace talks in Ghana.

How did prayer inform these women's social justice actions?

All of the women in this film were deeply, deeply religious and believed with all of their hearts and minds in the power of prayer to influence events and people. This was a critical aspect of their plan, and a big part of what made them so tenacious and persistent in their protests. But more than this, prayer was a source of personal strength to each of the women. They gained strength through their individual practice of prayer, but also the communal practice of prayer was an extraordinary glue that held the group together in spite of all kinds of pressures to pull them apart.

Explain the significance of the Lutheran church that you filmed for this documentary.

St. Peter's Lutheran Church was the scene of the first organizing meeting for the Christian Women's Peace Initiative, early in the film. In 1989, however, that church was also the scene of one of the most horrific massacres in the pre-war period. Samuel Doe's army, in anticipation of Charles Taylor's assault on Monrovia, went into the church and slaughtered more than 600 members of a rival ethnic group in a single night. The candlelight vigil in the middle of the film takes place on the church compound on top of the mass grave that contains most of those bodies. The church was and still is the church that Leymah Gbowee attended, and a source of great strength and counsel to her. It was also through the Lutheran Church that WIPNET, her organization, got offices and also got its first international donations.

Why is Leymah Gbowee the focal character of your story?

Everyone acknowledged her to be the leader and the face of the peace movement. But more than this, Leymah was so clearly charismatic, articulate, and genuine that I knew that a film with her at the center could not fail to be compelling. She is one of the most gifted people I have ever met.

What can we do to enable this change to continue without imposing our Western values on this culture?

I think you are precisely right here. Why do we insist on imposing "solutions" that are always at best temporary, and at worst impractical and even disrespectful to indigenous cultures? I think at heart we are sometimes deeply mistrustful of the competence of indigenous cultures to find their own answers. And when we impose programs, very often we do so in such a manner as to set them hunting for external money that is scarce, inadequate, and hard to get. The answer is to do some better listening. As people coming in from the global North we need to arrive in places with a little less confidence in our "answers" and a little more confidence in the people we are there to serve. People aren't poor because they don't have values, don't have smarts, don't have gumption—people are poor because they don't have money. We need to recognize that most of the "resources" needed to fight the world's problems are also the victims of those problems.

What's been the response when you've shown this film?

The response has been overwhelmingly emotional, connected, and positive. And this is not just from people in the U.S. We have already shown the film in many countries to women's groups and the response has been so moving. Women in Iraq wept when they saw it, and immediately asked how many copies they could make so as to make sure that it is shown in people's homes all over the country. Women from Sudan e-mailed us to say that they felt sure that lives were being changed by the dialogues the film had sparked. In Tblisi, Georgia, women sat down immediately after the film and wrote up a Peace Agenda that is now making its way around the country for women's signatures. What is remarkable is the way that so many women were already poised to work together for peace—all the film does is remind them how powerful they are when they work together. It is a spark of faith in dark times.

What are the future plans for this documentary and how can interested churches and nonprofits arrange for showings of this film?

We hope to work with churches and other religious organizations along with youth groups, women's organizations, and other interested partners to get the film seen far and wide. At the moment we are still forming distribution plans, but churches that are interested in seeing the film should go to our Web site and give us their information so that when we are set up for distribution we can get in touch with them.

Becky Garrison was cited by Publishers Weekly as one of  "four evangelicals with fresh views," alongside Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and Ron Sider.

During the New York City leg of Brian McLaren's empowering Everything Must Change tour, Jay Bakker and I were asked to give a short reflection based on Brian's talk on "Which Jesus?" When I saw Brian's insightful slideshow presentation that contrasted the empire of Caesar with the kingdom of God, I had a sudden flashback to my Jan. 2007 trip to Israel.

In an ironic twist of fate, when I arrived in Jerusalem I learned that Condoleezza Rice, her entourage, and I would be staying at the same hotel. For the next three days, a slew of black SUVs headed off to the West Bank while I toured the sacred spots in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem. By now, I had gotten accustomed to armed soldiers parading around the sacred spots of Israel. Still, every time I saw guns in the hotel lobby or had to pass through a rather intense security check just so I could go to my hotel room, the clash of empires hit me in the gut.

Earlier last month, I was able to attend a press screening for the James Carroll documentary Constantine's Sword. In this film, Carroll takes the audience on a visceral and visual tour, noting those points in history -- starting with the reign of Constantine -- where Christianity melded with the political empire. (Those looking to delve further into this issue can check out Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, and When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs.)

Lest anyone think such actions are a thing of the past, several documentaries I just saw at the Tribeca Film Festival serve as visceral reminders of the ensuing carnage that still happens when the church becomes too closely aligned with the state. I sat through Milosevic on Trial, transfixed as the trial and excerpts from the graphic video and photographs that were introduced as evidence unfolded before my eyes. One montage I cannot get out of my mind involved snippets from a ceremony in which an Orthodox priest blesses the Scorpions, followed by a brutal sequence of atrocities committed by this Serbian paramilitary group. Also, in Standard Operating Procedure, Errol Morris highlights the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse through interviews and gripping photographs. While I'm aware that Morris has come under some criticism for paying for his interviews, the intensity of seeing this array of photos almost brought me to tears.

However, I found a glimmer of gospel hope in Pray the Devil Back to Hell. This documentary tells a compelling story of how Christian and Muslim women of Liberia joined forces to combat the violent warlords and the corrupt Charles Taylor regime. During a press conference, I learned from Leymah Gbowee, the leader of this movement, that Roman Catholic bishop and former president of the Liberian Council of Churches Michael K. Francis became her spiritual rock. The behind-the-scenes prophetic presence of Francis and other religious leaders gave these women the faith fuel they needed to walk the walk.

Armed with white T-shirts, the power of prayer, and their Bibles and Qurans, these women won a long-awaited peace that led to the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first elected female head of state and Liberia's first elected female president. In one scene that had the audience cheering, these women barricaded the site of the stalled peace talks in Ghana. The men could not leave the room even to eat until they drafted a workable peace plan. When the guards tried to arrest these women, they evoked the most powerful nonviolent weapon in their arsenal by threatening to remove their clothes. This strategy worked, as the guards chose not to bring shame upon themselves by forcing the women to expose their naked bodies. The women kept their clothes on but they also kept their promise that if need be, "they'll be back."

When I saw the trailer for Jamie Moffett's documentary The Ordinary Radicals, I caught other glimpses of the kingdom of heaven here on earth. I know that the radical words of Jesus can empower ordinary citizens here in the U.S. to transform their own communities because I've seen it in action. The Everything Must Change weekend with Brian made me realize the urgency of the global need for us to set aside our denominational differences and work together as the body of Christ to bring forth God's kingdom into the world. That's why I'm joining forces with Shane Claiborne, Chris Haw, and others to support Jesus for President.

Becky Garrison was cited by Publishers Weekly as one of  "four evangelicals with fresh views," alongside Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, and Ron Sider.

Motive Entertainment, the maverick marketers behind The Passion of the Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia bills Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as" a controversial new satirical documentary [in which] author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today."

My interest in this flick was piqued when I learned that PZ Myers, a scientist interviewed for this flick, was denied entrance following a confrontation of sorts when he tried to attend an advance screening. The irony of naming a movie "Expelled" only to eject one of your own interviewees struck me as a rather novel albeit bizarre marketing move. The onslaught of negative publicity from outraged scientists represents a publicist's dream. You can't buy this kind of buzz prior to the movie's release on April 18.

As an unexpected PR bonus of sorts, Richard Dawkins was at the above mentioned screening. Even though he was also interviewed for this documentary, for some unexplained reason, he was not given the boot. Anyway, after viewing Expelled, Dawkins blasted the filmmakers for how he felt he was misrepresented by the filmmakers. Oh, come on. Gimme a break. As reported by John Bloom on The Wittenburg Door's web site, "How could you grant an interview to Ben Stein, longtime friend of James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and others on the far religious right, and not know what you were getting into?" (Yes, I know Dawkins claims not to know who Ben Stein is but a man of his stature should have the means to hire an assistant to properly screen his interview requests.)

This film's tagline promotes Stein as the Ferris Bueller of the Intelligent Design community: "Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom. ... What they forgot is that every generation has its Rebel." Hmmm, methinks Stein looks more like Jimmy Dean than James Dean, but perhaps the rebel tag represents a satirical twist of sorts.

This satirical slant continued with clips of a very Jewish looking Stein walking on to the campus of Biola University, as "Personal Jesus" blares in the background. Sounds like the perfect setting for a Ferris Bueller sequel with Stein reprising the role of the droning high school teacher that made him famous. For those who aren't steeped in the history of American fundamentalism, Craig Detweiler, director of the comedic documentary, Purple State of Mind, explains the humor behind this footage. "Biola University was founded upon the same oil money that commissioned, 'The Fundamentals of the Faith,' the turn of the 20th century pamphlets that sparked a Christian religious movement. Ben Stein's appearance at Biola may put the 'fun' back in, take the 'duh' out, and restore the 'mental' in 'Fundamentalism.'"

While Expelled set its sights on disarming their enemy - the "neo-Darwinists" who have ostracized scientists who dare give credence to intelligent design - more often than not they ended up shooting biblical blanks. Unfortunately, the nuances of the evolution versus intelligent design debate were left on the cutting floor in favor of more provocative soundbites that one might expect from say an NBC Dateline "Catch an Evolutionist!"-type special.

For example, juxtaposing Reagan's famous quote - "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - against Stein's clarion call for academia to tear down its resistance to intelligent design" served only to insult my intelligence. Having been to Yale Divinity School during the height of the political correctness movement in the 1990s, I can attest that there are consequences to raising one's voice against certain tenured titans. Fortunately, in my case, over-exposure to those with differing and at times extreme ideologies forced me hone my beliefs and gave me the tools that eventually led to my becoming a religious satirist. However, I am aware that others had their careers cut short because they chose not to kow-tow to the party line promulgated by a particular academic institution. Still, unlike those who were trapped literally behind the Berlin Wall, students and faculty remain free to exercise their full rights as citizens of the U.S.

The cheesy black and white clips interspersed to simulate persecution - such as a guillotine to illustrate why a professor got fired for mentioning ID in the classroom, or playing the John Lennon classic "Imagine" over footage of Stalin overseeing his troops - struck me as crude attempts at humor that lacked the biting quality of political satires like Dr. Strangelove or Wag the Dog.

Towards the end of the movie, when Stein takes the audience on a tour of Dachau that implied Darwin would have approved of Hitler's tactics, my stomach churned. This admittedly gruesome display of Holocaust stock footage cries out for the voice of reason that could lend a much needed historical analysis into the socio-political milieu of Victorian England that informed Darwin's discoveries. At the very least, I would expect a timeline of Darwin's discoveries, noting when a few players chose to misused his theories in the name of Social Darwinism. (In the same token, the Bible has been used far too often as a proof to justify some horrendous actions that bear no resemblance whatsoever to Jesus' teachings.)

In fairness to Stein, this film wasn't as biased as The God Who Wasn't There, a pseudo-documentary that pitted Ph.D. level scientists against the webmaster for raptureletters.com. Still, the editing left me with the clear impression that practicing scientists who are people of faith subscribe wholeheartedly to intelligent design. Where were the voices of leading evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians, such as Francis Collins, Joan Roughgarden, and Kenneth Miller? Furthermore, leading Christian thinkers such as Alister McGrath, John Lennox, and John Polkinghome were presented in a manner that one could think they are in full agreement with Intelligent Design, when in fact, they have written material critical of this movement. (See Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue for a more nuanced discussion of this debate including essays penned by McGrath, Lennox and Polkinghome.)

At last year's Tribeca Film Festival , I attended a panel titled "Prodigies, Nobelists and Penguins: Science and Stereotypes in the Movies." Here, I found a group of filmmakers and scientists who were able to engage in a healthy and sane debate with those of differing beliefs. Here's hoping for the day when a documentary can be made with the degree of humor and intellect that was present both in that conversation, as well as my subsequent discussions with people like Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, and other like-minded souls. One can hope.

Becky Garrison's discussion of her book, The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith, on The Things that Matter Most will be broadcast on April 27. Check the web site for more information or to download the program.

Charlton Heston died this weekend at age 84, following Roy Scheider and Richard Widmark as the latest in a series of powerful cinematic actors to pass away -- although Heston was probably best known to a younger generation as the old guy who walked out of a Michael Moore interview in Bowling for Columbine. His was an ambivalent life – living through 14 presidencies (and personally befriending several of the most recent occupants of the office), supporting civil rights when it was unfashionable, switching his political allegiances, and latterly becoming identified with right-wing causes. Not often a subtle actor (although you could do worse than watch his performance in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil as a tribute), he represented a particular kind of vanishing screen presence who, like John Wayne, represented a vision of American greatness that depended far too much on the suggestion of invulnerability.

So, now that he is gone, what do you say about Charlton Heston? Something simple: He shouldn't be judged on the basis of one interview, given after a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease to a door-stopping filmmaker known for his pranks.

He should be judged on his contribution to the movies -- doing gravitas better than anyone else, standing as our image of Moses, Ben-Hur, various military captains, the head of the CIA, and ultimately a particular kind of god figure. I never saw a Heston performance that didn't entertain me on some level.

And, in the interests of full disclosure, he should also be judged on his political activity. The simplistic analysis of the relationship between personal freedom and gun ownership offered by the National Rifle Association, which Heston did so much to bolster, seems outrageous to my Northern Irish ears. In his speeches to and on behalf of the NRA, Heston also sometimes seemed to lack empathy for the victims of gun crime, in his attempts to promote his contentious understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

At the same time, he was an early supporter of the civil rights movement, and even picketed a screening of one of his own films because it was being screened in a racially segregated cinema. He also made several films, such as Soylent Green, The Omega Man, and Planet of the Apes, that endorsed environmental and anti-nuclear causes at a time when it wasn't as easy to engage the public mind in these matters.

When iconic film actors die, something strange happens to our cultural consciousness -- for the movies have captured so many of us like no other medium. The very fact that the projected image on a cinema screen is bigger than life makes people like Heston seem both larger than the rest of us, and somehow less human at the same time.

Heston was a man who appeared to try to live with integrity, and while many of his later political positions are troubling to me, looking back on an ambivalent life like his should not inspire judgmentalism at the expense of the recognition that my own life is subject to the very same competing poles -- between private interest and the common good. And finally, if the stories we tell each other shape our attitudes, values, and beliefs about the world, then perhaps we might respectfully recognise that an era of American cinematic myth-making dominated by the notion of never admitting the possibility of error or flaw seems to be being replaced by something more nuanced, and perhaps more capable of leading us into a real promised land: one where we are honest about our weaknesses as well as our strengths.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com. He is also one of the judges of this year's Beliefnet Film Awards, which seek to recognise the best films with spiritual themes. Find out more at http://www.beliefnet.com/bfa/

In March 2006, Sojourners editorial projects intern Celeste Kennel-Shank wrote a great feature article for us titled "Green Hair, Grey Hair" about the D.C.-based project "We Are Family" started by Mark Anderson. Now, for the first time on the independent screen, one of our articles has inspired a movie! Read the description below about the new film directed by Katrina Taylor and produced by Rachell Williams:

What do punk rockers and senior citizens have in common? As Washington D.C. rapidly gentrifies, a low income African American community is threatened. The documentary "Green Hair, Grey Hair," takes a look at the struggles of living in a city in the midst of change, and the unique relationships that can develop. Mark Anderson, a writer, activist and punk rocker, created "We Are Family" to provide an outreach network to a group of senior citizen. Through an existing group he worked with - punk rockers - he used similar DIY and punk rock ethics, to bring the two together. Through grocery deliveries, advocacy about the neighborhood, and visiting, "We Are Family" provides a unique model for changing the way we look at old age. Very punk rock.

Celeste (who is the daughter of Sojourners Senior Policy Adviser Duane Shank) is a 2004 graduate of Goshen (Ind.) College with a degree in environmental studies and completed her master's degree at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism in Evanston, Ill. She now works for the Mennonite Weekly Review and is based in Chicago.

Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.

When I got an invite to attend a screening of the documentary, Purple State of Mind, I went in expecting to see a blue state v. red state dialogue/debate with some quest to find political common ground.

Wrong.

Instead, I was treated to an honest and humorous dialogue between Craig Detweiler and John Marks, two former college roommates. The year 1984 wasn't only the name of a famous Orwellian book, but this year also signified Craig's first year in the faith, John's last. After this fateful year, the two men went on their separate faith paths. The film picks upon their conversation some 25 years later.

At first I struggled with the depiction of Christianity portrayed by these dudes. As a budding writer, I was far too geeky to be an Uber-high-school-athlete-turned-Christian-missionary like Craig. Nor did I have that Barbie-beautiful-Christian lifestyle that John eventually left behind. Simply put, my dogs ate my Barbies. My childhood was more Felliniesque than fairytale. Even though I was a pre-natal Episcopalian (my late father was a priest so do the ecclesiology and the science and it sort of makes sense), my relationship with the institutional church remains akin to an outsider lurking around the crevices. Except for a brief period in my mid-twenties when I experimented with a variety of religious experiences - including an adult Campus Crusade for Christ bible study, Cursillo, and the Young Republicans - my spiritual life has been anything but certain.

But as the documentary progressed, I began to see how these men's stories paralleled many of my own struggles. I too often wondered where God was in the midst of global conflicts and my own personal pain. Also, I've encountered more than my fair share of faith fakers. So I understand why someone would just give up on the God game. But I have encountered enough spiritual buds in my life that convince me to keep walking forward on this admittedly crooked spiritual path.

While neither Craig nor John compromise their beliefs, these former college buddies are able to maintain a conversation of the heart. Despite their glaring differences on matters of faith, their friendship enables them to move beyond the white noise of the Dawkins vs. Dobson extremists debates and explore where they have common ground in their shared humanity.

Unfortunately, such genuine dialogues are few and far between. Martin Marty, a church historian at the University of Chicago Divinity School, offers some sage counsel as he explores why we're in such an ideological quagmire these days:

"Fundamentalism is an expected reaction to the anomie that comes with social disorganization. When the social institutions become shaky, and uncertainty about the future becomes widespread, people look to religion to provide absolutes and a sense of security in the midst of their changing world."

Looks like both New Atheists and their Christian counterparts are grabbing onto their belief systems like Linus Van Pelt hanging onto his security blanket for dear life. With all that's going on in the world, I get the need to hold onto something safe. But who ever said the Christian journey was safe and comfy? Ever since the late, great Mike Yaconelli edited my first article, "Beavis and Butthead Are Saved," and got me started on this whole weird world of serving God through my writing, "safe" is never a word I've used to describe my faith journey. Scary, sweet, strange, sacrilegious, spiritual - yes. But safe? No way, no how. Never.

Becky Garrison is Senior Contributing Writer for The Wittenburg Door. Portions of this posting are excerpted from The New Atheists Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail, reprinted with permission from Thomas Nelson, Inc.

As I wrote here last week, this year's Oscars, which take place on Sunday night, seem to have caught a cultural mood in cinema that's worthy of reflection – films that take ethical themes seriously are all jockeying for position, with the highest quality slate of Best Picture nominees in years. To my mind, the Academy Awards only matter inasmuch as they provide a snapshot of a cultural moment, and that they sometimes help decent but overlooked films reach a wider audience. And it is, of course, a valuable and often beautiful thing when artists recognize the achievements of other artists – in spite of the superficial glamour and absurd over-statement that often accompanies the ceremony.

So, in the spirit of gentle reminder that there are some pretty wonderful films out there, here are my predictions for what might happen on Sunday. (All made, of course, in the knowledge that false prophets put themselves at great risk – I trust readers will treat me with compassion for the categories where I am proven wrong!)

The Iraq war film No End in Sight is likely to take the documentary award, proving that at least some pop culture mavens have not forgotten that moral disaster. Julie Christie will probably win Best Actress for her work as an Alzheimer's sufferer in the tender Away from Her, although Marion Cotillard more than deserves the award for showing - with near preternatural incarnation - the irony of Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose, a woman known for singing about having no regrets, but who in reality suffered torments of almost biblical proportions.

While any one of the Best Picture nominees is worthy, (Juno's delicate and witty story of unplanned pregnancy - a likely Best Original Screenplay winner; Michael Clayton's puncturing of the myth of the moral neutrality of big business economics; Atonement's suggestion that it's title is impossible; There Will Be Blood's raging portrayal of greed), the Academy is likely to reward the Coen Brothers for career achievement by giving the statuette to No Country for Old Men – a film that has divided commenters on this blog between those who see it as a cry for a change of direction in a violent world, or simply a bleak vision that suggests human nature is irredeemable. However I still consider it to be one of the most humane cinematic treatments of violence I've ever seen. It also has the potential to provoke a serious discussion about just how to end the cycle of dog-eat-dog without resorting to the same methods. The fact that this discussion has been largely ignored, having been acclaimed by most critics merely on its entertainment merits, may be something that the Coen Brothers – who will share the Best Director award - themselves consider an ironic postscript. Their film, which is so profoundly aware of the damage that violence does, has been praised for the 'beauty' of its violence, and the only performance in it that will be recognized is Javier Bardem's chilling portrayal of a psychopath when he wins Best Supporting Actor. (Although even the brilliant Bardem agrees that Hal Holbrook should be winning for his performance in Into the Wild, his exceptionally tender essay of a sage Christian who has been too committed to self-discipline to actually allow his life to breathe reminded me of the deep value of respecting your elders. The Academy should take note and give him the award.)

Daniel Day-Lewis will win Best Actor for There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson's discordantly compelling near-opera of early 20th century greed; in which one man's lust for oil and another's pseudo-religious mania are shown to be two sides of a coin: the love of money as the root of all evil. There are of course echoes of our contemporary ways of expressing power, but this film is not an allegory – it's just a magnificently told story about how selfishness is at the heart of all sin; and Day-Lewis happens to be the strongest physical performer in movies today.

Meanwhile, rat-lovers and gourmands everywhere will go home happy when Ratatouille takes the Best Animated Film trophy – and while I know everybody praises this film til the sauce boils over, it really is that rare thing – a kids' film that works better for adults; and does more than bring a wry smile of delight to its audience. It actually reminds us that life could be better, and that sometimes it just takes a change of perspective to get us there. And from a - not purely ethnocentric - Irish perspective, I hope beyond hope that Once, my favourite film of last year, is recognized with a Best Song award. This film said something about modern relationships that reminded me of the possibility that, as Rowan Williams once wrote, no human face has no divine secret to reveal. Like I said, the Oscars are only important inasmuch as they indicate a cultural mood. On this evidence, the mood looks like the marriage between a Hebrew Bible prophet and a hopeful comedian. And I suppose you could do worse than to live in that particular universe...

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com. He is also one of the judges of this year's Beliefnet Film Awards, which seek to recognise the best films with spiritual themes. Find out more at http://www.beliefnet.com/bfa/

The Oscars are a little under two weeks from now - with the threat of the writer's strike leading to an unexpected interruption of one of the most surreal nights of the pop culture year now gone. Rich and famous folk slapping each other on the back, handing out gold statuettes for works of art that many of us haven't seen. It has always surprised me how the winning speeches rarely seem to mention the films that have led to their success – family members, agents, even pets get name-checked – but few awardees talk about the feelings the film may have stirred in the audience. It's as if the heady emotions that are caused at the cinema are too … human … to talk about at something so tawdry as an awards ceremony. Just imagine Jack Nicholson or Nicole Kidman or Will Ferrell discoursing on questions such as the power dynamics in The Godfather, or the sense of loss in American Beauty, or the hope exemplified in Magnolia on the Kodak Theatre stage, and you'll get the picture.

But every now and then, of course, we get the kind of standout moment exemplified by Michael Moore's none-too-subtle attempt at culturally impeaching the president by invoking both the Dixie Chicks and Pope John Paul II at the red-carpetless ceremony that took place just a few days after the war in Iraq began in 2003. In spite of its clunkiness, here at least was a sincere stab at using one of the biggest platforms on earth to make a difference for the common good.

The interesting thing this year is that the films speak for themselves as ethical statements. Each of the five Best Picture nominees represents a high quality attempt at exploring a question of morality, and each takes its purpose seriously enough to propose a response that could stand alongside the kind of ethical positions people who seek to embody progressive spirituality might take.

Michael Clayton is a David and Goliath story about one flawed individual's refusal to continue to be complicit in injustice on a massive scale – and manages to show just how much it costs to stand up for what is right - although it's always better to be poor on the outside than the other way round.

No Country for Old Men pictures a world in which kindness is not enough to defeat darkness, and where evil indulges itself relentlessly; but has an ending that, while oblique, may actually be teaching the audience something very profound about the nature of human relationships and the abuse of power.

Juno is that rare thing – a liberal pro-life comedy, in which the families are honest and loving but don't feel like stereotypes.

Atonement, a remarkably accomplished film, does not offer much hope for those who wish to make peace with the past, and bleakly presents a vision of the world where its title is impossible.

And There Will Be Blood is a unique piece of cinema – illustrating a crisis at the intersection of greed and passion, money and family, religion and oil.

Who wins doesn't much matter to me (well, except for my hope that Marion Cotillard's almost preternatural embodiment of Edith Piaf in La vie en Rose is rewarded, given that, in my book, it's one of the finest pieces of acting I've ever seen), as long as films such as these find a wider audience. Paul Tillich wrote that the church should provide an 'answering theology' – that is, it should seek to answer the questions that society is asking. This year, the movies seem to have got there before the church; and it may well be that the Oscars seem to have found the moral pulse of our society.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com

Last night I finally saw Juno, Roger Ebert's favorite film of 2007 and recipient of four Oscar nominations, which has as its center the story of an unplanned pregnancy and the people affected by it. The protagonist, Juno MacGuff, played by Ellen Page in one of those so-good-she's-either-brilliant-or-really-like-that-in-real-life performances, is a misfit attracted to her male mirror image. Wiser beyond her years, slightly jaded by life and negotiating the pitfalls of the high school psychological assault course, she responds to her pregnancy by initially seeking an abortion – and the nonchalance with which she is treated is the only thing sadder than the unthinking speed with which she makes the decision. She is greeted by a lone protestor – the sole representative of institutional Christianity in the movie – as young as her, who, while a welcome change from the angry fundamentalist stereotype, may know as little about adult life as Juno does about the experience of pregnancy she's about to have. But something unsettles Juno, and she is unable to go through with the termination. Instead, she plans to have the child and help a couple seeking to adopt.

And that's it – the rest of the film is a deceptively simple story, taking Juno through the following months, her relationship with family, her best friend, and Paulie Bleeker – the dude she hung out with a little too late one night. There's not much to the tale at first glance, but I found the way in which it is told (by writer Diablo Cody and director Jason Reitman – son of Ivan, who brought us Ghostbusters and the wonderful presidential satire Dave) – so utterly beguiling that by the time the film was over I wanted to go straight back to the start to rediscover these characters all over again.

Why? Because the characters in this film not only feel like real people, they are the kind of people you would be happy to spend time with. Because the film does as good a job as the best films of its type at reminding us of what it feels like to be young and not fit in (even the prospective adoptive father is trying to find his liberation in a stifling world). Because there are no grandstanding scenes, no emotional outbursts, no melodramatic moments of "closure." The characters behave the way many of us might hope to be able to do in similar situations - Juno's parents respond to her surprising news with grace, never for a second falling into the cliché of fearing what the neighbours might think. Juno is confident enough not to join so many others of her generation by giving into the stigma of shame, and Paulie ultimately just wants to be a good guy for her.

If this sounds sentimental, that's certainly not the tone of the film. If it sounds unrealistic, however, then perhaps that is indicative of a culture in which perfectionism or arrogance are often preferred over honestly managing the frailty of being human. Diablo Cody was once a stripper and so is likely to have experienced moralistic condemnation at the hands of others. It is a triumph that she has composed a film so full of generosity and so lacking in bitterness, so full of hope for family, for children, for people being able to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again. Alongside the clear exploration of how to respond to unplanned pregnancy, this film has something to say to those of us seeking to explore what forgiveness and redemption means. More than that, in its embrace of the totality of our existence – from its acknowledgement that the promotion of values often has more to do with helping people move on from things that didn't work out than with dogmatic confrontation, to its critique of the fact that some religious voices seem incapable of communicating compassion, Juno is a truly pro-life film.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com

Recently, I had the opportunity to interview John Sayles about his movie Honeydripper, a multilayered and complex account of the birth of rock and roll in the Deep South. Following is an excerpt from our conversation. (The full interview with John Sayles will be published in a forthcoming issue of The Wittenburg Door.)

How would you describe the politics of your films?

My films are politically conscious as opposed to being politically unconscious. Part of who we are is what we live, what we see, and how we define ourselves. And politics is how we define ourselves. As a screenwriter of hire, very often my job is to get rid of all that stuff and just concentrate on the genre because it's thought to be distracting. But when I make a movie and want to talk a bit more honestly about people, you can't leave it out. For example, you can't really talk about the U.S. in the Deep South in 1951 without talking about segregation.

What was the significance of having a revival going on the same night that rock and roll was debuting at the Honeydripper Lounge?

That was a dichotomy that was very common in those little towns, both with white and black people, which was that you had to make a choice between being a sinner and being saved. It was often presented by the preachers as a very black and white choice, whereas there were a lot of people who somehow managed to do a little bit of both. For example, Sam Cooke started as a gospel singer and he caught a lot of flack when he started singing secular music.

What outreach, if any, are you doing to the black historical churches?

We're doing quite a bit actually. I know in Atlanta we're doing a lot with Hands on Atlanta around the Martin Luther King Jr. ceremonies. Danny Glover has a cousin who is the minister of a big church in Atlanta and he's going to work with them to do something. One of the things that we're doing with Honeydripper is we're trying to make its opening in each city an event.

How can the medium of film be a vehicle for social change?

Take race relations for instance. If you look at the history of American film, movies were probably part of the problem for the first 55 years of their existence. Even the comedies had hardly any African Americans in them. Then maybe in the late '50s, there started to be a few movies where African Americans seemed a bit more human. So, I think gradually television and movies are a little bit more part of the solution than part of the problem. It's all a conversation and there are a lot of voices in the conversation. Maybe one movie will be helpful or useful to people knowing a little bit more about each other.

Any suggestions for aspiring filmmakers, who want to make a social change but the dynamics of making movies has changed so much since you got started?

Documentaries are great. You don't need a theatrical release now. Just do your stuff and can get it out on the web.

(Author's note: A book I found that really captured the ethos of the South pre-1964 was Gurdon Brewster's No Turning Back: My Summer with Daddy King, an account of his experiences as an intern with Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in 1961 where he lived with Daddy King. Also, in his book, Boom! Voices of the Sixties, Tom Brokaw offers some intriguing reflections about his encounters with civil rights leaders, including Representatives John Lewis and Julian Bond, Reverend Andrew Young, Tom Turnipseed, and Reverend Thomas Gilmore.)

Becky Garrison's books include The New Atheist Crusaders and their Unholy Grail: Their Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith, and Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church.

Tim Burton's striking and gruesome film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical 'Sweeney Todd' made me feel alternately impressed by Johnny Depp's singing talent and wince at the violence. The story of a 19th century barber who avenges the loss of his wife and daughter by providing the closest shave ever to a litany of customers including the judge who caused his pain left me preoccupied by thoughts closer to home.

If the film is trying to make a serious point, it is that Sweeney's spiral of violence never ends. The previous night I had attended a meeting of the Consultative Group on the Past – a body established by the UK Government to examine methods of helping the people of Northern Ireland to address the legacy of our own violent recent history. Two things were clear from the comments made at this meeting by members of the public: first, that the levels of genuine sorrow in this society are unfathomable – families ripped apart, minds taken to the edge of destruction, small communities shattered. This is real, and not interpretation. Second, we often lack the ability to empathise with the pain of the 'other' community. It is all too easy to see 'our' pain as exclusive, and to become blind to the suffering of the community on the other side of a political divide.

This is as true in situations of deep horror – such as the killing and mayhem that plagued Northern Ireland for so long – as it is for more benign contexts – such as political campaigning. I was impressed by Mike Huckabee's empathetic comments when he was asked to respond to the now well-known moment when Hillary Clinton teared up in New Hampshire. He made the common sense point that politics is tough, and that it's easy to become emotional on the campaign trail. He even risked the wrath of those who appear dedicated to brutalizing politics by acknowledging, as if it needed to be said, that Hillary Clinton is a human being and needs to be treated more humanely. I seem to recall him suggesting at a previous debate that if he were to fund a NASA mission to Mars he would want Hillary to be the first person on the rocket; so his more tender response to her tears is welcome.

Joking aside, what is the connection between 'Sweeney Todd', dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, and the US Presidential campaign? I think it's simple: a cynical world breeds the opposite of empathy. And where there is no empathy with those whom we feel are different, the killing can begin. History shows us that where no attempts are made to resurrect empathy as a meaningful part of politics, the killing may never stop. Obviously, politics requires a degree of robust debate; but all too often our political discourse is reduced to mocking, dehumanizing, or in some cases, let's face it, even killing our opponents. The serious questions I want to ask are: What would it mean to restore empathy with 'the other side' to our politics? What have we got to lose? What have we got to gain?

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com

When I got an invite to the premiere of the IMAX screening for I am Legend, I went to the theater expecting an evening of frothy fun and engaging eye candy - pure escapism at its best. While the sight of zombies up close and personal almost caused me to jump out of my seat a few times, I was more shocked to discover that this action-packed thriller struck an unexpected spiritual nerve.

In a nutshell, I am Legend presents the story of Robert Neville (Will Smith), a brilliant military virologist who was unable to contain a terrible man-made virus. For reasons we don't quite understand, as Neville has become immune to this deadly disease, he remains the last human survivor in New York City, and perhaps the rest of the world.

His days are spent driving around a desolate and deserted Manhattan as he tries in vain for a cure, as well as any sign that he is not alone. This search for meaning in a world destroyed my man's own hand somehow elevated this film from the other flicks that employ the latest in special effects to demonstrate in graphic detail the myriad of ways our planet could meet its final demise.

Even though Neville insists he does not believe in God, the film takes on a Judeo-Christian twist around the third act when Neville becomes faced with a decision that requires an act of sacrificial love. For me to say anymore will destroy the movie-going experience for anyone who intends to catch this flick. While die hard sci-fi fans may decry how the final act unfolds, I left the theater with hope in my heart, a sensation I seldom experience while watching zombies in action.

Even though Neville keeps his body in top physical shape, his soul starts to deteriorate under the pressures of living a solitary life where he is all alone. This demise of the self brought to mind the documentary Soul Searching: The Journey of Thomas Merton that I had seen the previous day. What struck me about Merton's journey was that even though he spent much of his time living in solitude, the Trappist monks living in the Abbey of Gethesmani provided the support that enabled him to live in community while being isolated.

Also, this week, I got the opportunity to observe Justin Fatica conduct a retreat for 7th and 8th graders at St. Gabriel's School in East Elmhurst, Queens. Yes, this self-proclaimed minister's style of full frontal evangelism in a Catholic setting does stir up some understandable controversy. The newly released HBO documentary, Hard as Nails, touches on some of the joys and pitfalls of this type of hard core street ministry to troubled teens. But what struck me by watching Fatica in action was that the core of his message comforts these abandoned adolescents by letting them know that they are not alone. They are guided by God.

MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road, though I may know nothing about it. Therefore I will trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone. - Thomas Merton, Thoughts in Solitude.

Becky Garrison explores ministries that reach those for whom church is not in their vocabulary in her new book, Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church (Seabury Books, 2007).

This will be my final post for the God's Politics blog in 2007, and given that it's the time of year for lists, here's my choice of the films that have struck me the most in the past 12 months. (I should acknowledge that I haven't seen There Will Be Blood as it hasn't been released in my homeland yet – but on past form, Paul Thomas Anderson's film is likely to deserve a place on this list.) In the name of the eccentricities permitted to those of us who love films almost as much as real life, and out of kindness to the fine readers of this blog, I'll list a Top 11 – lovers of This is Spinal Tap will understand why.

Joint 11: The King of Kong – the documentary about the battle to become the world Donkey Kong champion gets on the list for pure entertainment value, and the recognition that all of us have to find joy in the ordinary/La Vie en Rose – because it has at its centre a portrayal of an artist, Edith Piaf, that manages to be both a reminder of the often tragic dimensions of the creative process. And, quite simply, one of the finest performances I've ever seen on screen, from Marion Cotillard in the title role.

10: Superbad – a raucous comedy about high school pals who ultimately realize that nothing – not even beer or beautiful girls – can help you negotiate life better than friendship.

9: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – an existential Western that names the ambivalence of attributing heroic metaphors to men who kill.

8: Atonement – a dark film that asks how much we can forgive or get over our own past wrongs; its ambivalent answer requires us to think long after the credits have rolled.

7: The Lives of Others – the reflective, sculpted, seductive German movie about spying, jealousy, hope, and the possibility of change.

6: Zodiac – a serial killer film that doesn't indulge the audience's ambivalent desire to see violence that excites us.

5: Ten Canoes – an extremely funny, smart and moving film about an Australian aboriginal father teaching his son a lesson about patience while building the eponymous boats.

4: Into Great Silence – which follows the lives of Carthusian monks over the space of a year; whose appeal to massive urban audiences indicates something profound about our desire for stillness.

3: Into the Wild – Sean Penn's film, with the best male performance of the year from Emile Hirsch as Christopher McCandless, a young man who resisted consumerism by hitchhiking to Alaska. He was trying to find himself – and ended by realizing too late that two keys to a rich life are a commitment to naming reality and investing in community.

2: No Country for Old Men – a magnificent drama that tells us we need different ways of responding to evil, and that these ways may in fact be the very old values of bearing each other's burdens and respecting each other's lives. We need to tell each other different stories about how the world works if we are to avoid destroying each other.

Which brings me to my choice for not only the best, but the most truthful film of the year:

1: Once - the little Irish film that could. A musical that feels like real life; a love story in which the protagonists never even kiss; a drama that is funny, and a comedy that is moving; a film about healing ourselves by telling the truth to each other.

See you next year, at the movies.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com

Here's the good news: The Golden Compass does not promote atheism. It isn't going to steal your children. It does not signal the end of hope for religion in the West. That's the good news. Here's the bad news: it promotes the same, shallow "don't touch my stuff or I'll kill you" message that appears in so much of popular culture. But more than this, in spite of delightful visual imagery, and a couple of performances in which it's clear the actors are having fun (an icy Nicole Kidman, and the great English theatrical knight Derek Jacobi to name two), it's simply a boring film.

At its centre there is at least an attempt at exploring interesting territory – we are in a parallel universe in which everyone is accompanied by a 'daemon' – an animal representation of their personality, and a comfort in times of trouble. Meanwhile, a shadowy authoritarian body, "the Magisterium", is abducting children and performing daemon amputations. Too much daemon, too much free will, too little for the Magisterium to do.

The religious resonances are obvious, but the film doesn't make any explicit commentary on Christianity. Rather, its enemy is the misuse of power to force people to think or act against the exercise of freedom. The image of severing our connection to that which keeps us in a state of wonder is a powerful one; and The Golden Compass does a good job of reminding us just why children can sometimes understand things that confound adults.

But, as is typically the case with such large canvas "family films," the antidote proposed is nothing more than violence on a massive scale. I have not read the acclaimed Philip Pullman books on which this film – the first in a trilogy – is based, so I don't know where the story leads, or if the huge fight at the crescendo of the movie is proportionate to the text. But while the film of The Golden Compass is angry about religious and cultural imperialism, its response is strangely Nietzschean – the reassertion of individualism and the use of physical brute force appear to be the only answer it can think of.

At the same time, it's so muddled as a film - having clearly been made by a studio breathing down the talented director Chris Weitz's neck, with scenes ended before they're finished, and a script that doesn't seem to know where it's going - that it maybe shouldn't be taken anywhere near as seriously as some angry activists think.

It's surreal watching a film like this, for you feel like you're being told something over and over again that you already know: religious power can be a dangerous mix, and so needs to be handled with care and be accountable to the community. This film wants to think that religion and power can never be used for good; and yet, in its unthinking embrace of survival of the fittest/might as right philosophy, it may actually end up on the same side as the neocons and religious imperialists it seeks to condemn.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com

When a film ends with the recounting of a dream in which a weather-beaten, life-weary man searches for the fire his father is building to warm them, it's impossible not to think of the love we all yearn for and can hopefully muster. It's also a welcome spiritual respite when that film has seduced its audience on a journey into a hell of the relentless violence that follows a man after he steals drug money in the naïve belief that its owners might ignore him, and the slow-moving chase that ensues when a truly psychopathic person pursues the man and the cash. No Country for Old Men, the new picture from the Coen Brothers, based on Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel, is probably the most accomplished film released this year.

I'll do my best to avoid spoilers, as it would be unfair to assume that readers have seen it. So I must skirt around the issues that cause me to praise this film so highly. In short, No Country for Old Men is a slow, thoughtful, frightening, and beguiling film about the selfishness of people and the desperate need to restore the virtue of community bonds. Its central character – called Anton Chigurh, and played by Javier Bardem – is one of the most titanic characterizations of evil intent I've ever seen in a film. He simply kills what gets in his way, and even plays sport with some of his potential victims - inviting them to toss a coin to determine their fate. Josh Brolin is the man who fi