What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

How do Women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?

How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?

What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? What's the deal with Predestination?

I continue my dissection of Richard Bewes' book: The Top 100 questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions," by trying to respond to the following questions: What about those who have never heard? Why does suffering exist? Is everything fixed in advance?

37. What about those who have never heard? What is the fate of heathen people who have never heard the gospel?

I admit that when I first read this question, I saw red. I absolutely hated how “non-believers” were described as “heathens.” I know that in the olden times, “heathen” was nothing more than a reference to pagans or those who believed in polytheistic beliefs, but now it is regarded as a deeply derogatory insult. I've said it before that Richard Bewes, at times, come off as downright offensive to “non-believers,” and this evidences that claim. Through how he describes “non-believers,” as heathens, all he is doing is confirming the very wrong misconception that all Christians are too close-minded to believe anything other than their monopolies of truths.

Anyway, personal feelings aside, Bewes answers this question by arguing that those who ask it have a “view of sin that is not deep enough.” They believe that they are deserving of salvation just because they believe in God, and anyone who doesn't is automatically a heathen. However, Bewes criticises this by asserting that it is too much of a dualistic way of thinking of things. He thinks that absolutely nobody has an automatic right to be saved by God. It doesn't matter whether we believe or don't, nobody has the right to be saved. I quite like this idea, as it argues against how there are some people who think they're entitled to certain privileges, because of their beliefs. Of course, I'm not exclusively referring to Christians, but to anyone of any belief that fits this idea.

Bewes also argues that those who ask this question don't see the Gospel with enough urgency. If you don't believe, then your only chance of salvation is through sincerity and good deeds. But Bewes responds by saying that this undermines missionary work. It is through the work of missionaries in Europe, India, China and Africa that resulted in the spread of Christianity, not just through their charity work, but also by their faith in Jesus. I would agree with this, as Bewes isn't saying that belief and charity work are mutually exclusive, rather they're deeply interrelated with each other. It is the opposite of the notion of the self-entitled believer who think he'll achieve salvation, through pure belief. It is not enough to do good things, you need to believe in God as well. It is akin to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. 

38. Why does God allow suffering? There is so much suffering in our world. Why does God allow it?

This is yet another age-old question that is asked of Christianity and is quite similar to the earlier questions Why do Evil and Viruses exist? If God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why would he condemn his followers to suffer? Bewes' answer to this is similar to how he answers why Evil exists: it teaches us humility. He refers to Luke 13: 1-5, where a tower collapses killing 18 people. Jesus explains that these people died, not because they were “no more 'guilty' than anyone else, but rather as a reminder of our own mortalities. The people that died could have just as easily been one of us and we should take comfort that we are still alive now. I've argued before that this argument could be regarded as cold-hearted, particularly by those suffering or their loved ones, so I won't rehash it here. See my article on “Why Evil and Viruses Exist?”

What I do want to discuss is how Bewes argues that suffering gives us perspective on our own lives. Not in the sense of mortality, but rather how suffering cannot exist without glory. Bewes asserts that:

“its only through the Cross, that we can make sense of our sufferings. (1 Peter 4:12, 13) We learn the paradox that suffering and 'glory' run side by side – you cannot have the kingdom without tribulation (1 Peter 5:10; Revelation 1:9) Affliction can then lead to spiritual growth and our own good.”

Our suffering is fundamental to our own personal growth. We learn and develop from every mistake we make, and from every tragedy we experience. And I think this makes perfect sense. Suffering gives people motivation to change their lives and to make something of themselves. There are infinite stories of business-men who have become billionaires by starting from something. If we spend our lives in comfort, then we will never feel any desire to change. Take for example, the peasantry of the French or Russian Revolutions. If their suffering wasn't as terrible as it had been, would they have felt any desire to overthrow the monarchy? Naomi explained that the suffering that Christians experience is nothing compared to knowing God.  The pain is worth it, if you get to experience the love of God, as well.  Suffering is a testament of our faith as well.  It is easy to believe in God when things are going well, but not so easy, when you're experiencing hardship.  The book of Job discusses this idea in detail where Satan makes a wager with God that he can make Job forsake his faith by making him suffer.  God condones this, as he knows that Job will never betray him, even after his wife dies and his crop fails and Job doesn't.  There are times where he questions what is happening, but he never outright rejects God.

39. Is everything fixed in advance? I'm trying to get Predestination worked out. Were my marriage, my becoming a Christian, my job, my clothing all decided before birth?

As I discussed in my first article on Religion, that I have never been comfortable with the idea of Predestination. I, and I don't think I'm alone, dislike the idea of my destiny and life being in the hands of anyone but myself. I also think that Predestination is a way of encouraging people to escape accountability for their actions. “Oh if I'm going to go to hell when I die, there's no reason for me to do anything good.”

Bewes argues that Predestination has been wrongly confused with Determinism or Fatalism. Although God may have already decided our destinies, he doesn't determine every single aspect of our lives. This idea undermines the notion that God gave us free agency. He acts in some ways as a mysterious guide who works to deliver us all to the same destination, but gives us the freedom to take different routes. In short, no, not everything is fixed in advance. God may have decided where we may finish, but it is our choice how we get there. Predestination works in conjunction with free agency. We are free to make our own choices and own mistakes.

Whilst I still don't like the idea of my destiny being in the hands of God, I can respect Bewes' argument. If God is in control of every aspect of our lives, then why would he guide some people to reject him? Why would he have allowed Judah and Israel to constantly worship other gods? Why would he allow the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf on Mount Sinai? Why would he allow Kaleth, Tor and the 500 Israelites to rebel against him in the Book of Numbers? To me, it doesn't make any sense that he would create somebody whose sole destiny is to deny his existence. The fact that he almost strikes down the Israelites on Mount Sinai, allows the earth to swallow Kaleth and the other rebels, and allows the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires to destroy Israel and Judah, demonstrates how he is willing to punish those who disobey him. To create someone for the sole purpose of rebelling against you and then killing them seems like a petty, violent thing to do, which is also highly contradictory of the notion of an omni-benevolent God. What is more logical is that free agency drove these people to do these things, and not some predetermined plan.  

Naomi had a different idea about predestination.  She believes that God is completely lord of all and only he can decide who's worthy of becoming a Christian.  She argued that God controls destiny in passive and active ways.  He has a plan for all of us and sometimes takes action to ensure we fulfill this plan.  For example, it has been argued that Jesus' death and crucifixion was part of God's divine plan.  This meant that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, was nothing more than a pawn, to be possessed to ensure that God's plan was carried out.

Despite having written a few articles about Christianity, I don't claim to be an expert and therefore I welcome all criticisms, comments and contradictions. Just keep it mature, intelligent and respectful.

Full Metal Jacket Review

Number 106 on the top 1000 films of all time is Stanley Kubrick's simple yet powerful Full Metal Jacket.

I've seen detractors of the film say that it is a film of two halves with little narrative in either.  I beg to differ.  I think it is this exact lack of narrative that makes the film so compelling.  Take, for example, Apocalypse Now, which is also about the Vietnam War.  Whilst Apocalypse Now is a great film, I did feel that as the narrative become more complicated that the focus on the characters progressively declined.  However, the stripped-back narrative of Full Metal jacket allowed the audience to see the psychological trauma that Vietnam Soldiers experienced in brutal, unflinching honesty.

The first half focuses on Privates James T. "Joker" Davis, (Matthew Modine,) Leonard "Pyle" Lawrence (Vincent D'onofrio) and Robert "Cowboy" Evans (Arliss Howard) as they navigate the gruelling Marine bootcamp.  Lee Erney puts in a terrifying, yet hilarious performance as the psychotic Drill Sergeant Hartman.  He chastises the recruits with the utmost of ridiculous of insults and takes a particular dislike to the overweight, dim-witted Private Pyle, whom he starts bullying.  It is difficult not to pity Pyle, who is obviously not fit for the Marines, no matter how hard he tries to succeed.  D'onofrio did well to make him pathetic, but endearing.  In one particular scene, Pyle is beaten by the other private, after they are all punished for Pyle's mistake.  His howls of pain and confusion were tragic to watch.

Pyle's transformation was also interesting to watch.  With a lot of help from Joker, we see Pyle begin to improve, which even Sergeant Hartman acknowledges.  In this half, Joker is more of a passive character, who witness how Pyle is psychologically broken, but also how he begins fixing himself.  Yet, we also see, through Joker's eyes, that Pyle's mental state is still very fragile, and he isn't far from snapping.  I feel that this is painfully true to real life, as not everybody would be able to withstand the psychological and physical strains of bootcamp.  I sure as hell wouldn't.  Just as all of the recruits graduate and it looks like Pyle has succeeded, he shoots Hartman and then commits suicide, all in full view of Joker.  This as a tragic end to a tragic character, but it also felt appropriate.  Pyle would have never lasted in Vietnam and it was a suitable, if distressing end, for his character.

Although the first half focuses on Pyle, it did well to show the effect this was having on Joker.  it obvious that he really cares about Pyle and wants him to improve.  He does beat Pyle with the other cadets, something which greatly disturbs him, as does Pyle's suicide.  This accentuated the camaraderie that all soldiers experienced, which was borne out of their collective suffering.

The location of the bootcamp was also done well, making it seem that the soldiers were being brainwashed to become nothing more than killing machines.  They are made to have the same haircut, the same clothes and made to recite the Rifleman's creed in unison.  The fact that the soldiers are portrayed as robots, makes it even more important that the narrative focuses on the very human story of Private Pyle.

The second half of the film takes place one year later, where Joker is now working in Vietnam, as a journalist, to write pro U.S propaganda.  The Vietnam war was not a popular one and the government needed everything they had to convince the public otherwise.  Joker, unsatisfied at being stuck behind the lines, is sent to the front with photographer Rafton.  I've seen other reviewers say that any narrative falls apart in this half, but I would disagree.  Whilst there might not be a traditional Voyage and Discovery or Overcoming the Monster narrative, what we receive is an intense character on soldiers in the Vietnam War.  The narrative lies in how each character reacts to the horrors that they experience.

We see many of these horrors through Joker's eyes, including a gunner indiscriminately shooting Vietnamese civillians, to dead Vietnamese dressed up as a soldiers and put on display.  I even read on IMDB that there was a deleted scene, which saw U.S soldiers playing football with a human head.  Joker and Rafton are sent to join the Lusthog Squad, where Cowboy is now a sergeant.  During a routine patrol, the squad's commanding officer is killed and two more men are wounded by a sniper, leaving Cowboy as the uneasy leader.  As well as Joer and Rafton, Cowboy also commands Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin.) Out of all the soldiers, Animal Mother is the most damaged, firmly believing that you have to fight to survive. Baldwin gave a great performance, portraying Animal, as deeply traumatised.  Whilst Cowboy is dithering over a plan, Animal leads a one-man assault to rescue his fallen comrades and to kill the enemy sniper, inspiring the rest of the squad to follow him.  The fallen soldiers die, as does Cowboy, leaving Animal to assume control.

Animal Mother leads the assault on the sniper's hiding place.  However, it is Joker that discovers the sniper is a 12 year old Vietnamese girl.  This emphasised the unflinching horror of a war that was so bad, it inspired children to fight.  Going to shoot him, Joker's gun jams and instead the girl fires on him.  Joker is only saved by Rafton gunning the girl down, although I found it a bit implausible that the girl missed Joker.  As the rest of the squad rendezvous, Joker requests that a mercy killing is performed on the dying girl.  The staunch Animal, who is content to let her bleed, says that Joker must perform it, which he does.  This kill marks Joker's first and leaves him with the 1000-yard stares, and also the first signs of his psyche deteriorating.  This brutal scene demonstrates just had damaged these men are, especially Animal Mother.  The film ends with the squad returning back to their base singing the "Mickey Mouse March."

You could certainly argue that this is a film of two halves, with two separate narratives, and little overlap between the two.  I did find it a little weird that Joker never spoke of Pyle, despite the effect he had on his life.  Yet nonetheless, Full Metal Jacket brilliantly demonstrated the dehumanising effect that war can have on soldiers.  After I finished watching it, I was lost for words, a feeling I've not experienced, since I watched Requiem for a Dream.  Although this film focusses on the Vietnam War, its timeless appeal means that it could apply to any of the wars that ravage today's society.

The Miserable Mill Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

The Wide Window Review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this review, then I have the dreaded fear that you are still refusing to heed my warnings. For I write these reviews, not to document the happy times of the Baudelaire orphan lives, of which there are few, but because they have to be told. Yet they are so Very Frightently Disastrous, that I am almost too afraid to release them for the general public, as they are so upsetting. Therefore, if you have the moral disposition to read this review, I congratulate you for finding it on the deep web, but I also urge that you tell nobody what you read, as this fourth installment of the Baudelaire lives is too sad to be read.

Before we get into the main content of this week's episode, let's jump straight to the main subplot and biggest mystery of the series thus far: who are “Mother” (Cobie Smulders” and “Father,” (Will Arnett.) Reason stood that they were initially the Baudelaire parents who had actually survived the fire and were looking to get back to their children. Personally, I thought that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, which I was terribly wrong about. Yet this episode we find out that they are the parents of Quigley, Duncan and Isadora. Book readers will know instantly who these characters are, but for those who don't, I won't spoil it for you, as we fail to discover anything else out about these characters. There was a little misdirect that could have fooled some people into thinking that they were the Baudelaire parents, but this seemed like too much of a deviation from the source material to actually be the case. Whatever the signficance of these characters, they soon meet a sticky end as their home is burnt down. We see two of the children at the end of the episode, but not their parents or sibling. Did they perish in the fire? We'll have to find out next time.

Now onto the meat and gravy of the actual episode – an expression which here means, the most significant piece of this episode of the Baudelaire lives, and has nothing to do with “meat or gravy.” The episode picks up where the last one picks off. The Baudelaires have snuck away from Mr Poe, hitchhiking in the back of the van heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill. Mr Poe is besides himself with panic, decrying that this is a catastrophe and, hilariously, “off-book,” which is a reference to how the source deviated from the canonised material. I'm loving all of these intertextual jokes, which keep the show refreshing. Intertextuality isn't a device often shown on television and it doesn't always work, but when it does work, like on this show, it works brilliantly.

We pick up on the Baudelaires who have just made their way to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill, which is where we see more deviations from the books. Upon entering the mill, they are found by Charles (Rhys Darby) who runs the mill and takes them to see his partner Sir (Don Johnson), who is the opposite of Charles. Charles is the latest in the longline of adult characters who despite being well-meaning are incapable of doing anything useful, whereas Sir is grumpy, strict and ruthless. He immediately puts the Baudelaires to work for trespassing in the Lumbermill, despite how they are just children. He also reveals that the reason that the town of Paltryville, where the Lucky Smells Lumbermill is based, is so run down is because the Baudelaire parents burnt down the town. The only buildings to survive are the lumbermill and Dr Georgina Orwell's Optometrist's office, which I'll discuss later.

The Baudelaires are sent to the dormitory where they meet their coworkers who are all downbeat, depressed and hostile to the Baudelaires, because of how their parents burnt down the town. This is all but Phil who is an optimist, who always finds a way to look on the bright side of life – a phrase which here means that can he always see the good side of everything. For example, if he had been tied to a cross with a young man called Brian who had been mistaken for Jesus, he would start happily singing, instead of crying, which is how most people would react.

Meanwhile, we find out that Count Olaf is hot on the heels of the Baudelaires, having tracked them down to the Lucky Smells Lumbermill. We also find that he is working in cahoots with Dr Georgina Orwell who is just as evil and ruthless as Olaf. It's revealed that Orwell and Olaf were once lovers, and I quite liked how their relationship was fleshed out like this. In the books, it's not always entirely clear, why the two are working together, but I feel that the TV series clears this up. It was also nice seeing Olaf interact with an evil person who isn't part of his theatrical troupe, but actually an equal of his. Sure, the Hook-Handed man is disguised as Foreman Flacutono, but it was nice to have a break from the rest of Olaf's henchpeople. Georgina Orwell was played by Catherine O'Hara, who played Justice Strauss in the Series of Unfortunate Events film and I think she's great in this. In the film adaptation, she didn't really have any time to develop or work with the character. However, with Dr Orwell, she received two episodes to really flesh out the character.

Olaf and Orwell's past relationship is shown in a black and white flashback, as well as are some scenes where Lemony Snicket is doing his usual dissection of popular expressions, and I loved the monochrome filter. It really helped to accentuate the noir tone of the TV series, which I've also adored.

Although the Baudelaires' labour at the lumbermill is difficult, they run into trouble when Foreman Flacutono trips Klaus over, causing his glasses to break. This is when he has to be taken to Dr Orwell who hypnotises him. Lemony Snicket takes us on another aside, as he explains how hypnosis works. However, what is more interesting that in the background, the film Hypnotists in the Forest is playing, which stars Jacquelyn, Mr Poe's secretary and assistant to the Baudelaires. Seeing her on the screen made me realise that she's not had any substantial role in the last couple of episodes, which I find highly disappointing. Her addition was also novel to the TV series and it looked like it would be another interesting mystery to solve, yet it completely fizzled out into nothing. What is her signficance? I hope we find out later on.

When Klaus is hypnotised, he causes an accident which leads to Phil's leg being broken and the Baudelaires being warned that if another accident is caused, they will be sent away from the mill to live with Shirley, which is Count Olaf's latest disguise. In another flashback, we find out that Shirley, who is acting as Dr Orwell's receptionist, has brokered this deal with Sir. After Klaus is unhypnotised and Violet informs him what has happened, the three decide to sneak into Dr Orwell's office and discover her evil plot. I'm also really enjoying how resolute and stoic the Baudelaire orphans are. I said it in my last review, they don't complain, they don't go around in self-pity, but rather they take it upon themselves to try to change their situation. We saw it at the end of the last episode, where they hitchhike to Lucky Smells out of their own volition, to try to find some answers the mysteries that are surrounding their lives.

However, when spying on Dr Orwell, the Baudelaires find that she is hypnotising Charles to poison him against the Baudelaires and convince him to send them to Sir. This made little sense to me, as Sir has already been established as a ruthless, cruel character. I don't think he needed any motivation to send the Baudelaires away, especially since the motivation comes from Charles, whom is much friendlier to the children. Honestly, it would make more sense if the cruel-hearted Sir was trying to convince the kind-hearted Charles to send the children away.

Also, the Baudelaires realise that Dr Orwell is also hypnotising the employees at the Lumbermill, which explains why they haven't left, despite being paid in coupons and fed with gum. This does clear up a plot hole that the book leaves, but it doesn't explain why the Lumbermill workers are so miserable. We see that they are immensely downtrodden, especially in a scene when they bitterly explain how they are paid in coupons to the Baudelaires. Surely if they're being hypnotised to remain in the Lumbermill, they'd be hypnotised to remain happy there.

Anyway, whilst Charles is hypnotised, he is tied to a log, which Klaus, also under hypnosis, is commanded to send into a sawing machine. Violet intervenes in time, finding the correct words to unhypnotise Klaus, Charles and the Lumbermill workers. In the ensuing chaos, Dr Orwell accidentally falls into the incinerator, Count Olaf and the Hook-Handed man escape, the workers revolt against Sir, who also has a narrow escape. Finally, Mr Poe catches up with the Baudelaires, due to his wife's experience as an investigative journalist. He takes them to the boarding school: the Prufrock Prepatory School, where we also see two of the children of “Mother” and “Father.” This is a return to the established canon, and I'm not sure I like it. When the Baudelaires ran away from Mr Poe, I thought that this would be another subplot, which would take a few episodes to resolve. However, Mr Poe's wife finds the children with the utmost of ease. I do realise that the writers were seeking to lampoon this exact point, but I don't think it worked. It felt like an obstacle for the sake of an obstacle. It bore no significance on the plot and just felt quite forced.

Yet the ending of the episode made up for all of its shortcomings. The episode concluded with a brilliant musical number titled That's not how the Story goes. It was absolutely hilarious, as we saw Lemony Snicket, Count Olaf, the Baudelaires and Mr Poe, singing in tandem about how we should never expect happy endings, as that's not how life works. It ties in brilliantly with the pessimistic tone of the series. However, I am afraid that now I have to end this review with some unfortunate news. I have to wait a whole year for season 2.

VFD and Literary References

Verified Functional Dictionary

Very Fancy Door

Vigorous Fire Defence

The letters on Dr Orwell's eye exam sign read VFD

At the beginning of the episode, Snicket dissects the expression “we're not out of the woods,” by referring to Hansel and Gretal, Little Red Riding Hood and also Henry David Thoreau's novel Walden.

Dr Georgina Orwell is an obvious reference to George Orwell.

Klaus says Samuel Beckett's quotation: “I can't go on. I will go on.”

Klaus also takes note at how the eyeglass logo of Dr Orwell's office looks similar to a symbol within the Great Gatsby.  

Some Like it Hot review

Some Like It Hot Review

Number 105 on the top greatest films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1959 Some Like it Hot

Set in 1929, Jerry (Jack Lemmon) and Joe (Tony Curtis) are two musicians who are down on their luck. Working to pay off their debts, the speakeasy they are playing in is raided by Prohibition Agents. A talent agent finds them work in Illinois and when they go to a garage to borrow a colleague's car, they bear witness to “Spats Columbo” (George Raft) massacring “Toothpick Charlie,” and his men, for betraying the location of the Speakeasy to the cops. To escape detection, Jerry and Joe take a gig in Florida, but the catch is that the band they're playing with is all women, meaning they have to dress up and act like women. Things get more complicated when both men become attracted to Sugar Cane (Marilyn Monroe) the ukulele player of the band.

Some Like it Hot has come to be known as one of the greatest comedies of all time and it was very easy to see why. There were some genuinely moments within the film, which is partially due to Jack Lemmon. Lemmon is a great comic actor and this really shone through, especially in the moments when both Lemmon and Curtis were in drag. Here we got to see how much trouble they were going through to avoid detection from the mob. From trying to walk in heels, to Joe disturbing Jerry's carefully placed brasserie and fake breasts, it was one laugh after the other. It also helped that both actors were incredibly charismatic, which also shone through. Jack Lemmon always ended one of the punchlines to his jokes with a very cheeky smile. Tony Curtis' character Joe was the straight man of the two and the pair bounced well off each other. These qualities also made the characters quite endearing and sympathetic. They're a little goofy, but ultimately good-hearted, which also left them plenty of room to develop. They begin as irresponsible womanisers, but transform into men who begin taking life more seriously.

As for the conflict that the two experienced, I read on IMDB that Billy Wilder wanted the film set in Prohibition to give the characters adequate motivation to dress in drag. Columbo's killing of Toothpick Charlie was a reference to Al Capone's orchestration of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. I think the name “Columbo” could be an allusion to Columbo family of New York. At the end of the film, Columbo and his men attend Florida, not because they've tracked down Jerry and Joe, but because of a meeting with the other mob bosses. However, this was a trap, as the bosses ended up killing Columbo for causing too much noise. Although, of course, this isn't how Capone died, but it's no secret that he did generate a lot of unwanted attention with the press. As far as villains go, Columbo was a bit “run of the mill,” but he didn't need to be anymore than this and Raft played him, as he needed to.

If the film falls down anywhere, it would be the more romantic sections. Whilst Jerry and Joe both initially compete for Sugar Cane's affections, Joe eventually comes out on top. And it is the scenes with Joe and Sugar together that, I felt, bogged down the film. I feel that things became overly-sentimental, especially when Sugar was speaking about how all of the men in her life let her down. For me, the main conflict was with Joe and Jerry trying to outwit the mob and the scenes with Sugar distracted from this. Also, Marilyn Monroe's performance didn't help either. From what I read on IMDB, she was a nightmare to work with, from how she would turn up to set hours late or continually fluff her lines, making her quite deserving of the title: “the Blonde Bombshell.” Her performance of Sugar felt quite forced.

What is the trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?

Where do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?

The next twenty questions of Richard Bewes' book focusses on the Truth We Believe.

Q.22 The Trinity to other religions?

As a student, I get so frustrated when talking with non-Christian groups at my campus, about the Trinity.  Your help, please.

Richard Bewes' response hinges on the omnipresence of Jesus, and by extension, God.  He highlights that as a corporeal being, Jesus, only came into existence in 4 or 5 BC.  However, on a spiritual level, he has existed as part of the Trinitarian God throughout the whole of history.  Allusions to the Coming of Christ exist throughout the Old Testament, particularly in Isaiah and the Minor Prophets:

"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.  Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the Lord Almighty." Malachi 3:1

Bewes then references Exodus 33:20, which tells the story of the Angel of the Lord.  Moses is communicating with God, who is shrouded in darkness, on Mount Sinai.  When Moses asks to see God, God replies "you cannot see my face for no one may see me and live." Bewes continues by arguing that this is a common pattern throughout the scripture: God - the father, unseen by his people facilitates in his domain, Jesus, the son, acts out his work on Earth (and I personally think that the Old Testament Prophets and leaders e.g Moses, Isaiah, Joshua play a similar role) and the spirit exists internally within us.  We find salvation with this Trinity through the "will of the Father, the saving work of the Son, and the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit."

Bewes is arguing that the three elements of the Trinity are simultaneously interrelated, but are also independent of each other.  My friend Naomi explained the Trinity in a similar way: God, the father, created the world and also judges it, God the son, aka Jesus, who is God incarnate and lived the perfect live that we all should've lived, and the spirit which is what leads to people believing in Jesus and becoming Christians.

Other religions and even other denominations don't believe in the Holy Trinity.  One of the core differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that the latter doesn't believe in the Holy Trinity.  Judaism and Islam don't like the idea of the Trinity, as to them it looks like they're worshipping three separate gods.  This idea isn't compatible with their monotheistic beliefs.

24. Where does Jesus fit in?

I can under God, but I can't see where Jesus fits into the picture.

When I initially read this question, I was baffled by its inclusion.  Surely everybody knows the significance of Jesus Christ? Then I realised that I had made the fatal mistake of over-simplifying religion.  Naomi told me that in the past she has wondered about Jesus' place, when she was having doubts about her faith.

Richard Bewes quickly points out that we can understand how Christ fits in, when we realise that everything begins with Jesus.  Just like I was discussing before, he has existed since the beginning of time.  Through his role as a mediator between us and God, can we achieve salvation.

Bewes' argues that "Christ's name claims supreme recognition in all the areas of life that matter most:"

The World of Worship where Paganism and polytheism gave way to the monotheistic Christianity.

The World of Suffering, where the suffering of the leaders of history and thought is nothing compared to the suffering of Christ or God.

Christ has also inspired a World of Creativity, due to his influence on paintings, literature and architecture, which would be meaningless without his presence.

Finally, his life is supreme in the World of Eternity.  His longevity of his significance.  I am just the latest in a long of writers who love to discuss Christ.

I can definitely agree with Bewes' World of Worship and Eternity arguments.  To think about how polytheism was subordinated by the monotheistic Christianity is evidence of its power.  Although, whether this was more of the result of Emperor Constantine or the power of Christ is up for debate.  Classicists, please correct me in the comments below.

It is the World of Suffering and Creativity arguments that I take issue with.  Bewes argues that when we put the leaders of history and of thought together, it is evident that none of them suffered as Jesus did.  My question is, how could you argue that one person's suffering is greater than another's? What measurable scale is there for that? Yes, Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, but the Romans executed scores of Christians who refused to abandon God.  Nero tied them to stakes, covered them in tar and set them alight.  The vast majority of Jesus' disciples were martyred.  Peter was crucified upside down by Nero.  Fast forward to the Tudors and Mary I burned countless Protestants at the stake.  Was Jesus' suffering any worse than these innocent Christians?

Onto the World of Creativity, I'm not denying that Christ and religion hasn't had a considerable influence on art and literature.  Just look at the roof of the Sistine Chapel, Dante's The Divine Comedy or John Milton's Paradise Lost. What I don't like is how Bewes concludes by arguing that "atheism, by its very nature could never have this impact, for atheism has no wings." As I have said before, Bewes is offensive to non-Christians, and by doing so, is perpetuating the misconception that religious people are too close-minded to deviate from their monopoly of truth.  Atheism has been just as influential as Christianity.  It was the questioning of these beliefs that led to the Age of Enlightenment, which in turn, led to secularisation.  I don't think that people would be asking questions like, "where does Jesus fit in," if it wasn't for Atheism shaking their faiths.  And as for literature, I'd like to just mention one book you may have heard of, Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion.

30. Does Purgatory exist?
What is purgatory, and how should we think of it?

Richard Bewes argued that the notion of purgatory, that is a waiting place between heaven and hell, where a person's soul is judged and cleansed, emerged at the end of the second century AD and eventually became fully accepted by the Greek and Latin churches at the church of Florence in 1439. However, Bewes then categorically states that "purgatory does not exist."  He asserts that its very notion undermines what Jesus died for.  We all know that Jesus died for our sins and upon his death, all of our sins were forgiven.  Purgatory implies that his sacrifice was in vain and it was imperfect.

 Furthermore, Bewes argues that purgatory shouldn't be regarded as a waiting room for the next life.  We should aim to use our current lives to prepare for the next, not wait around until we reach purgatory.  Naomi similarly argued that the whole notion of purgatory diminishes God's grace.  She said it doesn't exist, as Jesus died for our sins.  I find myself agreeing with both Bewes and Naomi.

 The whole idea of purgatory makes no sense, as it is completely contradicts some of the most commonly-held beliefs of Christianity.  It also serves to undermine God's divine authority.  Why would he allow his own son to die for our sins, if we are to be cleanse by them in purgatory.  Also I think that the absence of purgatory encourages people to do good in their current lives.  Rather than trusting their sins will be washed away in purgatory, they will work hard in their present lives to ensure that they go to heaven.

Comment your own thoughts, comments and criticisms.  Just keep it respectful.

The Wide Window Review

The Bad Beginning Review

The Reptile Room Review

Dear Reader,

when we like to read reviews of our favourite television shows or movies, we like to see what others think.  However, I find it difficult to believe that A Series of Unfortunate Events is anybody's favourite television show, as it focuses on the Baudelaire orphans who encounter much misfortune in their lives.  In this challenging chronicle, they meet a relative who's scared of everything, Violently Ferocious Dreadful leeches, a powerful hurricane and peppermints.  I have no idea why would you want to read a review of such thing, so I implore you to be please click off this screen now.

The Wide Window begins in classic A Series of Unfortunate Events form with a parody of a news report informing the viewer of everything that has happened so far.  The news anchors then hand over to Lemony Snicket, (Patrick Warburton) who introduces the current story to the audience.  The Baudelaire orphans have arrived on the shores of Lake Lachrymose to stay with their latest relative, Aunt Josephine (Alfre Woodard.) Aunt Josephine has a nervous disposition - a phrase which here means that "she is absolutely afraid of everything, from being electrocuted by the telephone to having the stove burst into flames if it is turned one." Aunt Josephine is also a complete grammar Nazi - a phrase which here means "somebody who takes complete delight in correcting somebody's grammar." I'll discuss Woodard's excellent performance later, but for now, I'll just say that she did a great job as Aunt Josephine.  She was hilarious without being over the top.  All of her little nervous ticks and twitches did well to enhance her character.

Whilst the Baudelaires are becoming acquainted with Aunt Josephine, we also learn much more about "Mother" (Cobie Smulders) and "Father." (Will Arnett) We find out that they are indeed husband and wife, proving my theory that they were Kit and Jacques Snicket, unquestionably wrong.  However, beyond this, we don't know much.  They are no longer in Peru, but ready to fly a Cessna back home.

At the same time, we also find out that the Baudelaires have an unknown friend in the form of Larry the Waiter who works at the Anxious Clown restaurant.  He also appears to be part of the mysterious organisation that the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty were part of.  The scenes with Larry contain important world-building, as we find out that he has deep ties to Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) who has tracked the Baudelaires to Lake Lachrymose and has set up base in the Anxious Clown restaurant.  Whilst Larry was in the books, he was nothing more than a waiter, so I am interested in how he has been elevated to such an important role.  I am also intrigued at the further development of the secret organisation V.F.D.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Baudelaires also discover that Aunt Josephine is also connected to V.F.D, having known the Baudelaire parents and Uncle Monty for a long time.  However, we don't find out anymore, as Aunt Josephine refuses to speak anymore about it.  Instead, she goes shopping, to ensure that her and the Baudelaires have enough food to last Hurricane Herman.  Whilst she is away, the Baudelaires sneak around and find a photo of Uncle Monty, "Mother" and "Father," another couple next to them, Aunt Josephine and Larry the waiter, all standing in front of Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  I think that the unnamed couple standing next to "Mother" and "Father" are the Baudelaire parents and "Mother" and "Father" are simply red herrings.

Aunt Josephine returns to the house bringing back none other than Captain Sham, whom is really Count Olaf in disguise.  Whilst the Baudelaires instantly see through his disguise, Aunt Josephine falls for him "hook, line and sinker" - a phrase which here has nothing to do with fishing, but means that Aunt Josephine was completely fooled by Count Olaf.  Here, I find myself agreeing with Zach Handlen of A.V Club's comments concerning Aunt Josephine being so utterly tricked.  He argues that "the death of her beloved husband, Ike, has made her a shell of her former self," which I think makes sense.  It was odd that Uncle Monty was fooled by Count Olaf's disguise, despite how he was well-trained in espionage and secret disguises and codes.  However, Ike's death has left Aunt Josephine so hurt and lonely that I think it makes perfect sense that she would fall for Captain Sham, in spite of how she received similar training to Uncle Monty, to the extent that she knew Olaf in a past life.  This also goes back to Woodard's great performance who portrayed Josephine as sympathetic, but also quite pitiful.  It's easy to feel sorry for her.  What I find is a bit weird is that Captain Sham, uses a lot of nautical slang, which Aunt Josephine doesn't seem to have a problem with.  Sure, she corrects the "it's/its" error on his business card, but she is perfectly okay with the rest of Captain Sham's grammatically incorrect speech.

However, Aunt Josephine doesn't live long to realise her mistake, as she kills herself, leaving the Baudelaires in the care of Captain Sham, which she writes in her suicide note.  SPOILER ALERT: she's not actually dead.  "Not Yet," anyway, as Lemony Snicket states, concluding the first part of the episode.  As far as first parts go, I'm not sure how keen I was on this one.  A lot of it seemed like just set-up and preparation for the second half.  Maybe it'd've been nicer, if we actually saw more things occurring.

Anyway, moving onto part 2, which opens on the hapless banker Mr Poe (K. Todd Pressman) coming to collect the Baudelaires to take them to brunch with Captain Sham, so that they can finalise the adoption proceedings.  As usual, Mr Poe refuses to believe the Baudelaires when they state that Captain Sham is really Count Olaf in disguise, and takes them to the Anxious Clown for lunch.  This is where we get one of the funnier scenes of the episode, as we see Larry the Clown desperately trying to help the Baudelaires, whilst Count Olaf's troupe keep a watchful eye on him.  Even though they don't really do too much in this episode, it's always great seeing them as an ensemble, which is where they work best.  Having said that, Larry is about as much use as Jacquelyn really.  He buys the Baudelaires sometime through feeding them peppermints, which they're allergic too, but doesn't do a whole lot else.

Whilst Mr Poe and Captain Sham stay in the Anxious Clown, the Baudelaires return to Aunt Josephine's home to figure out the real mystery that is happening.  A task not made easy by the fact that Hurricane Herman is now in full force.  However, this does little to deter the savvy Klaus, who soon deduces that Aunt Josephine left a secret code in her suicide note, revealing that she is alive and is hiding in Curdled Cave.  Klaus determines this just as Hurricane Herman begins to buffet the house and I'd agree with Zach Handlen, that this was one of the more unbelievable moments of the show.  Yes, I know that a Series of Unfortunate Events is supposed to be Absurdist fiction, but when you see Klaus doing a ridiculous feet and the house rocking back and forth on its foundations, the boundaries of this genre are pushed a bit far.  Aunt Josephine's house is built on the edge of the cliff, which Hurricane Herman threatens to topple, before conveniently righting it, allow the Baudelaires enough time to escape.  All a bit too much for me.

Anyway, the Baudelaires then steal a sailboat to sail across Lake Lachrymose to rescue Aunt Josephine, leading to another great scene, involving Lemony Snicket.  In a brilliant lampooning of the "don't try this at home," messages, Snicket implores viewers to "don't steal sailboats and sail them across a lake in a hurricane," yet Warburton's voice is so full of exasperation, that it's implied that anybody who is stupid enough to do this, deserves any consequences they receive.

The Baudelaires reach Curdled Cave, where they find Aunt Josephine who reveals that Count Olaf forced her to write that note and told her to kill herself.  However, two things here don't match up for me.  Firstly, why would Count Olaf rely on Aunt Josephine to commit suicide, and not do the job himself? We know that he is perfectly capable of killing, so it is a bit strange that he wouldn't murder Josephine and have everyone else think it was a suicide.  Secondly, it is also a bit odd, that a woman too afraid to use a telephone, in case she is electrocuted, would be brave enough to defy a villain like Count Olaf, by faking her death and leaving a hidden code.

As the Baudelaires and Aunt Josephine are returning over Lake Lachrymose, they are attacked by the Lachrymose Leeches.  They escape their near predicament through Violet ingenuity, but also by "Mother" and "Father" who happen to by flying their Cessna over Lake Lachrymose.  Violet has the idea of signalling for attention by creating a fire.  She tries to light a scarf on fire by refracting the beam of the Lighthouse through a spyglass, but the angle is wrong.  As "Mother" and "Father" fly past and observe what is happening through a pair of binoculars, the light first hits the binoculars, before hitting the spyglass, which is enough to set the scarf alight.  I didn't like this, as it is reminiscent of Deux Ex Machina - a Latin phrase which translates as the Machine of God, and has gone to signify an external device, which saves the protagonist at the last minute - a writing device that Snicket lampoons heavily in the later books.  I think it very much undermines Violet's Fabulously Delightful inventing ability.  It would have been better if she had set the scarf aflame without any external help whatsoever.

Anyway, the Baudelaires' signal attracts the attention of Captain Sham who rescues them in his signal boat.  The Baudelaires confront Captain Sham on his nefarious plot, claiming that they went to rescue Josephine, so that she can tell everybody the truth about what happened.  Josephine then exhibits incredible bravery by standing up to Captain Sham, confronting him on all of the evil he has committed.  However, this is all to little avail, as Captain Sham pushes her overboard to the leeches.  I have less of a problem with the courage that Josephine exhibits here, as it isn't as nearly sudden or abrupt.  It is made obvious that she has been inspired by the bravery of the Baudelaires.

Captain Sham takes the Baudelaires to shore, where they meet Mr Poe.  Just as it looks like the orphans will be adopted by Captain Sham, Sunny bites through his wooden peg leg, exposing him as Count Olaf.  As Mr Poe begins arguing with Count Olaf, the Baudelaires sneak into the back of a truck which is heading towards Lucky Smells Lumbermill.  This is another major deviation from the book series, but it is an intriguing development, and I look forward to seeing where the series goes from here.

V.F.D and Literary References

1. One of the News Anchors is called Vincent Fig Demetrios.

2. Damocles Dock, which serves Lake Lachrymose is named after the figure in Sicilian Mythology.

3. The taxi driver that takes the Baudelaires to Aunt Josephine's house espouses a literary analysis of Herman Melville's Moby Dick, and of course, Hurricane Herman, is named after Herman Melville.

4. When Aunt Josephine is shopping for food, we see one market trader crying out "Very Fresh Dill."

5. Aunt Josephine admits that her choice to leave the hidden code and fake her own death was a "Very Frightening Decision."

6. The Baudelaires quote Haruki Marukami concluding the second part of The Wide Window:

“And once the storm is over, you won’t remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won’t even be sure, whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won’t be the same person who walked in. That’s what this storm’s all about.”

How Big was the Flood and Why Doesn't God intervene?

Part One

The next ten questions of Bewes' book continue to concern themselves with The Universe we Inhabit. He broaches such topics as the origin of evil spirits, the end of the universe, what angels really are and why doesn't God intervene? However, just the same as my previous article, I will only be tackling a few of these questions.

12. How Big was the Flood?

A Mesopotamian Disaster, or a world catastrophe? The Flood continues to fuel speculation worldwide

Within this question, Bewes is addressing the story of Noah and the great Flood that is written about in Genesis 6-8.  God, seeing how humanity has become wicked, swears to destroy them all in a great flood, except for Noah and his family.  Even though I had to explain it, as Bewes rightly points out, it doesn't need to be explained, as it is "firmly embedded in the human memory on every continent." Bewes proceeds to explain that similar flood narratives exist in Hindu, Chinese, Cherokee and Babylonian traditions.  This was an idea that fascinated me.  In my own naivety, I didn't expect these biblical narratives to exist across the world, but it makes perfect sense when you think about how the bible was compiled.  These are ideas that I will explain further in later articles, but I think there's a common misconception that the bible was transcribed as it happened.  This wasn't strictly true.  Rather, it was written down about five hundred years after everything had occurred.  Before this, the stories had existed in an oral tradition, circulating for centuries, no doubt being embellished and altered, as time progressed.  When the bible was compiled, it was done so from a variety of sources by a variety of authors.

As for the size of the flood or whether it actually happened, this is, as Bewes argues, is not nearly important as to what the flood represents.* Bewes asserts that if we become obsessed with the technicalities of the flood, we distract ourselves from its true message: primarily, a warning for future generations, but also an example of behaviour for others to follow.  I find myself agreeing with Bewes' argument, and this is something else I will touch upon in the future, as I believe that too many people take the bible literally.  They interpret everything as it actually happened, when in actuality, a lot of the events are symbolic of bigger ideas.

19. Why doesn't God Intervene?

As I look at the violence and persecution of the world today, at the ethnic and sectarian strife, I long for God to intervene.  Surely he could put these things right at a single stroke?

Another common question in relation to Christianity.  If God is an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being, then why doesn't he wipe out all of the evil in the world? Bewes respond to this question with this argument:

"Many people long that violence and pain could be banished - but the answer to our question is itself a question: 'How Righteous are YOU?' What risk of you being wiped out with the rest of the evil-doers, if God was going to end the troubles just like that?

The Bible teaches that God is going to act at a single stroke.  In fact it keeps warning us that he will (Zephaniah 1:2, 18; Revelation 20:10, 14) But when it happens, it will only be on a day and time, known only to him (Matthew 24:36.) And it will be the end of the world."

Bewes continues by arguing that God far from being a wrathful being is also a patient one.  He doesn't want to wipe out humanity, but he will if he has to.  This is why he repeatedly sends us prophets and messengers to guide us in the right direction.  It is only when he has no other choice does he act on his words.  Obviously, Bewes is referring to the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ, but we see multiple instances of genocide in the bible, as God kills his people.  The obvious example is one we've already discussed: The Flood, but there was also the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, the ransacking of Canaan in the book of Joshua, and how he allows the Assyrian Empire to destroy Israel and the Babylonian Empire to destroy Judah.  Within these cities, the people had turned against God, despite how he sent them judges, prophets and kings to lead them back into the light.  God wants to believe that humanity will learn from their mistakes, but when they repeatedly disappoint them, he has no choice but to punish them.  Like any good disciplinarian, he has to follow through on his threats to maintain respect.

I think the problem with these ideas lie not within Bewes' argument, but within the actual question.  God gave us free will and, thus I believe that, he gave us the ability to solve our own problems.  By constantly complaining that an external force is not doing anything to help us with OUR own problems, we're shifting the responsibility away from us.  What would be better is if we took accountability for our own actions, rather than blame others for problems that are entirely our fault.

*I actually did a little research into whether the Flood did occur and I found a few sources, which assert a few different arguments for why it could have happened.

Jenna Millman, Bryan Taylor and Lauren Effron of ABC news published an article, which argues that evidence has been unearthed demonstrating that the great flood did occur.  Within it, they write about underwater archaeologist, Robert Ballard's findings.  Ballard used advanced robotic technology to investigate a theory made by students at Columbia University.  They argued that the Black Sea was "once an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland, until it was flooded by an enormous wall of water from the rising sea." Upon investigation, Ballard and his team discovered an ancient shoreline with shells that carbon-dated to 5,000 BC, which is when scholars believed that the flood occurred.  Ballard went on to find pottery, man-made structures and also a shipwreck.

Millman et al also make reference to biblical archaeologist Eric Cline who argued that "the earlier Mesapotamian stories are very similar where the gods are sending floods to wipe out humans," thus it can be argued that the biblical narrative was inspired by the Mesapotamian one.

Lorence G. Collins  follows a simple line of argument, asserting that whilst the flood may have occurred, whether it covered the entire Earth is a matter of perspective.  Collins argues that storms in Mesapotamia can lead to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers overflowing and flooding the surrounding areas.  If abundant rain fell across Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, then this could lead to the tributaries all contributing to the volume of the floodplains of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.  After the flood had occurred and Noah was in his ark, due to the curvature of the Earth, he wouldn't be able to see the peaks of any hills, as the Earth's curvature prevents it.  Thus, from his perspective, it would have been like that the entire Earth had been flooded.

As always, leave your challenges, interpretations and thoughts below.  Read the two sources I cited for yourself and let me know what you think.

Amadeus Review

Number 104 on the top 1000 films of all time is Milos Forman's 1984 Amadeus.

Amadeus centres on the life and career of the 18th-century classical composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce.)  It is told from the perspective of his greatest rival Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham.)  Salieri, jealous of Mozart's success, befriends Mozart with the intention of murdering him and passing off Mozart's Requiem, as his own work.

Similar to other historical films, such as Braveheart, Amadeus takes a little, or in this case, a lot of creative license, in the name of creating an entertaining film.  It plays with the popular misconception that Salieri despised Mozart, when they were actually great friends, with Salieri going on to tutor Mozart's son.  However, this doesn't remove from the fact that Amadeus is a good, entertaining film.  What might take away from this is how Amadeus, like Braveheart, is three hours long, but unlike Braveheart, isn't entertaining throughout.  However, I'll come to this later.

The film open on an elderly Salieri attempting to commit suicide.  After his attempt fails, he is taken to a mental asylum.  The image of the mental asylum was a frightening one, as mental illness was something not well understood in the 18th century.  There were men locked in cages and others running amok.  Salieri, himself, is in his own private room and is visited by Father Vogler (Richard Frank) who intends to hear his confession.  This is where Salieri explains his long relationship with Mozart.  The rest of the film is told retrospectively from Salieri's perspective.

We discover that Salieri is part of the cultural elite in Vienna, as well as the court composer of Joseph II (Jeffrey Jones.) Salieri believes his musical successes are a gift from God, and when the child prodigy Mozart arrives on the scene, Salieri is keen to meet him thinking that his talents are also a gift from God.  This is where Salieri sees that despite Mozart's talent, he is obnoxious, immature and rude.

I feel that this is usually the case of many child geniuses and I think that Tom Hulce played the role well.  His portrayal of Mozart was no doubt annoying, especially with his irritating frilly laugh (a nice touch by Hulce) but I also think realistic of child geniuses and the pressures that they go through.  Mozart has many contentious relationships, including with his father and wife Constanza (Elizabeth Berridge.) I also enjoyed Berridge's portrayal of Constanza.  She was a loyal and loving wife, but her relationship to Mozart becomes increasingly strained.  This is the result of the family's finances growing and the Mozart's commissions decreasing.

When Mozart is commissioned by an undercover Salieri to write the Requiem, but also by Emanuel Schikander (Simon Callow) to write the Magic Flute, he becomes agitated and paranoid, pushing his marriage and health to breaking point.  Hulce portrays this relationship well and his transformation is good to see.  He goes from a talented, but spoilt brat into a dedicated and obsessive composer who prioritises his work over his health.  Eventually, the stress of his working life is enough to kill him.

Salieri's transformation was also powerful to see.  Initially, he is only mildly threatened by Mozart's talent, especially after Mozart upstages him by effortlessly playing his "March of Welcome," after only hearing it once.  Yet, Salieri becomes obsessed with defeating Mozart, believing that God is using Mozart to mock Salieri's own mediocrity.  Mediocrity is a big theme of the film and Salieri's greatest fear.  His obsession becomes his greatest downfall, as it transforms into guilt, leading to his internment at the mental asylum.  F. Murray Abraham did well to convey this and I think he was well deserving of the Oscar he won.

The regular cut of Amadeus is 2 and a half hours long.  I watched the Director's cut which is closer to 3 hours.  It did not need to be 3 hours.  At times, I found it quite tedious and on other occasions, I almost fell asleep.  By far the most boring sections were the actual operas and performances.  I know that this is a film about classical composers, so operas are bound to crop up, but they slowed down the pace of the film.  This is probably more of a personal criticism, as I've never had a great interest in operas, but I didn't find these sections very interesting.

The Reptile Room Review

Dear Reader,

if you are reading this review, I can only assume that you think the life of the Baudelaire orphans has improved.  Whilst this is an optimistic thought, it is a futile one, as only rarely do the the lives of the Baudelaires improve.  I am sorry to say that the second chapter of the Baudelaire orphans' lives is just as upsetting as the first, so I implore you t find a more enjoyable use of your time.

The Reptile Room picks up where The Bad Beginning leaves off.  With Lemony Snicket (Patrick Warburton) explaining why viewers should turn away from their screens.  You would think that after a couple of episodes, this would become tedious, but Patrick Warburton's excellent deadpan delivery, keeps it fresh and funny.

We see the inept banker Mr. Poe (K. Todd Pressman) take the Baudelaires to their next guardian Dr Montgomery Montgomery or Uncle Monty.  So far, I am liking Malina Weissman, Louis Hynes and Presley Smith, as Violet, Klaus and Sunny respectively.  Their portrayals of the Baudelaires are intelligent and mature, surprisingly so, after the tragedy they have just experienced.  With characters like this, it could be easy to portray them as deeply bitter, understandably so, but all three actors, especially Louis Hynes, play their roles with great sympathy.

We are then introduced to Uncle Monty (Aasif Mandvi) and we see that he is the epitome of a "mad scientist" - a phrase which here means "a man of learning who likes to rob graves at night, stitch the body part together and scream IT'S ALIVE." He is more than a mad scientist though, he is a Herpetologist, which means he studies reptiles.  Mandvi does well in his role, effortlessly bringing the eccentric scientist to life.  His presence fills the screen, as it is obvious that he is an interesting, jubilant man, with a few secrets to hide.

Speaking of secrets, we also immediately discover that Uncle Monty was intimately acquainted with the Baudelaire parents and also had some connection to a secret organisation.  When the Baudelaires see a blueprint of the maze surrounding Uncle Monty's house, they discover from above, it looks like the logo of V.F.D a.k.a the eye that decorates Count Olaf's ankle.  This early introduction of V.F.D is a novel addition to the TV and I'm interesting to see where it ends up.  As it original, it adds a nice mystery to be solved and keeps the audience guessing.

At this point, you may think that the Baudelaires live happily ever after, but as Lemony Snicket points out, happily ever afters only exist in stories meant for small children.  This, in itself, was a lovely reference to the TV series' source material, which is of course written for children.  The Baudelaire's happiness is interrupted by the arrival of Count Olaf (Neil Patrick Harris) who is disguised as Stephano, Uncle Monty's new lab assistant, after his old lab assistant Gustav, unexpectedly resigned.  Of course, we know that he was killed last episode, in an example of dramatic irony.  However, this disguise does little to fool the Baudelaires who confront Olaf about his scheme.  This is where we see Harris play the different elements of Olaf well.  At first, he is playing such a ridiculous character that it is difficult to take him seriously, but he then becomes instantly menacing, as he threatens to cut off one of Sunny's toes.  This is a Venemously, Feckless, Despicable thing to do, but it is enough to cover the Baudelaires into submission.  Uncle Monty is also seemingly not convinced by Stephano's disguise, but he has his own plans for Stephano.

Firstly, Uncle Monty plans to take Stephano and the BAudelaires to the movies, which is where we get one of the funnier moments of the episode.  Stephano confesses that he's always preferred long-form television to films, before staring into the camera.  This is an obvious reference to Netflix, which produced the series, but I also think a subtle dig at the failure of the film adaptation.  After this interaction, the Baudelaires, Uncle Monty and Stephano go to see Zombies in the Snow, which has a hidden message within it.  Not only does Jacquelyn, Mr Poe's former secretary and generally mysterious person, star in the film telling him to take the children to Peru.  We learn that the Baudelaires have more friends than they realise.  Book-readers will know that the schism, which split V.F.D into villains and volunteers, occurred long before the books actually began, but I think that in the series, the schism is still happening.

After the film has finished, Uncle Monty confronts Stephano is the parking lot, where I have to echo Zack Handlen of AV Club's criticism of this scene.  We already know that Uncle Monty is well-versed in the nature of secret codes, disguises and organisations.  He could well be on the volunteer side of V.F.D.  We find out that he has known who Stephan is all along - a spy from the Herpetological society, and not Count Olaf.  Count Olaf is as surprised as I was, and this just doesn't make sense.  For all the above reasons, it is implied that Uncle Monty is well trained in subterfuge, so he should be able to recognise Stephano for who he really was.

Anyway, after Uncle Monty sends Stephano away, he takes the children home and puts them to bed, which marks the end of the first part of the episode.

The second part opens, once again, with Lemony Snicket explaining how unless we've lost a loved one, we cannot imagine how it would feel.  The Baudelaires have already lost their parents, and I'm sorry to admit, have lost Uncle Monty as well, who has seemingly died of a snakebite from the Incredibly Deadly Viper.  Stephano then kidnaps the children in the hopes of whisking them away to Peru, when who should they run into, but Mr Poe.  Although, there is plenty of humour in the series, I think Mr Poe is the comedy relief, ue to his sheer incompetence, despite how he tries to do the right thing.  He refuses to listen to the Baudelaires, when they accuse Stephano of being Count Olaf, but he does insist that the proper authorities are called to investigate the case.  Cue the arrival of Count Olaf's henchpeople disguised as coroners, policemen and nurses.  Mr Poe quickly sends the children away, as the adults get on with the work.

In the books, typically only one henchperson appears at a time, but I'm glad the TV series is including them as an ensemble - a French word which here means "all together," as this is how they best function.  The henchpeople are a different form of character relief, as they prove that adults can be incompetent and get away with it, because they're adults.  For example, the Hench-person of Indeterminate Gender, despite playing a nurse, is afraid of being in a room with a dead body and the bald man with the long nose refers to the investigation as a murder, when it's supposed to be an accident. Although they are great separately, when they're all together, they're doubly hilarious and threatening.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Baudelaires are carrying out an investigation of their own to prove that Uncle Monty was murdered by Count Olaf.  Klaus studies Uncle Monty's research, Violet invents a lockpick to break into Stephano's suitcase and look for clues, whilst Sunny aims to create a distraction to keep the adults off her sibling's backs - a phrase which here means "keeping the adult's attention diverted away from her siblings, and has nothing to do with being on somebody's back.  This distraction sets up one of the funniest moments of the show, however, before I explain that, I have to once again use the hackneyed expression "meanwhile back at the ranch" to discuss the Incredibly Deadly Viper.  This snake is Uncle Monty's prized specimen and its name is a misnomer, a phrase which I'm sure you well know means "a name designed to make the snake sound scarier than it is, when it is actually one of the friendliest and least deadly animals in the animal kingdom." Sunny demonstrates this fact by playing with the snake in full view of the adults, thus also demonstrating that it was wrongly framed as Uncle Monty's successor.

This is where K. Todd Pressman shines as Mr Poe.  Upon seeing this scene, Mr Poe panics blurting out random gibberish, such as "good God, golly, Zeus and Hera, Nathaniel Hawthorne, grab the snake, don't touch it, call the police, call my wife." His physical comedy mixed with his timing makes this a hilarious scene.  After he calms down, Violet and Klaus enter and unmask both Stephano and his plot to murder Uncle Monty.  Olaf and his henchpeople make a quick escape with the Baudelaires following Olaf into the maze.  Although they soon lose him, they find Jacquelyn who has been disguised as a statue in the middle of the maze.  After revealing and doing very little, she proceed to pursue Count Olaf.  She swaps her revealing statue costume for a black number, but curiously leaves on the body paint.

The Baudelaires return to Mr Poe who makes an unconvincing promise that the authorities will catch up with Olaf before whisking them off to their next guardian.

We eventually catch up with Count Olaf who is on a ship to Peru, where he counters Jacquelyn.  The two have a brief fight culminating with Count Olaf jumping out the window.  The significance of this scene, I'm not quite sure, as well as the significance of Jacquelyn's character.

The episode ends on the characters of "Mother" (Cobie Smulders) and "Father" (Will Arnett) who have made it to Peru in the hopes of rendezvousing with Uncle Monty and the Baudelaires.  Their identity has also yet to be revealed.  I don't think that they are the Baudelaire parents, but rather Kit and Jacques Snicket, with "Mother" and "Father" being code names.  In this world of secret codes and organisations, it is certainly possible.

VFD and Literary References

"Very Fitting Definition."

"Verified Film Discount"

"Vitiated Film Distribution"

Mr Poe references Nathanial Hawthorne, the famous American Transcendentalist - "a phrase which here means, a group of 18 and 19th century American writers who rejected modern technology and society, in an attempt to return to nature and finding salvation within"

When Stephano is discussing Uncle Monty's snakes, he says that "the Virginian Woolfsnake could bludgeon you to death with a typewriter." This is a reference to the dreary and monotonous Modernist writer Virginia Woolf - "dreary and monotonous" is a phrase which here means, slow, boring prose where very little happens and the action is largely internalised within the character's minds."

Let me know any references I might have missed and your theories on who Mother and Father are.

How do women and animals fit into the bible? Why do evil and viruses exist?

A couple of months ago, I uploaded an article concerning my views about religion.  I said that I might come back and add to it.  However, I thought rather than return to it, I would write a new article, or in this case, a series of articles.  I recently bought the book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, authored by Richard Bewes.  As I've been reading it, I've had my own ideas and feelings, so I thought I would compile them together in article.  Before I begin, I want to make a few prefaces.

Richard Bewes is Rector of All Souls Church, Langham Place.  This obviously means that he is biased towards Christians, and is, in some places, downright offensive to non-Christians.  I don't think his arguments would do much to persuade a staunch atheist.  I also want to clarify that whilst I am not a Christian or religious, I'm also not an Atheist.  I am open to the idea of religion and learning as much as I can.  I am currently rereading the bible, along with various guides, but I make no claims as to being a biblical scholar.  When Bewes references the bible, he is referring to the King James and the English Standard Versions.  In the rare occasion, that I refer to the bible, I am also referring to the King James Version, but also Today's New International Youth Version.

Although the book discusses the top 100 questions, I will only be responding to those that interested me the most.  I read the book in groups of ten questions, thus I will be responding to certain questions in a similar manner.  On occasion, I may also refer to my good friend Naomi who is a devout Christian and infinitely more knowledgeable about such things, than I am.

The first twenty questions are concerned with:

The Universe we Inhabit

Q.5 A woman's place?

Why was the first woman created second, as only a 'helper' for the man? This seems to place women on a lower footing altogether.

It's easy to regard the bible, and Christianity in general as patriarchal.  We refer to the God with the masculine pronoun of "he," and Catholicism has never been too keen on female priests.  True, you get denominations that are more progressive, I had a Protestant friend whose rector was a woman, but the argument remains that Christianity can be considered patriarchal.

This is something that the bible further evidences.  Female characters rarely have agency, with Ruth, Esther, Deborah and Mary being some of the few exceptions.  However, women are largely commodities, and when they're not, they're portrayed less than favourably e.g Jezebel and Delilah.  God has been compared to a jealous husband who wishes to punishes Judah and Israel who function as a promiscuous wife, who constantly prostitutes herself to foreign gods.    Of course, this is more of a statement of the gender politics of the time, rather than of Christianity, but this isn't a socio-political debate, but one about women fit into the bible.

Bewes identifies Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

He argues that this "gives us the definitive, over-arching statement, where the man and the woman counter-balance each other." Later he argues that Eve, unlike Adam, wasn't made from clay, but rather from Adam's rib.  Eve, and women, are equals, rather than underlings.  If Adam was made in God's image and God is perfect, it can be argued that Eve is a further refined depiction of this perfection.  Or maybe she's better.  This argument has the danger of falling into a defense of idolatry, which God detests, but Bewes also identifies that this signifies how man and woman came from the same essence.  We began the same, as we were created equal and were always meant to be equal.  Naomi made the interesting point that Adam and Eve were included to show how God relates to his people.  They're not meant to be seen as role models, but rather as vessels for God to demonstrate his love and power.  She also argued that Eve was created to provide companionship for Adam; she was essential for his existence.

6. Can you explain evil?

I get so discouraged by the evil on every side; the conflicts that seem to mount up, the undisciplined youth, corrupt leadership and terrorism worldwide.  Where does it come from? I see no hope.

This is a common question that I see in relation to Christianity.  If God is an omnipotent, perfect being, how could he allow evil to exist?  How could he have created it in the first place?

One of Bewes' explanations is how evil represents a defection, not a first cause.  He references Isaiah 14: 12-15, which describe Lucifer's expulsion from heaven.  Bewes continues by arguing that "i you are free to love, then you are also free to rebel.  So evil entered, not as something that had always existed, but as a deviation, a rebellion from the original first cause."

This is an argument that I cannot believe.  It sounds to me that he is arguing that evil exists, because we have strayed from the path that God has laid out for us.  There are two famous quotations that go against Bewes' argument:

"All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

"The world suffers not for the violence of the bad people, but for the silence of the good people."

Evil doesn't exist because we have strayed from our path, but rather because we have refused to stray from it.  Sometimes it is necessary to break convention and stand up for what's right.

James 4:17 reads "so then, if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it, you sin." This is generally known as the Sin of Omission.  If you have the opportunity to do good in the world and you don't, you are therefore committing a sin.

A common moral scenario sees the tale of three men.  One man, we'll call him Jim, is walking home one night down a dark alleyway.  He is then beaten and mugged by another man, let's call him Brian.  There is a third man, who I'll call Tom, who witnesses the whole affair, but does nothing to help.  Rather he chooses to carry on walking. Who is the worst man in this scenario? Brian for beating up Jim? Or Tom for doing nothing to stop him?

Q9. The Creation of Viruses?

If God created all things, why did he create these terrible viruses?

This question corresponded to the last one.  If God is a benevolent being, why would he create viruses that bring nothing but misery and pain?

Bewes argues, as does Naomi, that viruses are a warped aspect of creation.  They were originally good, but the fall of humanity changed that.  Bewes asserts that viruses exist to instill three things: a sense of humility, a sense of eternity and a sense of humanity.  Essentially, he is arguing that viruses exist to remind us that we all die as we're human, which means that we must make use of the time we have.  He makes the interesting point that "many millions of people never even began to think about God and his saving plan, until they or a loved one were struck by an apparently random virus."

Finally, he asserts that the presence of these viruses give us something worth fighting for: the eradication of these viruses.  He states: "if God declared war on evil, pain and death - and he has clearly done so in Christ - then we must allow the presence of such infection and disease to provoke us into fighting them in his name."

I can respect, if not agree with, all three of his arguments.  You're always hearing about people taking hedonistic joyrides or fulfilling their bucket lists, upon diagnosis of a terminal illness.  And yes, the eradication of these viruses has been a great unifying factor, even returning to the bible, where in Leviticus, there are numerous rules about personal hygiene and not touching the dead.  But from a moral standpoint, I would say these arguments are downright coldhearted.  Imagine explaining to a parent that the sacrifice of their terminally ill child will remind all of us how short our lives can be or that it will help to unite everyone together in defiance to this illness.  As true as this might be, I would also argue that this would be a cold comfort to any grieving parent.

10. Where do animals fit?

What is the purpose of animals in our world? How do they tie in with the human race?

Bewes makes the compelling argument that "we would not be able to get along in life without the aid of animals.  They help to run the world," he later compares them to God's angels, assisting and aiding humanity, as much as the angels do God.  Animals are vital to this world and we have a duty to protect them.  Genesis 1:27-28 state that:

"So God created man in his own image, [...] male and female, created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them [...] replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

When we read dominion, I think we incorrectly assume that this means that we have to dominate and wrestle the earth into our submission.  However, what God intended for us was to be caretakers of the planet.  He wanted us to rule it with compassion and kindness, not with an iron fist.

As I have stated before, I am not an expert.  Therefore, I welcome all challenges, criticisms, comments and interpretations.  Just keep it respectful.