From the Hollywood Reporter regarding Kiefer's DUI charge:

Sutherland's plea deal [to serve a 48-day sentence] quickly resolves the matter and avoids shutting down production on "24," on which he also serves as an executive producer.  Had he gone for a continuous jail time, he likely would have served less time, which is often the case in misdemeanor cases.  Instead, he opted for two stints [during Christmas break and after the season is over], which means he will serve the entire sentence.

Said Fox and 20th TV, which produces "24" with Imagine TV:  "He told us that even if he had to sacrifice more time in custody in order to protect the show and the jobs of those who work with him, he would do so.  From what occurred today, it is evident he is a man of his word."

You know, drunk driving is horribly wrong, and it was colossally stupid of Kiefer to do it (seriously, can you tell me Kiefer Sutherland couldn't get someone to drive him home?); but this is an honorable, very un-Hollywood response he's had to his arrest.  One would expect someone with his power, money, and fame to do whatever he could to protect himself, but here he is, putting the jobs of his coworkers above his own personal comfort, voluntarily taking on more punishment than required to be sure they're not hurt by his actions. 

Now that sounds like Jack Bauer.  Kiefer probably can't help but be affected by the character he plays, as we've already seen in this hilarious incident.

I'm reminded of a verse I've always been fascinated by:  Romans 5:7 - "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die."  We would prefer a person to be both, of course, but we respond more to goodness than to mere moral perfection (that is, a righteousness of rules without kindness or sacrifice for others).  Kiefer may be an unrighteous sinner (as we all are, for that matter), but I can't help but like him when he goes out of his way to take responsibility for his actions and be good to others.

As Christians, we ought to strive to be good and righteous.  This is a difficult task, but if Kiefer is affected by the time he spends with a fictional character, how much more will the living Holy Spirit actively conform us to Christ as we spend time with Him, immersing ourselves in the Bible!

The summer issue of Salvo features an interesting interview with screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi.  In it she explains that "A beautiful film is one that achieves excellence in production and message."  Technical considerations (script, design, acting, etc.) are important, but:

[A] film should also be judged according to its message.  What does the movie want you to believe?  Is what it's telling you the truth or a lie?  If the latter, then it's a bad film, no matter how good the technique may be.

There are many well-done ugly films out there--and many badly-done nice ones.  Why is this?  I came across a quote from Simone Weil that seems to capture the problem (though it doesn't explain it):

Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.

The truth is, for whatever reason, it is very, very difficult to portray goodness as it really is and quite easy to portray evil as we wish it to be.  Christian filmmakers, you need real skill to achieve the former.  Don't give in to laziness!  Strive as artists throughout history have striven to uplift our souls with real beauty and truth.  Our prayers are with you.

I wasn't going to start watching any new television shows this year, but one of them caught my eye:  Journeyman.  I've always been a sucker for time travel plots or shows about people fixing things that have gone wrong (either in this universe (Early Edition) or a parallel one (Sliders)).  You put both of those things together and you have the formula that frequently appears in my list of favorite shows since that king of all shows from my childhood, Voyagers!.  (And yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.)  So I felt that if any show was going to be so complete in its Amyness, it was my duty to at least give it a try.

The plot of Journeyman is simple.  A man (Dan) suddenly finds himself unexpectedly traveling to the past (so far, only within the past 30 or 40 years) for brief periods of time.  He has no control over when this happens or for how long, and at first, the trips seem to be random.  But soon he discovers there's a meaningful pattern to his journeys.  He finds himself following the life of a specific person as he jumps through history.  With a little help from the Internet during his intermittent returns to the present, Dan is able to figure out how he can help/protect/save the one he's following so that person can then go on to fulfill his purpose of helping other people in the present.  When Dan's mission is accomplished, he's on to the next episode where he finds himself tracking a new person in trouble.  ...Okay, maybe that doesn't sound so simple to some of you, but for sci-fi fans, this is a pretty common formula.

So far I've been enjoying the show, but I've found one thing about it to be very odd.  Dan expresses his confusion about what is happening to him and how, but he hasn't yet even once asked the most obvious question to me: who is causing this to happen?  For any thoughtful observer, there's no doubt that a personal being is behind his travels; random forces aren't complex (putting him in just the right time and place over and over in a specific person's life) and meaningful (there's a definite purpose--the person is saved so she can then do a specific act in the future that will save others).  There is intelligence, foreknowledge, goodness, and care involved, and all of these things point to a personal, powerful, compassionate being.  Yet, there's no talk of God or to God, even though it seems that both of these reactions would be most natural in this situation.  There's only a strange, unnatural silence on the whole subject--particularly strange since Dan recognizes the intelligent design involved as he discovers and notes the "reasons why" he was "supposed" to help each person.

So why no talk of who might be behind this?  It may be because we've been conditioned by Darwinian thought to ignore obvious signs of design and purpose.  We want to enjoy their benefits (a meaningful life, or in this case, a meaningful story) without taking them too seriously or following them to their logical conclusion, so we've trained ourselves not to ask the "who" question.

Eventually, though, I think Journeyman will have to have to deal with it.  We may be indoctrinated enough to accept the foolish denial of design and purpose when it comes to evolution, but I don't think anyone will buy the idea for long that--in a play on Dawkins's original quote about biology from The Blind Watchmaker--"Journeyman is the story of random, complicated plot twists that [only] give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

But who knows?  We might be capable of ignoring even this.  After all, we've been cultivating this blind spot since the beginning of time:

[T]hat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  (Romans 1:19-21)