I remember that I had spent most of June 23rd thinking about attending a Thursday-night premiere of Independence Day: Resurgence. For some reason (possibly because reviews were horrible), I stayed home and found myself watching CNN. By early evening, I was transfixed to cable news as they told the story of the Brexit referendum vote in England. It was the first time in a long time that I witnessed professional newscasters appear dumbstruck, as if the whole world (or at least a significant part of it) had turned upside down. It was fascinating to think that such a monumental decision could be made and that so few people seem to have predicted it. If that referendum wasn’t a sign of things to come, I don’t know what could’ve done the job.
With the Brexit aftermath, I spent some time reading some British websites to see what was going on. I came across a site, Spiked, that purported to be a humanist/Libertarian website that seemed both to be highly opinionated and to have highly opinionated commenters. It’s a site that takes the concern of freedom of speech to an almost uncomfortable level (so I often don’t agree with [or even understand]some of what is said there). It was fascinating to see the first hints of revolution against “the global elites” and “the cosmopolitan.” It was sobering to see charges of racism and xenophobia. It was intriguing to speculate (and to watch others speculate) as they tried to figure out what would happen next to the land of Dickens and Shakespeare and Austen.
The folks over at Spiked recently put together a video that summarized the events and trains of thought rooted in the Brexit referendum. It’s fascinating to watch and think through.
It’s fascinating because it mirrors (predicted?) the current American situation so well. Which group is doing the revolting (rurals or cosmopolitans)? Where does final decision-making power rest (electoral college? parliament?)? What do you do when one demographic long thought “done with” seems to raise it’s head in some kind of defiance (is it generational? is it social class?)? And how in the world does a country move forward when each foot is pointed in a different direction?
It’s interesting to me that this event didn’t cause our own country to stop and take stock. It’s like we ignored the rumble of fault lines that really demanded our attention. The evening of June 23rd reminded me (as either prelude or beginning) that the course is not set and that whatever path we are on remains windy and unclear. To think otherwise is dangerously presumptuous.
Seth Godin recently posted some thoughts that might be helpful in getting a handle on the world we are all trying to navigate. From a post titled 
Perhaps the most personally enlightening moment of this last election season came a few weeks before ballots were cast. A friend’s church was having a “living room” meeting to discuss the election and concerns particular to Christians in light of the candidates. I attended as a frustrated but willing to learn listener. What I found over the course of the evening were Christians who were frustrated with a broken system and who were trying to think ahead . . . not just to the November ballot but to ten or twenty years down the road when the current two-party system might be obsolete. They saw themselves as laying some kind of long-term foundation that might benefit their children and churches decades from now. But that meant something of a break with the system as it stands today.
Make no mistake: M. Night Shyamalan’s Split is going to frustrate people on a number of levels (one particular level that I cannot get into here for about another week). The movie’s subject matter is tricky and disturbing (perhaps in a way not seen since some of his earliest work). The script balances converging storylines well (as there are at least three) without feeling bloated. The movie is wonderfully shot, still Shyamalan but without the long cuts. The acting is superb. James McAvoy is brilliant in his ability to change character on a dime. Anya Taylor-Joy, who plays the movie’s female lead, does so much while saying so little. The story is full of palpable tension, which is really what Shyamalan does best (which is why he has always been more suspense than horror to me). Little details unfold in subtle ways. Particular moments in the movie’s climax that could easily derail the story and take the viewer out of the flow were well-managed. And what’s best is that it’s a story that doesn’t need a twist ending.
Series four of Masterpiece’s Sherlock came to an end Sunday night. I must admit to having seen it twice now: first on TV and then second tonight at the theater. I’m happy to say that they episode held up well. I am often put off by overly psychological episodes for mysteries (which I feared to be the case last week, too). I’m also not a huge fan of “you have a forgotten sibling” stories (Cobalt Blue, anyone?). Back stories are often tricky, too, particularly when a show has been around for a while.
Space Enough, and Time 