Cowboys and Aliens –Movie Review
Review by Stacey Tuttle
“Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.” –Jesus (Mat. 10:14)
In Cowboys and Aliens, Harrison Ford’s character, Woodrow Dollarhyde, is a leader in the town. I guess, if you can imagine it, he’s kind of a rugged, western, horse ridin’, gun-slingin’ Donald Trump of his day. Once a military commander and hero, a leader of men, he became a rich and powerful leader of the town in business and politics and well, everything—it wasn’t a very big town.
I won’t tell you all about the whole movie plotline. You’ve probably already decided that pitching cowboys against space aliens is either very cool or very weird; your call. The thing I keep pondering is a small part of the larger story. It has to do with Dollarhyde’s relationship with his son, and with the boy who wants to be his son.
Dollarhyde had a son, Percy. He was, to be frank, worthless. OK—I know, you can’t say, as a Christian, that someone is worthless. I mean, I know he had value in God’s eyes, and in his father’s eyes, but just from a very practical, earthly, standpoint…he was, you know, worthless. He was always causing trouble. He was insecure and arrogant and just plain dumb in his actions. He was foolish. There’s a negative word a Christian is allowed to use towards another being! He was foolish. He caused his father and the town and really anyone who had ever crossed paths with him no end of grief.
But, his father loved him and continued to take care of him, cover for him and try to protect him from the consequences of his actions. Not only that, he also had to try to protect others from his son’s stupidity.
There was another boy, though. A good boy. Nat Colorado. To be honest, I forget the specifics on how he ended up being part of the family, but he had basically been raised along-side Percy. He was sharp, athletic, responsible, well-spoken, conscientious, manly…all the things the squirrelly Percy seemed to lack. Because of that, he was most often on “Percy duty,” assigned to help keep Percy out of trouble.
There was one other important thing about Nat. Nat loved Dollarhyde. Dollarhyde was his hero, the father he never had. He would listen to Dollarhyde tell Percy stories of his war exploits, etc., and he would soak up every word. Every one of the words which was being wasted on Percy’s inattentive mind was like gold to Nat.
OK, so that is kind of the background, but here is what struck me: Dollarhyde’s response to Nat. Dollarhyde had kind of missed it. He had been so busy wishing his son wanted to follow in his steps that he hadn’t seen the boy who already was following in his steps. And, frankly, that’s being generous because when he did begin to see how much Nat had been listening to every story, every word…when he did see how much Nat idolized him, he got angry, because “those stories weren’t meant for you!” I should probably mention that Nat was Hispanic and Dollarhyde was a bit of a racist.
I keep thinking of that Stephen Stills song, Love the One you’re With. “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with. Don’t be angry, don’t be sad, and don’t sit cryin’ over good times you’ve had. There’s a girl right next to you, and she’s just waitin’ for something to do… Love the one you’re with.” This was NOT Dollarhyde’s philosophy, clearly.
I’m not a parent, so maybe I just don’t understand. But I have seen similar relationships in a lot of movies and it seems there are two very common and opposite reactions. On the one hand you have Dollarhyde, trying so desperately to save his son that he has no heart for any other loving relationship, especially one that might attempt to imitate the one he wanted to have with his son. On the other hand, you have a relationship like the one in Gladiator. The father has a son who disappoints him, so rather than fight for him, he just discards him and finds another surrogate son figure, one to whom he more naturally relates, one who usually mirrors some of his own qualities and is eager for his leadership/mentorship.
It seems there is a need for balance somewhere between the two. Either extreme produces jealousy and hurt feelings and frankly, waste. Dollarhyde missed out on the opportunity to mentor a ready and willing protégé. It wasn’t until Nat was dying that he really valued the love, respect and honor Nat had always given him. It wasn’t until Nat was dying that Dollarhyde realized he loved him, and had missed the opportunity to be loving toward him.
In the case of Gladiator, it wasn’t until Caesar was dying at the hands of his own son that he realized how grievous his mistakes had been. He had not seen how anxious his son was for his love and honor and respect. He had not seen his son’s jealousy over Maximus. And worse, by not fighting for his son, by simply replacing him with a “better” man, he created a monster. (I say “better” because who is to say if the son wouldn’t have become an equal given the right love and direction earlier on.)
Does it have to be one or the other? There may be benefit to “loving the one you’re with,” but that doesn’t mean you stop loving, praying, fighting for the one who is lost. Conversely, sometimes you can get so focused on the one you’re fighting for that you forget to put your energy into what is productive.
This doesn’t just apply to father/son relationships, of course. I think it applies to all relationships. It’s a matter of striking a balance between fighting desperately to reclaim those who are lost, but all the while, growing those who are willing to be “found.” If we get too preoccupied with the battle, or, conversely, find that it’s easier to just take the easy route and stick with those who want our time and energy—if we allow ourselves to get too sucked in to either side there are consequences. At the least, we miss out—Dollarhyde missed out on the blessing of the relationship he could have had with Nat. But at the worst, we create a far worse scenario—as in Gladiator, Commodus becoming a crazed, murderous emperor.
I have recently been struck by the way the Apostle Paul mastered this balance in Acts. Over and over again he would go into a new place and preach the gospel. You know he was desperate to reach the lost for Jesus—desperate enough to face being beaten and stoned, imprisoned and ultimately killed. He was more than willing to fight with all he had for the souls of the lost. However, for all that he cared about the lost, it amazes me how easily he would “shake the dust off” and move on to a place where he was better received. For example, you can see it in Acts 13:48-51.
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
He certainly tried to reach everyone, but he focused his energy on those who were receptive. Just imagine what might have happened if he had become consumed with reaching those who weren’t receptive to his message? I can think of two very real possibilities. First, the gospel wouldn’t have gone much further. Part of the way the gospel spread in those times was through Paul’s missionary journeys. What if he hadn’t journeyed on? What if he had stayed in one place trying to convince everyone there to believe? When Paul moved on, more people heard—people who were ready to hear. They in turn spread the gospel to others.
Now, it’s entirely possible that some of those very people who didn’t receive the gospel when Paul came through town were ready and willing to receive it later. Maybe they were in a different place in their lives. Maybe they saw what a difference the gospel made in those who did believe. In either case, there were believers there, thanks to Paul’s prior efforts, who would have been able to continue the work of spreading the gospel. There would have been Christians there who could pray for their unresponsive friends and neighbors and who would be ready for when the timing was right for them to accept Christ. But Paul knew that he didn’t have to save them all, others would come along after him. He was called to move on and preach to those who were, at that time, ready.
The second possible outcome which I think might have happened if Paul had stayed put, determined to reach everyone in a given place, is that he might have been martyred prematurely. Those who opposed the gospel that Paul preached opposed it violently. He had to sneak out to from many a city save his life. He was willing to die when the time came, but the time hadn’t yet come. He had more people to tell about Jesus. Much of our Bible would not have been written if Paul had not been willing to shake off the dust and move on to places where he was better received.
Now let’s go back to the Cowboys and Aliens movie: Dollarhyde wasn’t very sensitive to timing and/or his son’s receptivity—he was going to save his son no matter what. In fact, it might have done Percy some good if his dad had been a little more willing to “shake the dust” from his unreceptive son. Percy abused the confidence he had in his father’s desperation to save him. Dollarhyde might have done well to recognize the receptivity of Nat, put his energy there, and prayerfully, expectantly watch for that moment when Percy was finally ready to receive his father’s direction. That moment did come, eventually, and Dollarhyde had been waiting for it, it’s true. It’s wonderful that he hadn’t given up on his son. The question at hand is what opportunities he missed in the lives of others because of his inability to see past his one lost son.
Questions for Discussion:
- Which extreme do you find that you lean toward? Are you more like Dollarhyde or like Caesar in Gladiator?
- Who is the “Percy” in your life—that person who is making a mess of their life and opportunities…the person who is unresponsive to the good things you and/or the Lord have to offer? Is it a child, a friend, a relative, a student…?
- Who are the Nat Colorado’s in your life—the people who are willing, eager even, to receive any good thing you/the Lord can/will throw their way?
What steps can you take to find more of a balance in your relationships with people? How can you be more like Paul, faithfully preaching the good news to all who are ready and willing to hear, praying that all might be ready to hear, but also ready to shake the dust and move on when you’ve done all you can do?
Dollarhyde had a son, Percy. He was, to be frank, worthless. OK—I know, you can’t say, as a Christian, that someone is worthless. I mean, I know he had value in God’s eyes, and in his father’s eyes, but just from a very practical, earthly, standpoint…he was, you know, worthless. He was always causing trouble. He was insecure and arrogant and just plain dumb in his actions. He was foolish. There’s a negative word a Christian is allowed to use towards another being! He was foolish. He caused his father and the town and really anyone who had ever crossed paths with him no end of grief.
But, his father loved him and continued to take care of him, cover for him and try to protect him from the consequences of his actions. Not only that, he also had to try to protect others from his son’s stupidity.
There was another boy, though. A good boy. Nat Colorado. To be honest, I forget the specifics on how he ended up being part of the family, but he had basically been raised along-side Percy. He was sharp, athletic, responsible, well-spoken, conscientious, manly…all the things the squirrelly Percy seemed to lack. Because of that, he was most often on “Percy duty,” assigned to help keep Percy out of trouble.
There was one other important thing about Nat. Nat loved Dollarhyde. Dollarhyde was his hero, the father he never had. He would listen to Dollarhyde tell Percy stories of his war exploits, etc., and he would soak up every word. Every one of the words which was being wasted on Percy’s inattentive mind was like gold to Nat.
OK, so that is kind of the background, but here is what struck me: Dollarhyde’s response to Nat. Dollarhyde had kind of missed it. He had been so busy wishing his son wanted to follow in his steps that he hadn’t seen the boy who already was following in his steps. And, frankly, that’s being generous because when he did begin to see how much Nat had been listening to every story, every word…when he did see how much Nat idolized him, he got angry, because “those stories weren’t meant for you!” I should probably mention that Nat was Hispanic and Dollarhyde was a bit of a racist.
I keep thinking of that Stephen Stills song, Love the One you’re With. “If you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with. Don’t be angry, don’t be sad, and don’t sit cryin’ over good times you’ve had. There’s a girl right next to you, and she’s just waitin’ for something to do… Love the one you’re with.” This was NOT Dollarhyde’s philosophy, clearly.
I’m not a parent, so maybe I just don’t understand. But I have seen similar relationships in a lot of movies and it seems there are two very common and opposite reactions. On the one hand you have Dollarhyde, trying so desperately to save his son that he has no heart for any other loving relationship, especially one that might attempt to imitate the one he wanted to have with his son. On the other hand, you have a relationship like the one in Gladiator. The father has a son who disappoints him, so rather than fight for him, he just discards him and finds another surrogate son figure, one to whom he more naturally relates, one who usually mirrors some of his own qualities and is eager for his leadership/mentorship.
It seems there is a need for balance somewhere between the two. Either extreme produces jealousy and hurt feelings and frankly, waste. Dollarhyde missed out on the opportunity to mentor a ready and willing protégé. It wasn’t until Nat was dying that he really valued the love, respect and honor Nat had always given him. It wasn’t until Nat was dying that Dollarhyde realized he loved him, and had missed the opportunity to be loving toward him.
In the case of Gladiator, it wasn’t until Caesar was dying at the hands of his own son that he realized how grievous his mistakes had been. He had not seen how anxious his son was for his love and honor and respect. He had not seen his son’s jealousy over Maximus. And worse, by not fighting for his son, by simply replacing him with a “better” man, he created a monster. (I say “better” because who is to say if the son wouldn’t have become an equal given the right love and direction earlier on.)
Does it have to be one or the other? There may be benefit to “loving the one you’re with,” but that doesn’t mean you stop loving, praying, fighting for the one who is lost. Conversely, sometimes you can get so focused on the one you’re fighting for that you forget to put your energy into what is productive.
This doesn’t just apply to father/son relationships, of course. I think it applies to all relationships. It’s a matter of striking a balance between fighting desperately to reclaim those who are lost, but all the while, growing those who are willing to be “found.” If we get too preoccupied with the battle, or, conversely, find that it’s easier to just take the easy route and stick with those who want our time and energy—if we allow ourselves to get too sucked in to either side there are consequences. At the least, we miss out—Dollarhyde missed out on the blessing of the relationship he could have had with Nat. But at the worst, we create a far worse scenario—as in Gladiator, Commodus becoming a crazed, murderous emperor.
I have recently been struck by the way the Apostle Paul mastered this balance in Acts. Over and over again he would go into a new place and preach the gospel. You know he was desperate to reach the lost for Jesus—desperate enough to face being beaten and stoned, imprisoned and ultimately killed. He was more than willing to fight with all he had for the souls of the lost. However, for all that he cared about the lost, it amazes me how easily he would “shake the dust off” and move on to a place where he was better received. For example, you can see it in Acts 13:48-51.
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. 51 But they shook off the dust of their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
He certainly tried to reach everyone, but he focused his energy on those who were receptive. Just imagine what might have happened if he had become consumed with reaching those who weren’t receptive to his message? I can think of two very real possibilities. First, the gospel wouldn’t have gone much further. Part of the way the gospel spread in those times was through Paul’s missionary journeys. What if he hadn’t journeyed on? What if he had stayed in one place trying to convince everyone there to believe? When Paul moved on, more people heard—people who were ready to hear. They in turn spread the gospel to others.
Now, it’s entirely possible that some of those very people who didn’t receive the gospel when Paul came through town were ready and willing to receive it later. Maybe they were in a different place in their lives. Maybe they saw what a difference the gospel made in those who did believe. In either case, there were believers there, thanks to Paul’s prior efforts, who would have been able to continue the work of spreading the gospel. There would have been Christians there who could pray for their unresponsive friends and neighbors and who would be ready for when the timing was right for them to accept Christ. But Paul knew that he didn’t have to save them all, others would come along after him. He was called to move on and preach to those who were, at that time, ready.
The second possible outcome which I think might have happened if Paul had stayed put, determined to reach everyone in a given place, is that he might have been martyred prematurely. Those who opposed the gospel that Paul preached opposed it violently. He had to sneak out to from many a city save his life. He was willing to die when the time came, but the time hadn’t yet come. He had more people to tell about Jesus. Much of our Bible would not have been written if Paul had not been willing to shake off the dust and move on to places where he was better received.
Now let’s go back to the Cowboys and Aliens movie: Dollarhyde wasn’t very sensitive to timing and/or his son’s receptivity—he was going to save his son no matter what. In fact, it might have done Percy some good if his dad had been a little more willing to “shake the dust” from his unreceptive son. Percy abused the confidence he had in his father’s desperation to save him. Dollarhyde might have done well to recognize the receptivity of Nat, put his energy there, and prayerfully, expectantly watch for that moment when Percy was finally ready to receive his father’s direction. That moment did come, eventually, and Dollarhyde had been waiting for it, it’s true. It’s wonderful that he hadn’t given up on his son. The question at hand is what opportunities he missed in the lives of others because of his inability to see past his one lost son.
Questions for Discussion:
· Which extreme do you find that you lean toward? Are you more like Dollarhyde or like Caesar in Gladiator?
· Who is the “Percy” in your life—that person who is making a mess of their life and opportunities…the person who is unresponsive to the good things you and/or the Lord have to offer? Is it a child, a friend, a relative, a student…?
· Who are the Nat Colorado’s in your life—the people who are willing, eager even, to receive any good thing you/the Lord can/will throw their way?
What steps can you take to find more of a balance in your relationships with people? How can you be more like Paul, faithfully preaching the good news to all who are ready and willing to hear, praying that all might be ready to hear, but also ready to shake the dust and move on when you’ve done all you can do?