Saturday, 12 February 2011
Monday, 7 February 2011
“Of Gods and Men” is a feature film made in France about the seven Cistercian monks killed in Algeria in 1996 (subtitled in English). It’s up for an Oscar for Best Foreign Film—a pretty big deal, especially due to the fact that the film itself (not just the subject matter) is profoundly and explicitly and—I would say--purely religious.
It’s almost as if the monks are truly telling their own story from beyond the grave. The motivation for their whole lives was simply and only God and His people. The motivation for their martyrdom (which they could have avoided by choosing to flee or accept protection—both luxuries not afforded to those whom they served) was simply and only God and His people. But although there is a simplicity and single-heartedness here, the lives of the monks were fraught with complex tensions, and, each having their own temperament, they each faced their agony in their own way. But together.
This is a very European, very French film. It moves slowly and is reminiscent of “Into the Great Silence,” but with dialogue. Watch it when you are calm or want to be calm. It’s a prayer experience. You must take time to reflect on the radical Gospel concepts put forth. I can’t think of a more perfect movie for Holy Week.
The movie is also very French in its poetic approach to God, religion and life. A poetry with teeth, that you can hang your hat on, but at the same time that is very tender like Jesus who is “Infinite Love.” (When’s the last time you heard that in a movie?) And--mais oui!--nothing sounds like the name “Jesus” in French, does it?
The film takes its time, almost to get you into the rhythm of the lives of the monks. We chop wood with them, attend to mothers and children in the free clinic, make and sell honey, work the land, eat in common, but most of all pray together. There are lots and lots of prayer times, with beautiful singing in French: “hymns and Psalms and inspired songs.” The Psalms, in particular, become more and more germane and real as the danger increases. There’s a beautiful scene were the liturgically-vested, white-robed monks throw their arms on each other’s shoulders in a chain as they sing their prayers (the ever-strong Psalm 141!) while helicopters menace over the chapel.
The monks also deliberate much together. They sit down in council and discern. What should they do? Stay or go? What would be the point of each course of action? What would their Master do?
The monks are middle-aged or elderly. They chafe a bit against each other (a Canadian priest of the Oratory once said: “community life is like a bunch of pennies in a bag rubbing against each other, shining each other up”), but the love runs so much deeper in a thousand and one little details and kindnesses.
“Of Gods and Men” is also a marvelous film for interreligious dialogue/reflection. Algeria is a Muslim country, colonized by the French. This causes built-in problems, but also a coming together of two nations and religions with a great deal of mutual respect. The common people love the monks and the monks love them. An armed terrorist apologizes for bursting in on the monks on Christmas—the birth of the “Prince of Peace.” Muslim village elders decry the violence against non-combatants erupting in the Civil War. This is a very nuanced view of Islamic-Christian relations.
Why do these monks—over ten years later—still capture our imagination? Because they knew what they were getting into. They understood the brutality they could face. Although some hesitated to stay, others did not. As one said to another: “We already gave our lives by becoming monks.” Their act of heroism, of resistance, of love, of freedom (freedom is a big theme!) was to stay and carry on with their daily lives of harmony, charity and worship. Their act of selflessness reminded me of Blessed Charles de Foucauld (another French monk martyred in Algeria).
I rarely watch movies twice. But this one needs to be seen over and over. It’s a meditation. Few films have ever gotten this close to the heart of Christianity.
OTHER STUFF:
--Heathen nun that I am, I got a little annoyed with the very many prayer times. But, good gravy-stains, I thought later, why SHOULDN’T we see a plethora of them, experience them! The praise of God is the raison d’etre of the monks’ lives (and not just some social activism) and, ahem, the raison d’etre of, like, everyone else’s life on the planet, too? What better words in the words of men than the words of God? When there are no more words to say, what better words in our mouths than God’s Word?
--Pope Benedict is virtually PLEADING with us these days to READ and REFLECT on THE WORD OF GOD!
--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: The Incarnation and Resurrection shine through this movie like sun through stained-glass. There is a continuous eschatological expectation shot throughout, even before Death begins rattling his rusty sabre….
--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: A lovely and funny description (as only the French can!) of what love is. The doctor-monk talks to a teenage Muslim girl. He even begins to outline BJP2G’s stages of love from “Love and Responsibility”: attraction, desire….
--Slowest scene in the film: Father Superior walks up the hill. And walks and walks and walks and walks and walks and walks.... Somebody wake up the editor!!!!
--MY community watched the film before me and only complained about one scene: the “Last Supper” scene. It didn’t work for them because the monks put on a cassette of “Swan Lake” which plays rather bombastically while the camera pans back and forth over their faces. The problem is, we forget that the sound is diegetic, and begin to think the filmmakers made a really back choice of scored music here. Some of the characters looked very self-conscious and camera shy for the first and only time, while others burned up the screen, ready for their close-up. The ancient Fr. Jean-Pierre is the best little actor of the lot. Father Superior at this point gets a little melodramatic. However, this scene DID work for me. I kept thinking, maybe they DID play “Swan Lake.” (There were actually 8 monks in the monastery when the abduction happened, so there is a living eye-witness of everything that took place before. He is still alive at 86.)
--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: Spiritual but not religious? You just split yourself in two. “Spiritual” is of the soul. “Religious” is of the body. We need both. If we’re “spiritual” and not “religious,” then we’re just tripping out on something unseen, interior, unverifiable that has no consequences in materiality. If we’re “religious” but not “spiritual,” our religion is empty, “lip service,” external formalities, hollow, heartless. (“Religare” means “to bind.” I sure want to bind myself physically to God, too! And, we’re ALL spiritual any way because we’re ALL body and soul.)
--This movie reminded me of another recent French movie, “Lourdes” (2010). The French are not afraid of the human body, the human face. They don’t dress it up too much. It’s just there in all its plainness, stillness.
--The monks deliberations are in faith, trust, natural and supernatural reasoning.
--It’s all about imitating the helpless Christ-Child and the vulnerable Pierced-One who has the power to lay down His life and take it up again, and us with Him.
--MY community watched the film before me and only complained about one scene: the “Last Supper” scene. It didn’t work for them because the monks put on a cassette of “Swan Lake” which plays rather bombastically while the camera pans back and forth over their faces. The problem is, we forget that the sound is diegetic, and begin to think the filmmakers made a really back choice of scored music here. Some of the characters looked very self-conscious and camera shy for the first and only time, while others burned up the screen, ready for their close-up. The ancient Fr. Jean-Pierre is the best little actor of the lot. Father Superior at this point gets a little melodramatic. However, this scene DID work for me. I kept thinking, maybe they DID play “Swan Lake.” (There were actually 8 monks in the monastery when the abduction happened, so there is a living eye-witness of everything that took place before. He is still alive at 86.)
--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: Spiritual but not religious? You just split yourself in two. “Spiritual” is of the soul. “Religious” is of the body. We need both. If we’re “spiritual” and not “religious,” then we’re just tripping out on something unseen, interior, unverifiable that has no consequences in materiality. If we’re “religious” but not “spiritual,” our religion is empty, “lip service,” external formalities, hollow, heartless. (“Religare” means “to bind.” I sure want to bind myself physically to God, too! And, we’re ALL spiritual any way because we’re ALL body and soul.)
--This movie reminded me of another recent French movie, “Lourdes” (2010). The French are not afraid of the human body, the human face. They don’t dress it up too much. It’s just there in all its plainness, stillness.
--The monks deliberations are in faith, trust, natural and supernatural reasoning.
--It’s all about imitating the helpless Christ-Child and the vulnerable Pierced-One who has the power to lay down His life and take it up again, and us with Him.
Friday, 4 February 2011
"THE BEAVER" with Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster. Uh-oh. Mel plays a psychologically unhinged husband and father who has to "go away" and begins talking to everyone through a beaver puppet. Uh-oh.
"JAYNE EYRE" Yes. Another one. (But you can't do better than Timothy Dalton!)
"CEDAR RAPIDS" Debauched comedy: square insurance salespeople live it up at a convention in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Stars Ed Helms and John C. Reilly
"THE TREE OF LIFE" Eerie, transcendent. Written and directed by Terrence Malick. Stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. A little boy...his parents...a father who is tough on him..."There are two ways: nature and grace--we choose which one"...[WRONG!!! GRACE BUILDS ON NATURE AND THEY ARE A PACKAGE DEAL!]..."unless you love, your life will fly by"..."guide us to the end of time".... This looks tres intriguing!
"THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU" Suspense/thriller: Our lives are run by other people through hi-tech. John Slattery (from Newton, MA) heads up the bureau. Matt Damon (from Cambridge, MA) isn't having any of that because he wants the plan for his life to include Emily Blunt (from across the pond).
"DIARY OF A WIMPY KID--PART 2" YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!
"JAYNE EYRE" Yes. Another one. (But you can't do better than Timothy Dalton!)
"CEDAR RAPIDS" Debauched comedy: square insurance salespeople live it up at a convention in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Stars Ed Helms and John C. Reilly
"THE TREE OF LIFE" Eerie, transcendent. Written and directed by Terrence Malick. Stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. A little boy...his parents...a father who is tough on him..."There are two ways: nature and grace--we choose which one"...[WRONG!!! GRACE BUILDS ON NATURE AND THEY ARE A PACKAGE DEAL!]..."unless you love, your life will fly by"..."guide us to the end of time".... This looks tres intriguing!
"THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU" Suspense/thriller: Our lives are run by other people through hi-tech. John Slattery (from Newton, MA) heads up the bureau. Matt Damon (from Cambridge, MA) isn't having any of that because he wants the plan for his life to include Emily Blunt (from across the pond).
"DIARY OF A WIMPY KID--PART 2" YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!
I did not want to see this movie. I was preparing myself for yawnsville. Nothing of the sort.
“The King’s Speech” is leading the Oscar nominations, and with good cause. Even though we more or less know the premise and the outcome (stammering royal needs to make important speech and somehow does), we don’t know the stakes, the historical situation, and the profoundly human story behind it all.
It’s 1925. British King George V’s son, Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth in an impeccable performance), has had a life-long stammer. No one has been able to help him. His wife, Elizabeth (HELENA Bonham-Carter), finds an eccentric speech therapist, Lionel, played by that chameleon, Geoffrey Rush. An amusing, ongoing power struggle ensues between doctor and patient, royal and commoner, continuing for most of the film and resolving into the true center here: friendship. And not just a friendship of mutual need, employer and hireling, or a closed-in friendship, but two men who always have in mind their service to the greater good, the common good, to duty and helping humanity.
If it had NOT been a friendship, the therapy would not have worked. This is evident from the best scene in the movie which takes place in Westminster Cathedral. Perhaps we have not plumbed the depths of what Jesus meant when he said: “I no longer call you servants, but friends.” Perhaps we have not tapped the power of true, altruistic, outward-looking friendship enough in our private and public lives. (Another film that highlights the power of friendship to do good in the public sphere is “Amazing Grace,” about William Wilberforce and his friend, the prime minister, who put their heads together to end slavery in England and pass other beneficial legislation during their lifetimes.)
“The King’s Speech” is something like the tale of the three workmen who were asked what they were doing. The first said, “laying brick,” the second said, “installing windows,” and the third said, “I’m building a cathedral!” Albert and Lionel always have sense of the bigger picture. “The King’s Speech” presents a nobility that is accessible and able to be practiced by all. A noble attitude. Something it seems to me we need to recover in today’s society. In fact, has our modern-day eschewing of some semblance of decency and societal mores really gotten us anywhere? I rather fancy them. They served a high purpose and gave direction and peace of mind. To the filmmakers’ great credit, these social mores are presented intact, without “modernizing” them or belittling them.
Just to clarify, without giving too much away—but of course, if we know our history, which I didn’t exactly, it won’t be giving anything away—Albert is not yet “king” when the movie opens. His brother, David, is next in line for the throne.
The exposition in “The King’s Speech” is masterful. There is much timely background we need to know about the famous “years between the wars,” yet we never feel like we’re being “instructed.” Apart from an early scene where Albert and Lionel sit opposite each other and their eye-lines are off and we can see them reading their lines, “Speech” is flawless and seamless.
Albert and the Duchess make a great pair, a great team. A lovely portrait of what marriage can be.
“Speech” is a total showcasing of the craft of acting. Long scenes; long, intense close-ups leave the actors totally exposed. And each actor—without any kind of grandstanding--fills the screen, fills up our cinema with intelligent emotional substance that leaves us rapt. Bravo.
Colin Firth does a fantastic imitation of Albert’s struggle to do something so mundane, and yet so vital, especially for his day (live speeches and radio) and his rank (world leader). And yet, Firth doesn’t drag out the stammering so much that we are in agony waiting for his next line. Just enough to let us know how real, burdening, frustrating and painstaking was the handicap.
Isn’t it interesting how so often we seem to be called to or thrust into a position that we are ill-equipped for? And yet we MUST succeed at? Or perhaps we often choose—consciously or subconsciously--to be or do something that involves conquering our biggest fear or what we’re NOT good at? Why can’t taxi drivers drive? Why can’t anchormen and anchorwomen talk? “Speech” isn’t just about one speech, but about the very act of speaking. Imagine if you could barely do it. The world of speech pathologies is opened up to us (at least as much as was known at the time) in a very creative and often lighthearted way.
King George V makes his own great “media literacy” speech to Albert about the new importance—in the life of a monarch/ruler--of being able to use media well. How they now are obliged to “invade people’s homes” as “actors,” and must become beloved celebrities this way. (Whereas, before, they just had to “look good in uniform” and not “fall of their horse in public." Ha ha.)
“Speech” is a well-rounded out, full-course meal, seasoned with dry British wit, while still being a slice of history—not easy, that.
OTHER STUFF:
--HELENA Bonham-Carter looks like she was born to wear 20’s/30’s styles.
--Corgis! (The present-day Queen Elizabeth II, Albert’s daughter, still has ‘em!)
--Great 1930’s inflections, pronunciations and vocabulary….
--British actress, Emily Blunt, used to stammer (or stutter), and one of her schoolteacher’s helped her overcome it by telling her to pretend she was someone else, put on a slight accent, and it worked!
--Very spooky when old newsreels of Hitler suddenly fill the entire screen and we feel like WE’RE in the theater watching this live, pre-WWII….
--Lionel looks like he’s conducting an opera when he’s working with Albert.
--Judicious soundtrack.
--Winston Churchill has a small but meaty part.
--Exaggerated, fictitious or otherwise: “Speech” worked in great turning points (e.g.: “Treason!”)
--Nice camera angles throughout. Reveals a lot of thought and preparation. They also serve to heighten and “show” Albert’s phobia of the microphone (or “apparatus” as Churchill calls it).
--The content of THE speech that the movie is named for is quite a doozie and certainly worthy of a movie.
--A quiet, understated, British ending. As humble and as great as Albert himself.
“The King’s Speech” is leading the Oscar nominations, and with good cause. Even though we more or less know the premise and the outcome (stammering royal needs to make important speech and somehow does), we don’t know the stakes, the historical situation, and the profoundly human story behind it all.
It’s 1925. British King George V’s son, Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth in an impeccable performance), has had a life-long stammer. No one has been able to help him. His wife, Elizabeth (HELENA Bonham-Carter), finds an eccentric speech therapist, Lionel, played by that chameleon, Geoffrey Rush. An amusing, ongoing power struggle ensues between doctor and patient, royal and commoner, continuing for most of the film and resolving into the true center here: friendship. And not just a friendship of mutual need, employer and hireling, or a closed-in friendship, but two men who always have in mind their service to the greater good, the common good, to duty and helping humanity.
If it had NOT been a friendship, the therapy would not have worked. This is evident from the best scene in the movie which takes place in Westminster Cathedral. Perhaps we have not plumbed the depths of what Jesus meant when he said: “I no longer call you servants, but friends.” Perhaps we have not tapped the power of true, altruistic, outward-looking friendship enough in our private and public lives. (Another film that highlights the power of friendship to do good in the public sphere is “Amazing Grace,” about William Wilberforce and his friend, the prime minister, who put their heads together to end slavery in England and pass other beneficial legislation during their lifetimes.)
“The King’s Speech” is something like the tale of the three workmen who were asked what they were doing. The first said, “laying brick,” the second said, “installing windows,” and the third said, “I’m building a cathedral!” Albert and Lionel always have sense of the bigger picture. “The King’s Speech” presents a nobility that is accessible and able to be practiced by all. A noble attitude. Something it seems to me we need to recover in today’s society. In fact, has our modern-day eschewing of some semblance of decency and societal mores really gotten us anywhere? I rather fancy them. They served a high purpose and gave direction and peace of mind. To the filmmakers’ great credit, these social mores are presented intact, without “modernizing” them or belittling them.
Just to clarify, without giving too much away—but of course, if we know our history, which I didn’t exactly, it won’t be giving anything away—Albert is not yet “king” when the movie opens. His brother, David, is next in line for the throne.
The exposition in “The King’s Speech” is masterful. There is much timely background we need to know about the famous “years between the wars,” yet we never feel like we’re being “instructed.” Apart from an early scene where Albert and Lionel sit opposite each other and their eye-lines are off and we can see them reading their lines, “Speech” is flawless and seamless.
Albert and the Duchess make a great pair, a great team. A lovely portrait of what marriage can be.
“Speech” is a total showcasing of the craft of acting. Long scenes; long, intense close-ups leave the actors totally exposed. And each actor—without any kind of grandstanding--fills the screen, fills up our cinema with intelligent emotional substance that leaves us rapt. Bravo.
Colin Firth does a fantastic imitation of Albert’s struggle to do something so mundane, and yet so vital, especially for his day (live speeches and radio) and his rank (world leader). And yet, Firth doesn’t drag out the stammering so much that we are in agony waiting for his next line. Just enough to let us know how real, burdening, frustrating and painstaking was the handicap.
Isn’t it interesting how so often we seem to be called to or thrust into a position that we are ill-equipped for? And yet we MUST succeed at? Or perhaps we often choose—consciously or subconsciously--to be or do something that involves conquering our biggest fear or what we’re NOT good at? Why can’t taxi drivers drive? Why can’t anchormen and anchorwomen talk? “Speech” isn’t just about one speech, but about the very act of speaking. Imagine if you could barely do it. The world of speech pathologies is opened up to us (at least as much as was known at the time) in a very creative and often lighthearted way.
King George V makes his own great “media literacy” speech to Albert about the new importance—in the life of a monarch/ruler--of being able to use media well. How they now are obliged to “invade people’s homes” as “actors,” and must become beloved celebrities this way. (Whereas, before, they just had to “look good in uniform” and not “fall of their horse in public." Ha ha.)
“Speech” is a well-rounded out, full-course meal, seasoned with dry British wit, while still being a slice of history—not easy, that.
OTHER STUFF:
--HELENA Bonham-Carter looks like she was born to wear 20’s/30’s styles.
--Corgis! (The present-day Queen Elizabeth II, Albert’s daughter, still has ‘em!)
--Great 1930’s inflections, pronunciations and vocabulary….
--British actress, Emily Blunt, used to stammer (or stutter), and one of her schoolteacher’s helped her overcome it by telling her to pretend she was someone else, put on a slight accent, and it worked!
--Very spooky when old newsreels of Hitler suddenly fill the entire screen and we feel like WE’RE in the theater watching this live, pre-WWII….
--Lionel looks like he’s conducting an opera when he’s working with Albert.
--Judicious soundtrack.
--Winston Churchill has a small but meaty part.
--Exaggerated, fictitious or otherwise: “Speech” worked in great turning points (e.g.: “Treason!”)
--Nice camera angles throughout. Reveals a lot of thought and preparation. They also serve to heighten and “show” Albert’s phobia of the microphone (or “apparatus” as Churchill calls it).
--The content of THE speech that the movie is named for is quite a doozie and certainly worthy of a movie.
--A quiet, understated, British ending. As humble and as great as Albert himself.
Monday, 24 January 2011
“The Rite” is not scary. Not for adults (and I’m a scaredy-cat adult) at least. But it’s a good story with lots of thought-provoking dialogue.
An almost-ordained American seminarian, Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donaghue), winds up in Rome at “exorcist’s school,” but his skepticism and doubts about the devil AND God continue to plague him. His Rome professor sends him off to an unorthodox but experienced and successful exorcist, Fr. Lucas (Anthony Hopkins--in both a brilliant and delightful performance--makes a great priest), in order to be “convinced.” But Michael is a tough nut to crack and remains of the belief that all he is witnessing is psychological pathologies.
The film avoids clichés and puns about the devil, but manages a very sophisticated humor in the face of evil—something that just rings so true. God and humans are fun and funny, Satan is not. He’s kinda angry and takes himself very seriously and is closed to and incapable of any originality.
Is this a film about faith? Yes, but not just religious/theological faith--which it is, explicitly! It’s also about human faith in our fellows, in ourselves, and in where “life” leads us. When we can’t see the total picture, we need to believe there is a “reason,” that somehow things make sense in spite of our limitations, in spite of ourselves, and that we’re all on the way—we’re not there yet—and it’s not terribly helpful to dig our heels in in disbelief. Life is not static. Michael makes the mistake of equating truth with certainty, something no one is entitled to.
Accuracy? The film is “suggested” by the book “The Rite,” by Matt Baglio, a journalist, and the book is based on Baglio’s experiences as he accompanied an American exorcist, Fr. Gary Thomas, through his exorcist’s training in Rome. Fr. Gary was available for interviews to promote the film which I thought was odd, since generally exorcists keep a low profile. But perhaps--with his bishop’s permission I’m assuming--and in an effort to educate (and re-educate) the public about the reality of the demonic, this might be seen as a “catechetical” effort. It's also a bit vocational--not that anyone would or should aspire to being an exorcist, but it shows priests standing up to evil....
The movie gets a few things askew that are probably only irritating to Catholic geeks like myself: 1) the movie keeps talking about Michael getting ready to take his vows. Diocesan priests don’t take vows. They get ordained, and make a promise to the bishop. 2) The devil keeps calling Michael “priest,” but he’s not yet. Maybe the devil respected him like a priest or something, but the devil is pretty shrewd and only obeys ordained authorities. If even that. 3) Um, a doubting, in-a-vocational-crisis seminarian would NOT be sent to Rome to exorcist’s school. 4) The screenwriter couldn’t resist having a little bit of a showdown between the faith/strength of the exorcist and the temptations/strength of the devil. But it’s not about that, even though Satan would love to destroy all people and especially priests and exorcists. It’s about God vs. the devil. But it seems to be so hard for film to take God seriously as a real character, a real person who really acts. But “The Rite,” does not totally miss the mark on this! St. Michael and Our Lady majorly figure in, too, which is quite correct. Who-Is-Like-God? Viva la Virgen! Actually, "The Rite," does a fine, fine job of making spiritual things, the spiritual world, palpable.
Fr. Gabriel Amorth (who is one of our Society of St. Paul priests and former exorcist of Rome) wrote two best-selling books printed in English by Ignatius Press: “An Exorcist Tells His Story,” and “More Exorcist Stories.” I held off reading them for a long time because I felt they would be sensational, and who wants to give Old Scratch any limelight, anyway? But when I read them, they were very instructional about how evil works, even in very ordinary circumstances. Without going into a lot of details, my first encounter with manifestations of a demonic nature and deliverance prayer (NOT said by me) was in the Charismatic Renewal in the 90’s. I was instructed in and read a little about it back then. There are different levels of demonic interference: infestation, obsession, etc. “Possession” is a total taking-over the person by a demon—or as much as a demon is capable of invading a person.
It’s important to know that a person is not always to blame for this interference. The first books I read said there are three ways that the devil gains entrance:
1. Dabbling in the occult or explicitly calling on Satan.
2. A life of unrepented sin.
3. Emotional wounds inflicted by others.
Fr. Amorth added another in his books:
4. We’re not very bad, we’re very good, and Satan tries to stop us from doing more good.
The important thing to remember is that no matter what the case, Satan can’t force our will. As long as we’re alive there’s hope, and often this interference can be healed with the help of the ministry of the Church.
The movie, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” which IS scary--based on the true story of a young woman in Germany--bears out #4 above. We might think that getting possessed is the worst thing that could happen to us, and although it’s totally dire, the worst thing that can happen to us is that we freely choose to sin. As Fr. Jeffrey Grob—Chicago’s exorcist since 2006--said in a recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times: “One good sacramental confession is more powerful than 100 exorcisms.”
OTHER STUFF:
--Interesting, good stuff about how a vocation can work in someone’s life, and, indirectly, the call to celibacy for the Kingdom.
--Stuff I question (even for poetic license): “A persistent tremor in a limb” is a sign of possession?
--Love those sourpuss Italian priests and nuns! Ha ha ha.
--True: “Spiritual liberation can take months or years.”
--True: Exorcists don’t always know how things will turn out….
--True: The work of exorcism takes its toll on the exorcist.
--Fr. Lucas gives lots of great advice.
--Movie really brings out how much Satan hates us.
--Movie actually moves a bit slowly in places, breaking the tension.
--O'Donoghue also makes a good seminarian, but is a bit one-tone, one-note, one-mood. Perhaps he could have played it slightly more nuanced?
--VERY interesting how temptations to fornicate are seen as coming straight from hell.
--The devil knows all our weaknesses and sins and knows a lot about a lot of things. Except how to love.
Chicago exorcist: The ‘evil one’ is very real - Chicago Sun-Times
Monday, 10 January 2011
“Season of the Witch” is one of those movies that had such potential, but drowns (like the three women accused of being witches in the first scene) under the weight of its own petering out of imagination. The premise was solid, the casting was appropriate, the execution mostly enjoyable: What went wrong?
A frail, pretty young woman (the fetching Claire Foy from “Little Dorrit” whom we’ll be seeing plenty more of) is accused of being a powerful witch who has brought a deadly plague on every town she passes through. Two errant knight-crusaders (Nicholas Cage and the always spot-on Ron Perlman) are charged with bringing her safely to a monastery where she will have a fair trial. So far so good. The best scenes are the subtle, creepy interactions with “the witch,” a harmless looking creature, but as soon as you engage in conversation with her, she will find your weakness and use it against you.*
Without giving too much away, the whole thing climaxes with a ridiculous-looking, goofy, gray winged gargoyle that looks like an enhanced Antz. After tons and tons of supernatural powers and special effects, this wimpy reptilian bad guy can be pinned against the wall in mano a mano fighting with Nic Cage. Yeesh.
There are uneven directing and editing problems, also. So many times I wanted to shout: “Cut! Cut!” And some of the camera movements are so Austin Powers-like, I couldn’t believe the folks in my cinema didn’t burst out laughing. But these missteps occur in the middle of some great, tense sequences, which is a shame. This is not a tongue-in-cheek movie, although there are funny lines. It’s more of a supernatural thriller, with sometimes comic-book-hero action.
The Church is made to look like the powerful worldly entity it was back in the day, and there’s a fair amount of anti-religious barbs and jokes-at-the-expense-of-religion (which, of course, would have been very appropriate to the times, and no doubt, often well deserved). But Hollywood also recognizes the spiritual power wielded by the Church. However, the only hope to stop the darkness is “The Book of Solomon,” painstakingly copied by hand by monks. Oh dear: “Book of Solomon.” At first I thought—professional, informed Catholic that I am—“You mean the real book of the Bible: The Wisdom of Solomon? But how can you slay witches and demons with aphorisms?” I was so confused. Then I realized we were in quasi-fictional Dan Brown territory, because this Book of Solomon, although written and illuminated by monks, is “the book used by all the holy men through the ages” to overcome evil. Ooooh. This isn’t the Catholic brand, it’s generic. Leave it to a nun to spoil all the fun (by pointing this out).
A word about Nicholas Cage. In the first scene we see him in, we think “oh-oh.” He is sticking out like a sore thumb with his distinctly American-casual-diction and “I am Nicholas Cage” presence. My thoughts drifted to Kevin Costner in “Robin Hood.” The cast is mixed with Brits who can make ANYTHING sound like Shakespeare and make you utterly believe ANYTHING they say. I don’t know if Nic Cage can do period pieces. And I like the guy’s acting. I just think he needs really extreme characters with psychological-type quandaries.
Is “Witch” worth seeing? Yes. But I think things are at their spookiest without CGI! Why did the realistic-looking wolves (who were probably CGI themselves) suddenly need turbo-CGI faces? They became LESS scary! This is my beef with Stephen King, too. He sets up these amazing scenarios that get under your skin, and then he jumps to some outlandish, bad drug trip story-line that could definitely never happen in my living-room/house/town/life. And I can no longer relate, and I’m no longer frightened or interested.
Although in “Witch” much is made of chivalry and vows to God--the true nature of evil is never dealt with. The evil of sin that lives in our hearts. There are fleeting references to sin and penance, but actually with a sense of disbelief. In the new book “Light of the World,” Pope Benedict says: “We have to recover the understanding that it is really necessary to come to terms with evil. We cannot simply shove it aside or forget it. It has to be worked through and transformed from within.”
Hollywood gets evil half-right. But we will not be saved by a book. Not even the Book of Eli. We are saved by our relationship with God, the living Word of God.
It’s so much easier to draw a sword and decapitate demons than it is to wrestle the demons within. Interior battles are hard, lonely, unseen, unapplauded and unvalued in our completely external, Twitterized, publish-my-life world. But as Thomas More said in “Man for All Seasons”: God and your little circle around you will notice, “not a bad audience, that.” Want to really man-up? Take up your cross of a life of discipleship, spiritual discipline and self-sacrifice. Only love, truth, beauty and goodness will win the day.
OTHER STUFF:
--*I am tempted to a do a feminist read on the whole female witch thing, but I’ll spare you. Suffice it to reproduce a line of dialogue here: “The witch will turn men against each other.”
--“The greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church.” –Pope Benedict XVI
--Another word to Hollywood about CGI: I hate things morphing into other things all the time. Cease and desist, you shape-shifters!
--Like I said, I don’t believe this movie was meant to be tongue in cheek, so I think it was a bad thing when Monty Python came to mind once or twice.
--“Witch” might even be a candidate for “Mystery Science Theater 3000” because I was reflexively thinking up awesome MST3K lines as we went along.
--Director Dominic Sena also did “Swordfish,” “Gone in 60 Seconds,” and “Kalifornia.”
--The real outdoor settings are spectacular with a mottled color palette of brown, blue, black and white.
--We could have done without the frequent “Happy Trails,” suspender-snapping, horseback reminiscences of the two knights. But Nicholas Cage looked like a good horseman.
--What was with those doctors with the bird beaks surrounding the dying Cardinal?? Looked occult.
--Great line when the merry band realizes the proportions of the evil they’re dealing with: “We’re gonna need more holy water.”
--Good switch from knights killing people to spiritual warfare.
--Some good advice from “Witch” about evil:
Don’t even talk to evil. It’s way smarter than you.
Turn to God and the Church.
Don’t sell relics.
“God will never abandon us.”
“We believe what we want to believe” to our own salvation or ruination.
Satan is the “accuser”—he’s always bringing up our sins before us (and not in a good way, to do something about them, but so that we’ll despair over them).
A frail, pretty young woman (the fetching Claire Foy from “Little Dorrit” whom we’ll be seeing plenty more of) is accused of being a powerful witch who has brought a deadly plague on every town she passes through. Two errant knight-crusaders (Nicholas Cage and the always spot-on Ron Perlman) are charged with bringing her safely to a monastery where she will have a fair trial. So far so good. The best scenes are the subtle, creepy interactions with “the witch,” a harmless looking creature, but as soon as you engage in conversation with her, she will find your weakness and use it against you.*
Without giving too much away, the whole thing climaxes with a ridiculous-looking, goofy, gray winged gargoyle that looks like an enhanced Antz. After tons and tons of supernatural powers and special effects, this wimpy reptilian bad guy can be pinned against the wall in mano a mano fighting with Nic Cage. Yeesh.
There are uneven directing and editing problems, also. So many times I wanted to shout: “Cut! Cut!” And some of the camera movements are so Austin Powers-like, I couldn’t believe the folks in my cinema didn’t burst out laughing. But these missteps occur in the middle of some great, tense sequences, which is a shame. This is not a tongue-in-cheek movie, although there are funny lines. It’s more of a supernatural thriller, with sometimes comic-book-hero action.
The Church is made to look like the powerful worldly entity it was back in the day, and there’s a fair amount of anti-religious barbs and jokes-at-the-expense-of-religion (which, of course, would have been very appropriate to the times, and no doubt, often well deserved). But Hollywood also recognizes the spiritual power wielded by the Church. However, the only hope to stop the darkness is “The Book of Solomon,” painstakingly copied by hand by monks. Oh dear: “Book of Solomon.” At first I thought—professional, informed Catholic that I am—“You mean the real book of the Bible: The Wisdom of Solomon? But how can you slay witches and demons with aphorisms?” I was so confused. Then I realized we were in quasi-fictional Dan Brown territory, because this Book of Solomon, although written and illuminated by monks, is “the book used by all the holy men through the ages” to overcome evil. Ooooh. This isn’t the Catholic brand, it’s generic. Leave it to a nun to spoil all the fun (by pointing this out).
A word about Nicholas Cage. In the first scene we see him in, we think “oh-oh.” He is sticking out like a sore thumb with his distinctly American-casual-diction and “I am Nicholas Cage” presence. My thoughts drifted to Kevin Costner in “Robin Hood.” The cast is mixed with Brits who can make ANYTHING sound like Shakespeare and make you utterly believe ANYTHING they say. I don’t know if Nic Cage can do period pieces. And I like the guy’s acting. I just think he needs really extreme characters with psychological-type quandaries.
Is “Witch” worth seeing? Yes. But I think things are at their spookiest without CGI! Why did the realistic-looking wolves (who were probably CGI themselves) suddenly need turbo-CGI faces? They became LESS scary! This is my beef with Stephen King, too. He sets up these amazing scenarios that get under your skin, and then he jumps to some outlandish, bad drug trip story-line that could definitely never happen in my living-room/house/town/life. And I can no longer relate, and I’m no longer frightened or interested.
Although in “Witch” much is made of chivalry and vows to God--the true nature of evil is never dealt with. The evil of sin that lives in our hearts. There are fleeting references to sin and penance, but actually with a sense of disbelief. In the new book “Light of the World,” Pope Benedict says: “We have to recover the understanding that it is really necessary to come to terms with evil. We cannot simply shove it aside or forget it. It has to be worked through and transformed from within.”
Hollywood gets evil half-right. But we will not be saved by a book. Not even the Book of Eli. We are saved by our relationship with God, the living Word of God.
It’s so much easier to draw a sword and decapitate demons than it is to wrestle the demons within. Interior battles are hard, lonely, unseen, unapplauded and unvalued in our completely external, Twitterized, publish-my-life world. But as Thomas More said in “Man for All Seasons”: God and your little circle around you will notice, “not a bad audience, that.” Want to really man-up? Take up your cross of a life of discipleship, spiritual discipline and self-sacrifice. Only love, truth, beauty and goodness will win the day.
OTHER STUFF:
--*I am tempted to a do a feminist read on the whole female witch thing, but I’ll spare you. Suffice it to reproduce a line of dialogue here: “The witch will turn men against each other.”
--“The greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church.” –Pope Benedict XVI
--Another word to Hollywood about CGI: I hate things morphing into other things all the time. Cease and desist, you shape-shifters!
--Like I said, I don’t believe this movie was meant to be tongue in cheek, so I think it was a bad thing when Monty Python came to mind once or twice.
--“Witch” might even be a candidate for “Mystery Science Theater 3000” because I was reflexively thinking up awesome MST3K lines as we went along.
--Director Dominic Sena also did “Swordfish,” “Gone in 60 Seconds,” and “Kalifornia.”
--The real outdoor settings are spectacular with a mottled color palette of brown, blue, black and white.
--We could have done without the frequent “Happy Trails,” suspender-snapping, horseback reminiscences of the two knights. But Nicholas Cage looked like a good horseman.
--What was with those doctors with the bird beaks surrounding the dying Cardinal?? Looked occult.
--Great line when the merry band realizes the proportions of the evil they’re dealing with: “We’re gonna need more holy water.”
--Good switch from knights killing people to spiritual warfare.
--Some good advice from “Witch” about evil:
Don’t even talk to evil. It’s way smarter than you.
Turn to God and the Church.
Don’t sell relics.
“God will never abandon us.”
“We believe what we want to believe” to our own salvation or ruination.
Satan is the “accuser”—he’s always bringing up our sins before us (and not in a good way, to do something about them, but so that we’ll despair over them).
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
The buzz is true. “The Fighter” is a contender. An Oscar contender. If you ever, ever doubted Christian Bale’s acting chops (after those stiff Batman performances—hey, maybe the Batman WAS stiff and Bale is just playing to character)—get yourself to a cinema and be prepared to gape. “The Fighter” (based on a true boxing story) could be either Dicky (Christian Bale), a one-hit (literally) wonder, “the pride of Lowell, Mass.,” now washed up and on crack, OR his brother Mickey (Mark Wahlberg, who puts in an interestingly gentle and almost contemplative performance). Bale totally nails the Boston charmer/wiseguy attitude, Boston accent and mumbling-and-talking-in-bunches which isn’t easy to do. The entire cast gets it, too. Amy Adams, as Mickey’s girlfriend Charlene, latches on to the immediate, in-your-face, rapid-fire, Bostonspeak. Amy plays against type here as a lovely toughie who could probably hold her own in the ring, and is firmly in Mickey’s corner, even over against his family. Melissa Leo—whom we just saw in another Boston story, "Conviction," as the evil small-town police chief—plays the boxers’ scheming manager Mom.
The opening sequence is a wonderful introduction to the love between the brothers, their place in the community, and who they are as people and sluggers. This story never lets you go, there are no lags, only plenty of Oscar scenes, moments and performances, without them posturing to be “memorable.” Masterful movie-making all around. David O. Russell (“Three Kings,” “I Heart Huckabees”—both also starring Mark Wahlberg) directs, and it probably doesn’t hurt that one of the screenwriters is a native of the Bay State and also wrote the gritty “8 Mile.”
Dicky has always coached Mickey, but Mickey’s career is going nowhere and Dicky’s addiction is becoming a liability. Will Mickey stick with family or take advantage of other opportunities? This is the deceptively simple choice Mickey has throughout the movie. “The Fighter” has miles and miles of heart. You almost want to be part of this crazy, brawling, dysfunctional family that sticks together like glue. Almost. The dialogue is some of the real-est, non-stop, conversational banter I’ve heard in movies in a long time.
“The Fighter” is rated “R” for “language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality.” The instances of the “F” word are certainly pervasive and it’s used constantly both as an expletive and a verb, but the drug abuse is an object lesson, and “sexuality”? We see Charlene in her underwear, there’s implied sex between her and Mickey, and off-screen oral sex performed on a john by a prostitute in a car. The violence is not excessive or glorified—it’s just what this family does, the family business, almost matter of fact—but the punches during the fights are audio-enhanced to sound like oil drums thudding around inside a cement mixer.
God/prayer/religion are natural and interwoven like they really are in the lives of people of faith. Children are ever-present, and although they don’t have many speaking parts, they are important, precious members of the family who count, and about and around whom important decisions are made (even if the adults are often acting like big kids).
Definitely a feel good movie (after the bruises and cuts heal) about wanting to make your mark in life, and doing it for your family and the place on the map you call home.
OTHER STUFF:
--Make no mistake. This is Christian Bale's movie. Without the character of Dicky (and Bale's embodiment of him) this could have been a middling movie. Bale has managed to make his character a backdrop, a landscape for the whole film, thus enabling the other actors to shine. Amen.
--Sugar Ray!
--Like the actor who plays the pivotal role of the serial killer in “Changeling,” actor Jack McGee does such a realistic turn as Dicky’s and Mickey’s stepfather that you forget he’s an actor, too! (But I could also feel that in real life he is a New Yorker, and so he is. New Yorkers are truly unedited because they have a completely closed worldview--they have it all figured out, and they know New York is a world-class, world-vital city. Bostonians ARE edited because their worldview is not quite closed. For all their bravado they hesitate, they're not sure, they don't have it all figured out, they're still open and they have the "small city," "little brother" complex, especially toward the city of New York.)
--The extremely short epilogue of the real Dicky and Mickey doesn’t say much at all, but is just tastily random.
--“You owe me $200!”
--Christian Bale is a sold-out-to-his-art actor. Period.
The opening sequence is a wonderful introduction to the love between the brothers, their place in the community, and who they are as people and sluggers. This story never lets you go, there are no lags, only plenty of Oscar scenes, moments and performances, without them posturing to be “memorable.” Masterful movie-making all around. David O. Russell (“Three Kings,” “I Heart Huckabees”—both also starring Mark Wahlberg) directs, and it probably doesn’t hurt that one of the screenwriters is a native of the Bay State and also wrote the gritty “8 Mile.”
Dicky has always coached Mickey, but Mickey’s career is going nowhere and Dicky’s addiction is becoming a liability. Will Mickey stick with family or take advantage of other opportunities? This is the deceptively simple choice Mickey has throughout the movie. “The Fighter” has miles and miles of heart. You almost want to be part of this crazy, brawling, dysfunctional family that sticks together like glue. Almost. The dialogue is some of the real-est, non-stop, conversational banter I’ve heard in movies in a long time.
“The Fighter” is rated “R” for “language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality.” The instances of the “F” word are certainly pervasive and it’s used constantly both as an expletive and a verb, but the drug abuse is an object lesson, and “sexuality”? We see Charlene in her underwear, there’s implied sex between her and Mickey, and off-screen oral sex performed on a john by a prostitute in a car. The violence is not excessive or glorified—it’s just what this family does, the family business, almost matter of fact—but the punches during the fights are audio-enhanced to sound like oil drums thudding around inside a cement mixer.
God/prayer/religion are natural and interwoven like they really are in the lives of people of faith. Children are ever-present, and although they don’t have many speaking parts, they are important, precious members of the family who count, and about and around whom important decisions are made (even if the adults are often acting like big kids).
Definitely a feel good movie (after the bruises and cuts heal) about wanting to make your mark in life, and doing it for your family and the place on the map you call home.
OTHER STUFF:
--Make no mistake. This is Christian Bale's movie. Without the character of Dicky (and Bale's embodiment of him) this could have been a middling movie. Bale has managed to make his character a backdrop, a landscape for the whole film, thus enabling the other actors to shine. Amen.
--Sugar Ray!
--Like the actor who plays the pivotal role of the serial killer in “Changeling,” actor Jack McGee does such a realistic turn as Dicky’s and Mickey’s stepfather that you forget he’s an actor, too! (But I could also feel that in real life he is a New Yorker, and so he is. New Yorkers are truly unedited because they have a completely closed worldview--they have it all figured out, and they know New York is a world-class, world-vital city. Bostonians ARE edited because their worldview is not quite closed. For all their bravado they hesitate, they're not sure, they don't have it all figured out, they're still open and they have the "small city," "little brother" complex, especially toward the city of New York.)
--The extremely short epilogue of the real Dicky and Mickey doesn’t say much at all, but is just tastily random.
--“You owe me $200!”
--Christian Bale is a sold-out-to-his-art actor. Period.
--THEOLOGY OF THE BODY? Well, “Fighter” certainly shows how a MAN can be USED for his body, how others can use his body as a commodity to make money. The female prostitution is a sad note. The premarital sex is not taken terribly lightly because both Mickey and Charlene are people of integrity in other aspects of their lives, and Charlene’s main concern is for Mickey to the right thing for himself, and even breaks up with him until he does.
--The soundtrack exposes Michael Brook as a fine connoisseur of the best music of the 70’s (even though the story is set in 1993) and present day. He includes at least two Boston bands: Aerosmith and the DropKick Murphys.
--The way Bostonians (and I’m sure they’re not alone) don’t want their own to get ahead is shot through this movie. (“Thinks she’s superior ‘cause she went to college!”)
--The soundtrack exposes Michael Brook as a fine connoisseur of the best music of the 70’s (even though the story is set in 1993) and present day. He includes at least two Boston bands: Aerosmith and the DropKick Murphys.
--The way Bostonians (and I’m sure they’re not alone) don’t want their own to get ahead is shot through this movie. (“Thinks she’s superior ‘cause she went to college!”)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)