I'm posting this on behalf of two of my friends here in Hollywood. Sounds like a great contest!

Choose one or more of the following major lessons from Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body,” write a short film script 5 to 10 pages long that helps illustrate that point(s) and submit it to our festival by February 14th, 2009.

The winner will receive $100... and fantastic food. Runner ups and other finalists will receive cool prizes as well. Here are the major points...

1. The family is the fundamental building block of society. Hence, the way we treat marriage and procreation has a direct effect upon society (positive and negative). See October 22, 1980 audience and January 16th 1980 audience (section 5)
   
   
2. Earthly marriage and the conjugal union between a husband and a wife is meant to mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church. Hence it is a sign pointing us to heaven (i.e. God). Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church: selflessly. However, it is dangerous for us to get caught up in the sign (conjugal union in marriage) while not paying enough attention to where it is leading us (heaven). See August 11, 1982 audience


3. Christ not only calls us to avoid being lustful but to allow Him to change our ethos, or the inner desires of our heart in regards to lust. He wants us to follow his teachings out of love, not obligation or guilt. He wants us to find lustfulness unattractive. He wants us to attain the freedom that allows us to be in a relationship with God and away from the emptiness of sin. See September 10, 1980 audience


4. Christ calls us to affirm the value of the person in "every" situation by never treating another human being as an object for our own selfish pleasure. We are called to always think of the dignity and welfare of others, before our own desires. See January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1981 audience


5. The use of contraception is directly opposed to the free, total, faithful and fruitful love Christ calls us to in marriage. See August 22, 1984 audience


6. The body has a "language" that is meant to proclaim the truth of God's love. However, if we are able to speak the truth with our bodies we are also capable of speaking lies. See August 22, 1984 audience (section 4 specifically)

FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, SEE OUR FACEBOOK PAGE

Email your script to: tobscripts@gmail.com

Sponsored by Family Theater Productions

Labels: movies

For those of you in Los Angeles, a last-minute reminder that the Angelus Awards Student Film Festival takes place tomorrow at the Director's Guild in Hollywood. Open to the public. Wine and cheese social. Great student films. Register for free on the website.

Here's the schedule:

2:30 - 4:00 pm
Angelus showcase films, honorable mentions

WINNERS, RECEPTION, AND EVENING AWARDS

4:30 pm
In the Name of the Son
Harun Mehmedinovic, American Film Institute
Audience Impact Award

5:00 pm
Wine & Cheese Reception

6:00 pm
Evening Awards hosted by Chris Balish

Token Hunchback
Tim Reckart, Harvard University
Honorable Mention/Animation

As We Forgive
Laura Waters Hinson, American University
Outstanding Documentary Award, sponsored by Priddy Brothers

Sebastian's Voodoo
Joaquin Baldwin, UCLA
Outstanding Animation Award, sponsored by the Catholic Academy for Communication Arts Professionals

Deface
John Arlotto, Art Center College of Design
Mole-Richardson Production Excellence Award

Small Change
Anna McGrath, Victorian College of the Arts, Australia
The Peter Glenville Foundation "Triumph" Award

On the Line
Reto Caffi, Academy of Media Arts, Munich
Patrick Peyton Excellence in Filmmaking Award

As a second-round juror for the festival, I especially enjoyed the docuementary winner, As We Forgive. Truly remarkable story of forgiveness:

Could you forgive a person who murdered your family? This is the question faced by the subjects of As We Forgive, a documentary about two Rwandan women coming face-to-face with the men who slaughtered their families during the 1994 genocide. Struggling to live again as neighbors, these survivors and killers discover the power and the pain of radical reconciliation.

Wish I could be there, but I'll be in Wisconsin instead on a 40-mile fat tire race. Which should be fun as well. If it's not raining.

Labels: movies

I've written about the Angelus Awards Student Film Festival in the past. I've been a juror (first and second level) for the past five years, and a volunteer for the festival event each year. It's arguably one of the most promising events in Hollywood as far as encouraging and supporting young filmmakers who have a gift for the craft of cinematic storytelling and also have something to say. A number of alumni have gone on to win other awards -- most recently, 2004 Angelus Award winner Hilla Medalia was nominated for three Emmy Awards for her HBO documentary, To Die in Jerusalem.

This year's finalists have just been announced. Having seen about half of these films, I can vouch that there is a great deal of talent among this year's filmmakers.

This year's festival will be held at the Director's Guild in Hollywood on Saturday, September 13. It's open to the public, including a mid-afternoon wine and cheese social, and tickets are free. You can RSVP here. Save the date.

Labels: movies

I saw The Dark Knight a second time today, and I have a different opinion of the film now, so I revised my review by adding the following:

I have to take back the part about the satisfying ending. There is a line given to Batman near the very end about people needing something better than the truth. Either this was a very sloppy piece of writing, or the whole movie leans into nihlism, becoming a pointless charade of over-earnest silliness.

Labels: hollywood, movies

This Is My Body, a movie written and directed by fellow Act One alum Stephen Vecellio (LA 2003), will be screened in Hollywood this Thursday. Details below for anyone who wants to attend:

When:
Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 6 pm (duration: about 20 minutes)

Where:
Laemmle Sunset 5 Theater
8000 Sunset Boulevard
West Hollywood, CA
Screen 3 (seats 140)

Labels: movies

Here are a few impressions after seeing The Dark Knight yesterday:

• The Joker, as inhabited by Heath Ledger, is perhaps one of the most compelling villains of comic book history, a veritable ha-satan from the book of Job (for more about the satanic vision of the human person, see my review of War of the Worlds)
  
  


• Harvey Dent's character provided some interesting commentary on the current political climate, in which some people seem to be looking not for a president, but a messiah. I think of paragraph 676 of the Catechism:

  The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

  
  
  


• The title of this post suggests that I would draw some parallel to the treatise on the spiritual life by St. John of the Cross. It would be a bit of a stretch to do so, especially in a movie as agnostic as this. Evil appears in stunning technicolor, while goodness is far more obscure and muted. If any references to the Dark Night could be sustained, it might be the way the story strips away illusions from characters who imagine themselves to be self-made solutions to the problem of evil. (See Fr. Bob Barron's YouTube video for the best treatment of this concept that I've seen). I'm also reminded of one of John's Sayings of Light and Love:

  Never take others for your example in the tasks you have to perform, however holy they may be, for the devil will set their imperfections before you. But imitate Christ, who is supremely perfect and supremely holy, and you will never err.



• The motivations and demeanor of the Joker are truly diabolical. Loyal only to disloyalty, gathering men only to divide them, baiting men with ideals only to break them, and purposeful in spreading purposelessness. He's a character with no illusions of grandiosity and no false hopes of victory. His only desire is to pervert the noble and to drag as many as possible into the abyss of his chaotic hate and self-loathing misery. The absence of love drains him of any creative potential, and the only way he can assert himself is to seduce others into a life of destruction.


• The last half hour dragged a bit, I thought... but the very end was quite satisfying, and had some interesting religious resonance... disabusing the hopes of a false messiah, yet hinting at the need for -- and the possibility of -- atonement.


• ADDED 7/27/08: After viewing the film a second time, I have to take back the part about the satisfying ending. There is a line given to Batman near the very end about people needing something better than the truth. Either this attractive lie was a very sloppy piece of writing, or the whole movie collapses into nihlism and becomes a pointless charade of over-earnest silliness.


• Finally, a few pictures of the actual costumes from the movie (on display at the Arclight Hollywood yesterday). My favorite photo is the incongruous juxtaposition of the face of DeAnna Kuhn over the Joker's suit.

  

Labels: hollywood, movies

There's been an event. It will be targeting large populations today, but it will target smaller and smaller crowds from here on out, as the director loses more and more credibility with his audiences. Yes, you guessed it, it's M Night Shyamalan's latest train wreck of a movie, The Happening.

I'll try not to give you any spoilers, but it's difficult with M Night, because with him, the movie's real hook is always the thing to be spoiled. This film strikes me as a rip off of the War of the Worlds concept, with a similarly inhumane premise. As much as I disliked Speilberg's take on War of the Worlds, it was a much better film in many ways: Better dialogue. Better acting. More genuine pathos (which is saying a lot!). Greater credibility. Far less silliness / fakey gruesomeness. Less resemblance to a commercial for allergy medicine.

I get the impression that M Night wants to prove he can do "dark" films. Umm, okay. So he did. It happened. Dark and silly. I was laughing at all the wrong moments. And especially at the movie's sermon, delivered via a commentator on a television screen.

What really struck me is how desperately the movie wants to evoke pathos, and at the same time, how incapable it is of doing so. We witness the first on-screen act of violence before any character relationships have been established. Then we have a series of scenes in which characters curse (the film ends with a curse too). Curses are an easy substitute for evoking feeling. Then there's the shot of bodies falling from a tall building. For one thing, the bodies look like rag dolls as they flimsily descend. But more importantly, the director has taken another shortcut to real drama by dragging out the audience's emotional baggage from 9/11. Then there's the use of violin music to tell us how to feel. At times, characters speak out their subtext; in one scene, a character says to her husband, in the company of friends, something to this effect: "You know how I feel about revealing my inner life in public!" A couple of moments of self-revelation are trotted out in such a predictable fashion that you just wish the whole scene had been edited out. Then there's the gratuitous on-screen gore, which actually causes the audience to stiffen, not emote. Finally, the movie tries to help us get inside the feelings of the characters with -- are you ready for this? -- a mood ring. Not kidding.

The dialogue is abysmal at times. In one scene, a car pulls into the frame behind a couple. Then wife says to husband, "Here's a car." In another scene, when the same couple and a young girl are clearly in peril, but caring for some people who are wounded, the wife says to husband: "We have to run. We have to save the girl." This sort of stuff should be left on the writer's beat sheet. How did it end up as a line of dialogue?

I also noticed that, a la There Will Be Blood, the most psychotic and anti-social character is also the most religious character in the movie. She wears a cross, has an image of Jesus on the wall in her bedroom, and paces in her garden saying the Our Father in a trance-like way.

The real problem with the plot is that humans have nothing meaningful to do but freak out, run, hide and panic (oh, yeah, and formulate bizarre explanations for what is happening). In this way it resembles War of the Worlds. Things happen to people. It's all just happening. "There are forces at work beyond our understanding," says Wahlberg's character. We don't have actors on the stage of life, with meaningful choices; we merely have cogs in Fortune's wheel. The very heart of drama -- human freedom, dilemma, moments of deliberation and decision -- are only present in a few scenes. I'll grant that one crucial scene does exhibit drama... but it was late in the movie, and I had stopped attempting to care about the characters at least thirty minutes earlier. For the most part, this film is tragedy without the choices. Which reduces things, in this case, to a gory, wooden melodrama which is also quite preachy. (I won't say how, as that would involve a spoiler). Without revealing too much, I'll summarize the essential inhumanity of the movie by saying that the most interesting character in this film, as in War of the Worlds, appears to be a non-human entity. The story presents a very impoverished anthropology vis-a-vis the rest of the created world.

Can this be Happening? People greenlight movies like this? And how did I end up going to the theater to watch such a thing? Clearly, there are forces at work beyond our understanding.

My advice? Don't waste your theater-going dollars on this one. It's not a big-screen spectacle anyway. Maybe catch it on DVD if curiosity gets the better of you. But don't blame yourself. Remember, it just happened to you.

Labels: movies

Jeffrey Overstreet is having an interesting discussion on his blog about moviemaking since Mel Gibson's The Passion.

Here are my two cents:

I don’t think Mel Gibson intended to initiate a new epoch of Christian filmmaking. He just had something to say and he said it with the considerable filmmaking skill at his disposal.

Did The Passion change anything? I’m not sure. It demonstrated that excellence can sell, but not necessarily that it will sell… or that executives will distribute excellent product. (For example, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford didn’t receive adequate distribution, although it achieved excellence in several ways.)

Did The Passion give some Christian moviemakers the impression that there were “Passion dollars” to be made? Yes. Did it lead to better filmmaking among Christians who are actually getting projects made? There’s been less evidence of this.

On the contrary, some Christians have adopted the guerilla marketing techniques of The Passion without having the goods to deliver, taking advantage of the good will of Christians who want to have an impact on popular culture. I think this is problematic given the Christian principle of ends not justifying means.

Join the conversation here.

Labels: movies

On March 28, I saw a VIP screening of Expelled at the Director's Guild in Hollywood. This documentary hosted by Ben Stein explores the way in which the modern scientific intelligentsia has it out for those who are open to the possibility of intelligent design in the universe. I highly recommend that you plan on going to this movie when it opens this weekend in theaters nationwide.

This documentary is very well done, very thought-provoking, very funny. It includes one especially funny exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. The words exchanged are only part of the fun; the body language and facial expressions are even better. (But who am I to assign or discover meaning in anything such as "body language"? The whole idea of intelligence in the universe is being questioned, so I shouldn't be so bold as to attempt to interpret body language. Ahem.) The scene really deserves to be watched a second time, with the volume turned all the way down.

Although the movie has lots of humor, it is also sobering, as a result of its bold and troubling expose of the connections between Darwinism, eugenics, the Holocaust... and even Margaret Sanger/Planned Parenthood.

Please go and see this film, then return to the comments box, and let's use our intelligence to argue whether or not intelligence exists. I guarantee this will be fun. In the meantime, enjoy all the ink being spilled over at Wikipedia re: this movie and its ideas.

Here's a variation on a comment I left over on the official Expelled blog this morning:

Many of the comments in your average blog combox can sorely test one’s sense that intelligence has ever made an appearance in the world. This, it seems to me, is the only tempting argument against intelligent design: observing the stupidity demonstrated by those who argue against it.

I mean, what is the point of making an argument to anyone about anything if a source of intelligence does not exist in the universe? Debate of any kind is simply verbal ping-pong if there is no ultimate intelligence in the universe, if no universal truth or order or meaning exists. Then debate merely becomes nihlistic self-expression, such as…

Did you see the sunset last night?

No. However, I am 27 years old.

Oh, I hadn’t considered that.

Right. But I am fond of magenta.

Very good. So you agree that pancakes are round?

I am always surprised at the number of people who have an uneducated opinion, but not an intelligent thought, to express in a blog comments box.

This does tend to tax my belief in intelligent design. When creatures do not appear to be intelligent, it doesn’t lend much credence to an intelligent origin.

Still, I think the very existence in the universe of creative thought, of meaningful exchange of symbolic language, of freedom and of personal sacrifice for sake of another are all very significant stumbling blocks in the path of a creed that would insist there is no intelligent design in the universe.

Beauty presupposes an orderly arrangement of parts; see Aristotle’s Poetics, section 5.2:

a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude and order.

Science presupposes intelligent design, otherwise any attempt at the study of patterns would be unintelligible… or simply plain stupid… I mean, either there are patterns in the universe, or there are not. Either there is something intelligible there, or there isn’t.

And if patterns exist, will you really be so foolish as to attempt to prove that they were fashioned by the purposeless collision of stuff? What could possibly motivate such an attempt? Certainly not science. Only the blind faith of scientism could be interested in such a claim. And you would sabotage your own efforts by having to appeal to intelligence and patterns along the way.

Existence and the life of the mind are real inconveniences for the nihlist, the atheist, and the present-day so-called scientist.

On a related note, I think this book will be the next one to migrate from my bookshelf to my nightstand: Science and Theology Meet: The Evidential Power of Beauty by Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M.

Labels: hollywood, movies

I'm liveblogging the Oscars this year from the party in our apartment. We have about 15 guests so far, who arrived via our red carpet entry earlier this evening. Here's the red carpet recap from our apartment:



5:30 pm PT - We established a coin bowl. Everytime someone does Blue State grandstanding at the event, everyone is invited to add a coin to the bowl. We expect to be millionaires by the end of the evening.

6:00 pm PT - Jon Stewart has already offended pretty much everyone in the Kodak Theater.

6:03 pm PT - Steve Carrell takes a short break from political commentary to announce the animated feature award.



6:17 pm PT - Someone spilled lasagna. Our carpet looks like the finale from There Will Be Blood. And oh, yeah, they just announced the best visual effects award.

6:31 pm PT - Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) was just denied the best supporting actor award. I am officially blowing a gasket.

The Assassination of the Best Picture Award by the Coward Academy (sigh...)

6:34 pm PT - Just saw the "waking from a dream" montage. Prophetic glimpse into what tomorrow morning could be like.



6:45 pm PT - Our priest-chaplain, Fr. Don Woznicki, arrives!

6:48 pm PT - Tilda Swinton has a classy accent. More guests arrive.

6:51 pm PT - My roommate Sean just attempted to move our 300 pound TV so that our 20+ guests can all see the picture. Our IKEA entertainment center is about to re-enact the oil tower scene from There Will Be Blood.

6:57 pm PT - Coen Brothers accept for adapted screenplay. Ethan exhibits typical economy of thanks.

7:00 pm PT - Entertainment center is still standing. Sean feels vindicated.

7:01 pm PT - Several of our neighbors just made a 30-second cameo.



7:10 pm PT - Best sound mixing: Hillary Clinton's video blog?! Nope. Bourne Ultimatum.

7:19 pm PT - Ellen Page just lost the best actress award, and everyone reaches for more alcohol. But consolation prize: winner mentions angels in this city. We'll settle for spiritual, not religious at this point.

7:50 pm PT - For Once, novice filmmakers are honored by the Academy. Someone will be losing their job for cutting off the female recipient before she could speak.... UPDATE: Maybe not. Jon Stewart gave her the mike again later in the show...



8:00 pm PT - Jesse James was denied the cinematography award. There Will Be Nihlism brings home the Oscar.

8:06 pm PT - A moment of eternity in the midst of a night that basks in temporality: The obituaries / dedications, which ended abruptly with Heath Ledger...

8:16 pm PT - Troops in Iraq announced the best short doc award nominees... The recipient didn't comply to the don't ask / don't advocate policy...



8:20 pm PT - The crowd here is beginning to dwindle...

8:27 pm PT - Diablo Cody breaks protocol by having something heartfelt / profound to say. Bravo!

8:32 pm PT - My roommate Sean, looking exhausted, remarks to me as he runs to and from the kitchen: "I wouldn't want to be on a plane with these people." He returns to hosting, I return to blogging. I have chosen the better part, and it will not be denied me...

8:35 pm PT - Daniel Day Lewis receives the best actor award. Remembers his grandfather, father and brothers. Doesn't look like there will be blood.

8:48 pm PT - Coen Brothers for Director(s), No Country for Old Men for picture.

3 1/2 hours and 7 cookies later, it's a wrap.

UPDATE: One of my friends was kind enough to assemble a photo gallery of the evening, entitled A Night of Skewed Priorities.

And now that we're done skewering the celebrities, how about we start praying for them?

Labels: hollywood, movies, multimedia

I already bought my copy on Amazon...

Labels: movies

I saw There Will Be Blood last night. My review, in brief:

Good stuff first: Some nice cinematography, a few good performances, a couple of haunting and cathartic moments, a few smart sound design choices (pulleys of an oil rig sounding like church bells, for instance) but what are we supposed to make of the rest of the movie? The movie was at its best when it explored the relationship between the main character and his younger counterpart, but it didn't spend enough time on this to warrant a 150+ minute film.

This movie impressed me as slow, cynical, nihlistic, self-indulgent and self-important. A thematic mess. Characters whose motivations we don't understand, especially the main character. (What is his backstory? We know almost nothing about this sociopath) On-the-nose dialogue that is embarassingly bad. The sound design / score constantly called attention to itself.

If someone finds depth and intelligence in this movie, I think it's because of their own effort, and not because of what the film offered. Definitely not a strong candidate for Best Picture. Okay, I get that it highlights the evils of oil and Christian fundamentalism (in an election year, of course!). We get the refrain that George Bush is evil. This makes the movie trite and predictable.

Jeffrey Overstreet calls this film "a masterpiece." I don't think he has interpreted the film on its own terms; instead, he has imposed his own worldview on the movie -- this is eisegesis, not exegesis.

How did this movie get a Best Picture nomination, and not The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?

Barbara Nicolosi shares her thoughts on the movie here.

If you have a different opinion, please post a comment. I am honestly interested in alternate viewpoints / insights.

Labels: movies

I saw Cloverfield tonight.

Initial impressions: The movie delivers as experience, but is problematic as story... not much attention paid to character arcs, plausibility, or honoring the contract with the audience.

Some may argue that the device (telling the story entirely through continuous footage of a single videotape) limits the story-telling possibilities. I don't agree -- I think much more could have been done to put a meaningful narrative in relief.

If I was supposed to sympathize with Rob, the main character, I don't think the film succeeded. Empathy, yes; sympathy, not so much.

Cloverfield is masterful in its evocation of horror, and cathartic. It is violent, loud, and unrelenting. Out-Speilbergs Speilberg in setting up a familiar world that horror lunges in to upset. Clever in several ways, wise in almost none. Will generate lots of DVD sales... so people can pause to look for visual clues/information. There are a couple of things I just noticed in re-watching the trailer that put things in a different light. Definitely setting up for some kind of sequel.

The shaky camera wasn't as nauseating for me as in United 93 or The Blair Witch Project. (But I was way too close to the screen for both of those movies).

Coming out of the theater, my primary question is: does this film bear any meaning? Do we learn anything new in this NYC post-9/11 film? Not at all sure about that. The narrative is pretty much devoid of spiritual theme / vertical dimension / transcendence. There's a love story (sort of), and some humane concern for others, but nothing profound.

Don't expect Lost. Expect Blair Witch Project with a budget and special effects, or a more humane version of War of the Worlds.

Labels: movies

I'll write reviews of these two films later, but if you're looking for films to see over the holidays, here are two of my recommendations: Juno, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. See Barbara Nicolosi's reviews here and here.

Unfortunately, Warner Brothers seems reluctant to put the latter film into wide distribution... it is currently showing on only 10 screens.

Labels: movies

By now you've likely heard all about the new movie Bella. Believe it or not, I hadn't seen the movie till last Friday; somehow I managed to miss all 7 or so opportunities for an advance screening.

So what did I think of the movie? I liked and enjoyed it. It was heartfelt, genuinely moving at times, had moments of humor and grace and was all-around humane. The performances were good, especially Tammy Blanchard as a single mother-to-be. It was filmed with care and style. No bitter aftertaste, really. I'm glad it was made and the artists involved have a right to be proud of what they achieved.

I received several requests asking me to endorse / publicize the movie, but I wanted to see it first. I'm not of the opinion that it is a "must-see" film, but it's definitely worth seeing. I wanted to encourage these artists, so I paid for my ticket as a show of support/solidarity. I know a few of the people involved in this project, and I look forward to seeing even better things from them in the future.

Here are my criticisms of the movie, mostly from a story point-of-view. I did feel it was too long, for the amount of story presented. It would have worked better, in my opinion, as a short film. As a feature, I felt the parts of the story left untold were excessive... which I might not have noticed if it were a short. Without getting into spoilers, I'll just say that the character arc for Eduardo's character was pretty much unexplored -- and the largest part happened off screen and before the main narrative. I would have found his character more interesting if there were character flaws -- things he had to overcome -- but nothing of the sort really surfaced... All we know about his former life is that he liked soccer and dancing and had a lot of money... not really character flaws. Maybe a bit of an inflated ego. Later he no longer dances, plays soccer or has money... he's a simple bearded man, a cook, and a generous, humble soul. How did it happen? Not many details here. But to be fair, it's not his film -- it is more about Nina (Tammy Blanchard) and her choices. Again, her choices happen pretty much offscreen, so we're left with before and after moments (a bit of a story problem, to my mind -- but I suppose you could see it as a device). I liked her character more, because she had some rough edges which made her believable. One other critique of the narrative -- the jumps in place and time were confusing in the first half of the film (particularly the clinic scenes), and in retrospect didn't seem meaningful. The scenes themselves had meaning, but not their placement in the narrative. If I see cuts to past/future in a film, I always want to be able to find a reason for it; for example, in Dead Man Walking, I interpret the flashbacks as the unveiling of the main character's conscience -- to the point where he can fully admit his crime. One other observation: The imagery was interesting, beautiful to look at, but not always coherent in terms of adding meaning/thematic value to the film. There were a lot of butterflies -- but what did that mean? Maybe butterflies represent transformations that happen completely off camera...

A few more thoughts, not about the movie itself but about the marketing for the movie. In short, it was a bit much. In addition to hearing about it from the pulpit last Sunday, I received no fewer than 5 emails asking me to promote the film -- from The Catholic Association, MN Family Council, and a couple from Eduardo's gmail account. (Update on 11/11/07 - Here is the most over-the-top email I've received to date.) I guess I've become weary of something that may just be inherent in the world of movies: relentless marketing. I wish it were possible simply -- and un-selfconsciously -- to make good art and let it speak for itself. But movies are expensive, both to create and to distribute, so there's a need for marketing to recover one's investment and get wider distribution. However, when it comes to distributing media, and using the networking potential of faith/church associations, it's sometimes a fine line between media at the service of the church and church at the service of the media. And leveraging the good will of people who want to see positive / humane projects can go too far. One quote in an e-mail I received about Bella was a little unsettling: "A young girl who cannot afford her own rent, took all of her savings to adopt a theater." Hmm. I am not sure I'm ready to call this movie project (or any other, for that matter) the pearl of great price.

I don't want to discount the positive impact the movie could have (and has already had, according to some reports). One email reports that "a number of pregnant women considering abortion decided to give love and life a chance after seeing this powerful film." I think that's great. Film does have power to move us, and this movie had a lot of heart, so from that point-of-view I applaud the filmmakers. I'm simply tentative about the hype of marketing campaigns, as I think they can take advantage of the good will of people who -- not surprisingly -- want to feel they can make a positive difference using the power of the big screen. Some might call it synergy, others might call it use.

AFTERWORD: I forgot to answer the question: Is the movie pro-life? I think that it's definitely open for debate. The movie seemed to me to be pro-choices that bring happiness, but not in a way that was ready to define what that meant, so I couldn't really call it pro-life. It was life affirming... pro-life in a nominal kind of way... as in, this was a good choice -- and it was for life -- and if the coincidence was meaningful, it would be because of what you brought to the story, not what the story brought to you.

AFTERWORD 2:  On 11/17, I received yet another request for help promoting the film... bringing the total to a least a dozen emails...

Bella's distributor is doubling our theaters and this is Bella's opportunity to go to the moon! But, if Bella doesn't perform this weekend it will be kicked out of theatres for good. The Good News is... if Bella succeeds it will be in theaters for the busiest week of the year - Thanksgiving!
If you are interested in helping Bella here is what you can do:
1. Send this email to your entire data base and ask others to do the same; 2. Adopt a theater by buying all the tickets for a particular Showtime (cost of $1500-$3000) or Adopt a market by buying 5k-10k tickets. To do this visit: HelpBella.com; 3. Buy tickets and give them to friends and family. Invite everyone you know to the movies - it is a film you can invite everyone to see; 4. Promote Bella through every means possible, online and offline; 5. Volunteer to promote Bella in your market.

Labels: movies

I had a chance to see an advance screening of Superman Returns a couple of weeks ago.

There are several ways to approach the review of a sequel. The obvious one is to compare it to the original movie. I won't spend much time on that, other than to say I am a big fan of the original. I was glad that the musical score borrowed heavily from the original, which was amazing and which I still remember almost thirty years later.

Being an aspiring writer, I tend to focus on story. Perhaps the aspiring part makes me a bit jaded, hypercritical and cranky. I don't know. But the story itself was remarkably weak, in my opinion. While I thought that most of the actors turned in good performances -- in particular, I thought Brandon Routh made a good Superman -- this only revealed some superhuman strength in the face of a kryptonite-like script. {SPOILER ALERT: a few key plot points will be revealed below...}

What the story lacked was attention to character motivation. In many scenes, characters did things without a good reason, or at least without a reason that was clearly communicated to the audience. And I don't mean minor things. For example, Lois Lane commands her fiancee to turn a plane around because they need to retrieve Superman from danger. How does she know that? And how does she know where he is? Another glaring example: Superman returns after a five year absence. Since this is the title of the movie, you would expect some attention to why he was gone, what brought him back, etc. We don't get much information, other than a few throw-away lines to his mom and the simple fact that he misses Lois. But does he? I mean, you have a scene where Lois and Superman have a flight together, but it's not a really pivotal moment in their relationship. You don't get the sense that the stakes are very high... because you don't know what Superman wants, you don't know what Lois wants, and the only thing that is really different at the end of the movie is that a few physical disasters have been averted. Now nothing kills a movie more than not knowing what the characters want. I mean, maybe that works in Good Will Hunting, where that's the point of the story, but it doesn't work here. The audience can't invest in characters -- want and hope things with and for them -- when the characters are not clear about this themselves.

Bryan Singer put together a movie that feels like an afternoon in a kid's play room. The characters are taken off the shelf, put through a few episodic danger/rescue situations, and then placed back up on the shelf, just as they were at the beginning. Sure, Lois is intended to have a character arc: When Superman appears, she has just won a Pulitzer for an article about "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman" (clever and subtle way of revealing character!), and by the end of the movie, she has changed her mind... but then again, she doesn't seem too upset at the end of the movie when he doesn't hang around, just after he learns that her five-year-old son is his son too. From this point of view, Superman feels a bit like Peter Pan on steroids -- he has returned for one last flight with Wendy/Lois, for nostalgia's sake and to try to get Lois to understand him and how tough his life is. So now we have a film that makes absentee fatherhood heroic. Brilliant. The icon of the film is a bit detached, disconnected... masculine in a sort of Marlboro-man / I-don't-need-to-be-close-to-anyone / I-can-fix-anything-except-my-relationships kind of way. Especially in the wake of the well-written television series Lost, with its nuanced portrayal of Jack as the doctor whose ability to take charge reveals both heroic strength and crippling weakness, this movie's portrayal of Superman seems rather superficial. And movies like Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins have taken the superhero genre into a more psychological dimension, which seems beyond the interest or capacity of this film.

Superman himself is experiencing some kind of angst -- mostly the angst of being different from everyone else. That could be interesting, but somehow it's not. He dutifully does the things he was sent to do, but it doesn't have much pathos behind it. (And I don't fault Routh for this. He was handed a stinker of a script.) This is especially striking given the blatant Christological references -- moments when the character of Superman extends his limbs in cruciform, or his "empty tomb" scene with an empty hospital bed, etc. If the Da Vinci Code gave us an all-too human flavor of Gnostic Jesus, Superman Returns gives us the not-very-human variety: Docetism.

There was a lot of speculation before the release in the news that this was going to be a gay Superman. It's not a deliberately gay portrayal -- he's not campy, effeminate, etc. according to stereotypes -- but he seems a bit ungrounded and certainly not like a man learning to be a father. Superman "is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made," said Bryan Singer.... "I don't think he's ever been gay." (source) Maybe this is why Bryan Singer doesn't understand the character of Superman. I don't know.

There's some great sound design and decent spectacle to make the time pass in this three-hour movie (not the most believable CG on the market, but cool to look at, nonetheless). However, the spectacle also creates some story problems. For example, at one point, it looks like the whole city is crumbling, but Superman intervenes in the case of one building, and suddenly harmony in the entire metropolis is restored.

The movie will do well, I'm sure. As with the Da Vinci Code, the sheer appeal of the franchise will ensure the ticket sales. But it's not a great superhero movie in the way the original was. My recommendation? Rent the original. Or Superman 2. These are movies in which story and character have equal footing with the spectacle.

For a completely different (read: opposite) review of the film, take a look at what Steven Greydanus over at Decent Films has to say.

Labels: movies

Barbara Nicolosi saw Munich this week, and liked it. I didn't. And in one of her comments boxes, I added this:

My feeling is that Munich didn't contain much in the way of wisdom. And without wisdom, do you really have art?

I mean, either the universe means something or it doesn't. Take your pick. Everyone has a right to a world view. But, in the end, not everyone's world view is correct. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either the world is ultimately a place of mercy and benevolence or it isn't.

I guess, in an American sort of way, you could say that Speilberg, as a filmmaker, has a right to nihlism and a right to tell lies on the big screen. But I don't think that those who are not nihlists have to endorse it or call it art.

For the believer, it's a bit hard to get around the fact that Wisdom was with the universe from the very origins of its creation... and that the Fall didn't obliterate this fact... if anything, the Fall and the sins of the ages only make the wisdom and goodness of the Creator more evident, providing a sort of negative space around the main subject of God's canvas, if you will.

Put another way, there's a sense in which we wouldn't feel dissonance in the experience of evil if original man did not exist. (See JPII's Theology of the Body for more on that concept).

Is there a value in having an artist simply detail the negative space of his canvas? I suppose it could call the rest of the work of art into sharp relief. Does this meet a human need? Maybe it can tease a plea for mercy out of the heart of obdurate man, but I think it's more likely that it will simply endorse his inclination to despair.

And I think that despair is the artistic path of least resistance; what is revolutionary, and truly creative, is hope.

What did anyone else think?

Labels: movies

I saw Brokeback Mountain. Not at all what I expected, I guess because I thought Ang Lee would do to this subject what Clint Eastwood did to euthanasia in Million Dollar Baby. I was wrong. While I would stop short of calling it a "must-see" movie, I do support the idea that the work should be judged on its own terms, rather than on the basis of what people either fear or hope it to be. And I appreciated the film in the way I appreciated 21 Grams.

This movie does not scream 'agenda' the way Million Dollar Baby did; Ang Lee is a more disciplined director than Eastwood, with a greater command of his craft. And I think I believe Lee when he says he didn't intend an agenda film. But I think it will be an example of art being made to say what people want it to say... Very few people receive art for what it is anymore, most have to spin it, to perform eisegesis on it...

But as I reflected more on the film, I realized that it does share something in common with Million Dollar Baby and American Beauty. It uses a technique that I call the "moral telescope" -- focusing our emotions so tightly on one moment and one character as to blur our vision of the larger context, in order to pack an emotional punch at the end.

There was much about the film that was very well done. Victor Morton has the best review I've seen so far. Also, I liked the review in Christianity Today, which, incidentally, provides a pretty good overview of the narrative for those of you who don't plan to see it. Rod Dreher quotes Flannery O'Connor in support of the film's artistic sensibility. I agree with him.

The movie carries the byline: "Love is a force of nature." This byline seems quite out-of-place in a movie which mostly appears to be propaganda-free. I mean, love is either human, or it is a force of nature. The byline is almost as ridiculous as saying, "Human dignity is a force of nature."

It seems to me that love is either an act of the will, or it is an instinct. If it is an instinct, why does it deserve to be honored? What is distinctively human about an instinct? We revere what is based on a fully human act (such as a decision), but do we really owe the same reverence for an erotic path of least resistance? And, even if we were to grant that an instinct provides some kind of moral imperative, could we really derive a moral imperative from the drives of only a select population? Now we are no longer talking about a moral imperative for humans, but one for some of us. So what might that imperative look like: that each person has the right to act on his or her own desires, heedless of the consequences in their own lives or in the lives of others? Why was no one advocating such a view when Chinatown hit the big screen? I don't mean to be flippant, because these are not easy questions. But I believe they are worth examining.

But that's just the byline. I think the movie is much more ambiguous than that. But I have been disheartened by the reception it has received, and the way the movie has been used. The gushing praise offered to the film by those committed to the homosexual lifestyle and those advocating said lifestyle is truly telling -- they respond to it as a beautiful love story (never mind all of the human and psychological carnage caused by the selfishness of the two main characters along the way). That this movie is seen as a vehicle for advocacy and "tolerance" indicates just how narcissistic a spin can be put on a film.

Now I'm all for efforts to treat people with same-sex attractions with love and respect, but it would be a real failure of love to hold up homosexual activity as a good. It so fundamentally violates the dignity of those involved. But there's no sense in raising this point with the advocates. They are way too busy whistling in the graveyard.

Labels: movies

I will certainly think twice before seeing future Spielberg films. War of the Worlds was a nihilistic film, and Munich isn't much better. Sure, there are a few scenes with talking heads that are thoughtful, but do we really need two-and-a-half hours of closeups of gunshot wounds, spattered blood, gushing aortas and naked corpses before we are convinced that violence is a bad idea?

The premise of the film is that vengeance is inhumane, even when it is conducted by Jews. I'm fine with that premise, but my question is: is Spielberg really interested in humane filmmaking? If he was, he would have stopped making films a while ago, because this film is, like War of the Worlds, inhumane in its own way: Munich is self-indulgent, overlong, and indefensibly gratuitous in its on-screen violence. Once again, we have characters who are poorly motivated and who are simultaneously wicked and civilized in ways that reflect a dualistic / schizophrenic vision of humanity, rather than one that sees human beings as fallen but capable of true heroism. Example: the main character's source of information in carrying out vengeance against the Arab terrorists is a man who we discover is the ultimate relativist -- he'll sell information to anyone -- but is at the same time a 'devout' Catholic who insists on saying grace before meals. Are we supposed to believe this character without at least some kind of backstory? I don't know, but one thing is certain: Spielberg's anthropology is incredibly pessimistic and disjointed. His vision is one that doesn't leave room for grace. Indeed, in an article about Munich in Time magazine, Spielberg has this to say about the future of Middle Eastern peace: "The only thing that's going to solve [the Middle Eastern situation] is rational minds, a lot of sitting down and talking until you're blue in the face." And that hasn't been tried already?

Does a director with no one to challenge his willfulness necessarily become Neitzsche-esque? Consider these quotations from the Time interview:

I've never, ever made a movie where I said I'm making this picture because the message can do some good for the world -- even when I made Schindler's List.... I made the picture out of just pure wanting to get that story told....

I'm lucky at this point in my career that I can make the movies I want to make without having a studio come in and second-guess me. I always say thank goodness for Jaws, because Jaws gave me final cut. I've had it now for 30 years, and because of that I only have myself to blame for anything that goes wrong.

That last quote sounds humble enough, but the corollary is that if anything goes right, he'll take credit, which I think is a very limited understanding of what is a supremely collaborative art form.

At any rate, Munich was a bomb. I'm going to see Kong next, which promises to be a more intelligent film.

Labels: movies

Big thumbs up here. I saw this yesterday afternoon. I'll post my own thoughts about the movie before the week is out. However, John Zmirak over at Godspy has written a review that says most of what I wanted to say already. (Note: his review does contain spoilers, but nothing that will take away from the impact of the movie).

One recommendation: unless you have committed yourself to a point-of-view that regards spiritual warfare as patently silly and medieval, go see this film as a matinee rather than late in the evening.

For more information about exorcisms, check out this website created by an exorcist.

Labels: movies

I saw The Constant Gardener on Monday. First of all, I don't understand the title. I would rename it The Constant (Bore of a) Gardener. The main problem with this movie is that it is billed as a thriller, and it wasn't really, which is a big violation of the contract with the audience. I don't think of myself as a sophisticated viewer, and sometimes I get lost in the plot of a thriller, but in this movie, I saw the end coming about 35 minutes into the film. I fell asleep no less than 3 times, but each time I woke up, I found that I was following the plot just fine. I didn't care about any of the characters. The film's two-dimensional bad guys were Big Business and Big Government, and the characters in the movie were, for the most part, not considered to be responsible for their actions, a la Mystic River. The film had a self-important feel to it, and its agenda kept stepping on the story until it was mashed almost beyond recognition. It was as self-indulgent as the worst of student films. In summary, I think this film has Oscar nominee written all over it... except that it was released too early in the year to be a serious contender.

UPDATE (2/11/06): My fears have been confirmed. This movie was nominated for several Oscars, including best adapted screenplay.

Labels: movies

I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory last night. Two big thumbs up. This movie is extremely well conceived, well cast, and well executed... oh, and I almost forgot, it has something to say that is worth saying (Steven Spielberg, take note). This is a truly humane film. I found the film to be just as wonderfully subversive as The Incredibles; respect for the family is a subversive value these days (especially in Canada). The creative powerhouse behind this project (director Tim Burton, screenwriter John August and composer Danny Elfman) is the same one that brought us one of my all-time favorite films, Big Fish.

This movie will do very well this summer, and it deserves to. If you didn't like the earlier movie with Gene Wilder, fear not. This is a far richer, truer story. I love the fact that, when John August was asked to write the adapted screenplay, it was discovered that he had not seen the 1971 film. Apparently August asked Burton if he should see the 1971 version before writing his script. "Absolutely not," said Burton. I already had great respect for Burton's sensibilities -- among other things, I suspect that he and Flannery O'Connor have kindred sensibilities -- and this anecdote only increased my respect for him as an artist, storyteller and filmmaker.

After seeing the new movie, I rented the 1971 version, which was entertaining, but, to my mind, clearly an inferior film from the point of story.

The writer of the 1971 version seems to be constantly sneering at the audience with obscure (or perhaps completely absurd) references... that give the impression that the audience ought to be made to feel an outsider rather than a participant. And then there's the whole acid-trip / occult glorification of the backwards ride down the river Styx. Not to mention the nod to Manicheanism / Gnosticism in making the evil character (Scrappleface?) just another hand of Providence. Incidentally, this character was nowhere in Dahl's book.

If you watch the DVD extras from the 1971 version, you also learn that the title was changed to "Willy Wonka" (vs. Charlie) because the film was basically designed as a commercial vehicle to promote Quaker Oats' entry into the candy market. The Wonka bar hit the shelves the same week as the movie, but had to be recalled because of some problem with the packaging or the mix of the chocolate -- it was melting on the shelves. And the bar never made it back to the shelves, apparently. So the vehicle outlasted the product it was designed to promote.

The 1971 version is also a disturbing film to watch in light of the recent sex abuse scandal. The relationship between Charlie and Willy Wonka is creepy in this film in a non-reflective / non-critical way, which I think Burton knew would be impossible in the re-make... which I think justifies the whole backstory about Willy, which I thought worked well. After all, we live in a post-paternal culture, and I think we'd be remiss in saying that it hasn't carried with it negative consequences.

Finally, the closing line of the 1971 film is an uncritical endorsement of the sexual revolution and the unbridled pursuit of pleasure - which seriously undercuts most of the major plot points of the second act. In the DVD extras, we learn that the screenwriter came up with the line after the fact, when called by the director who realized that the closing scene wasn't working when it was being shot. The writer was off vacationing somewhere, and just pulled the line out of the sky in a serendipitous way.

All by way of saying that I think the new movie is a vast improvement over the original.

Labels: movies

is the best way to sum up Spielberg's War of the Worlds, which I saw this afternoon. (NOTE: This review contains spoilers... which I think may be a misnomer in the case of this film... there is no way to spoil a movie that is already rotten through and through).

I cannot recall seeing another film as intent on lying to the audience about the nature of the human person -- not once, not twice, but in nearly every scene. It was a relentless, disturbing vision that rarely, if ever, qualified its disdain for humanity. Man is essentially selfish, except (sometimes) toward those to whom he is genetically related. What man does has no significance for the future of the world. Such lofty matters are settled by higher life forms... the true protagonists of this film: aliens and bacteria.

Maybe you think I'm being overdramatic in calling it a satanic vision. But it's the most theologically precise way of describing the movie I can think of. As the credits rolled, my first thought was, "this is the artistic vision of a fervent atheist." And then I corrected myself, because I realized I was being unduly generous. It isn't simply an atheistic viewpoint - it is satanic.

Let me explain myself. The name of Satan (or ha satan) surfaces in the Hebrew scriptures (see Job 1:6) and translates literally as "the accuser." In the New Jerusalem Bible, the editor glosses Job 1:6 by saying that the angel Satan is "responsible for testing human beings in their faithfulness to God." Basically, Satan comes to God and says that Job is actually not the God-fearing and righteous man that God claims he is. Satan's challenge to God is this: If you take away his possessions, including his personal health, Job will curse your name. His allegiance to you is simply a result of the easy life you have provided for him... In other words, he doesn't really love you. So God allows Satan to test Job...

In the scriptures, Job is put through many trials, but he refuses to curse God even once. At the end, Job, still an afflicted man, makes this beautiful speech:

"I know that you [God] are all powerful:
what you conceive, you can perform.
I was the man who misrepresented your intentions
with my ignorant words.
You have told me about great works that I cannot understand,
about marvels which are beyond me, of which I know nothing.
Listen, please, and let me speak:
I am going to ask the questions, and you are to inform me.
Before, I knew you only by hearsay
but now, having seen you with my own eyes,
I retract what I have said,
and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:2-6)

Obviously, Satan has been completely wrong about Job, and about his capacity for love and reverence.

Now I turn to Spielberg's film. It's quite a different story. Tom Cruise is the anti-Job, the one who proves the accuser right. There is no God according to the ethos of the film, except as someone to be cursed. And there is no reverence for the human person, made in God's image... a being capable of imaging the Trinitarian, self-giving love of the Godhead. In the face of catastrophic circumstances, Cruise's character runs out on his daughter, abandons his son, and kills a man (not out of self-defense, but because apparently he feels like it). The other humans in the film are equally cowardly and selfish. Everyone is clawing for their own survival... there are no stories that parallel the actual accounts emerging from World War II, the Twin Towers, etc., about heroic self-sacrifice in the face of catastrophe. There's no room for that in Spielberg's vision (except some brief moments with Cruise's son). And no one ever cries out to God, except to curse His name. So the film adopts a Satanic ethos that asserts that man is not capable of either altruism or reverence.

This is the vision that emerges from the director who brought us Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan! Has Spielberg sold his Jewish heritage for a one-night stand with the culture of death? I just don't get it.

Equally disturbing is the proposed anthropology. Man is inconsequential to the narrative being presented. The aliens existed before humans did... and humanity has nothing to contribute to the defeat of the aliens. That task is left to a higher life form (bacteria).

The other problems with the film are very ably laid out by Barbara Nicolosi and Patrick Coffin.

So, in brief, my take on the film is this: The movie lies to us about man, about his origins and his possibilities, from the first frame until the last. The movie endorses the thesis of the Father of Lies. And, to my mind, it never qualifies the endorsement. It's eerie to me how the aliens are mounted on tripods... the enemy looks suspiciously like a film crew on location that is constantly seeking to obliterate humanity. Every time I saw the tripod, I began thinking to myself, "Look out! Here comes Spielberg!"

So, if this is the kind of movie you find entertaining, inspiring, or otherwise worth your support, I submit that there are perhaps more cost-effective ways of supporting the degradation of the human person. Organizations like Planned Parenthood are more than happy to accept donations.

I have more to say about how this movie is explicitly a vehicle for the culture of death... but I'll save that for another post.

Some people will say I took the movie too seriously. But I think the movie took itself seriously, so I'm simply responding in kind.

Two thumbs down. I can't support a project like this without surrendering my humanity.

Labels: movies

I just emerged from the theater in Westwood after seeing Bewitched. A full review will follow. But I'll just say: it's a must see for students of the Theology of the Body. It's not a great film in itself, but worth watching for its theme.

How cool it is to have a Hollywood movie poke fun at the culture of power and image, which is essentially a "witchcraft" of sorts! How remarkable that Tinseltown can produce a film that understands that what is essentially wrong with witchcraft (on the horizontal plane) is that it seeks to acquire love rather than to receive it, and that it fails because it substitutes domination over the other for the only thing that can really produce happiness, the sincere gift of self!

I'm not sure that I need to write a romantic comedy with TOB themes anymore. Nora Ephron... perhaps unwittingly, but quite effectively... has already done it.

Labels: movies

This movie is all the buzz these days, especially now that it has 7 Oscar nominations. I saw the movie. In my opinion, it didn't earn the title of "best" in any category. Barbara Nicolosi has written an insightful review of the film here. Essentially, it is a movie about the heroism(?) of giving up... or the "compassion" involved in helping someone give up.

What I found interesting was that this agenda film didn't even try to understand the Church's position against euthanasia. (Of course, it didn't really try to understand most of the characters, either... with the exception of those played by Hilary Swank and Clint).

The Church has such a rich teaching about the dignity of human life... particularly in The Gospel of Life by John Paul II. I particularly like the way, in his interpretation of the story of Cain and Abel, he points out that each of us is our "brother's keeper." It's precisely what Clint's character refuses to be in the movie. If someone gives up hope, true solidarity is not to fall into the pit of despair with the one suffering, but to encourage that person, to demonstrate that their life - and suffering - has meaning and value, to show them that they are loved. It's going to be a costly love, but the counterfeit is hellish.

Here are some of my favorite passages from The Gospel of Life, addressing the culture of death and euthanasia:

While it is true that the taking of life not yet born or in its final stages is sometimes marked by a mistaken sense of altruism and human compassion, it cannot be denied that such a culture of death, taken as a whole, betrays a completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the freedom of "the strong" against the weak who have no choice but to submit.

It is precisely in this sense that Cain's answer to the Lord's question: "Where is Abel your brother?" can be interpreted: "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). Yes, every man is his "brother's keeper," because God entrusts us to one another. And it is also in view of this entrusting that God gives everyone freedom, a freedom which possesses an inherently relational dimension. This is a great gift of the Creator, placed as it is at the service of the person and of his fulfilment through the gift of self and openness to others; but when freedom is made absolute in an individualistic way, it is emptied of its original content, and its very meaning and dignity are contradicted.

There is an even more profound aspect which needs to be emphasized: freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another. Everyone else is considered an enemy from whom one has to defend oneself. Thus society becomes a mass of individuals placed side by side, but without any mutual bonds.... (paragraphs 19 & 20)

Today, as a result of advances in medicine and in a cultural context frequently closed to the transcendent, the experience of dying is marked by new features. When the prevailing tendency is to value life only to the extent that it brings pleasure and well-being, suffering seems like an unbearable setback, something from which one must be freed at all costs. Death is considered "senseless" if it suddenly interrupts a life still open to a future of new and interesting experiences. But it becomes a "rightful liberation" once life is held to be no longer meaningful because it is filled with pain and inexorably doomed to even greater suffering.

Furthermore, when he denies or neglects his fundamental relationship to God, man thinks he is his own rule and measure, with the right to demand that society should guarantee him the ways and means of deciding what to do with his life in full and complete autonomy. It is especially people in the developed countries who act in this way: they feel encouraged to do so also by the constant progress of medicine and its ever more advanced techniques. By using highly sophisticated systems and equipment, science and medical practice today are able not only to attend to cases formerly considered untreatable and to reduce or eliminate pain, but also to sustain and prolong life even in situations of extreme frailty, to resuscitate artificially patients whose basic biological functions have undergone sudden collapse, and to use special procedures to make organs available for transplanting.

In this context the temptation grows to have recourse to euthanasia, that is, to take control of death and bring it about before its time, "gently" ending one's own life or the life of others. In reality, what might seem logical and humane, when looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane. Here we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the "culture of death", which is advancing above all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled people as intolerable and too burdensome. These people are very often isolated by their families and by society, which are organized almost exclusively on the basis of criteria of productive efficiency, according to which a hopelessly impaired life no longer has any value.

For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. "Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used".

Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted". Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.

In modern medicine, increased attention is being given to what are called "methods of palliative care", which seek to make suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to ensure that the patient is supported and accompanied in his or her ordeal. Among the questions which arise in this context is that of the licitness of using various types of painkillers and sedatives for relieving the patient's pain when this involves the risk of shortening life. While praise may be due to the person who voluntarily accepts suffering by forgoing treatment with pain-killers in order to remain fully lucid and, if a believer, to share consciously in the Lord's Passion, such "heroic" behaviour cannot be considered the duty of everyone. Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by narcotics, even when the result is decreased consciousness and a shortening of life, "if no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties". In such a case, death is not willed or sought, even though for reasonable motives one runs the risk of it: there is simply a desire to ease pain effectively by using the analgesics which medicine provides. All the same, "it is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason": as they approach death people ought to be able to satisfy their moral and family duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a fully conscious way for their definitive meeting with God.

Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony with the Magisterium of my Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (paragraphs 64 & 65)

This is a far cry from the simplistic, fear-based response from the priest in Million Dollar Baby, who merely blurts out to Clint that "If you do this, you'll be lost forever." (No reasons to respect life, other than fear...)

The best part about this movie might be that it affords us the opportunity to share what the Church actually teaches about the value of human life... and to let others know that there are beautiful, and truly compassionate, reasons behind the Church's teaching. We simply can't expect Hollywood & Clint Eastwood to do this for us (shocking, I know).

Labels: movies

Recently, I went to Park City, Utah, along with some co-workers. Park City is home to the Sundance Film Festival. The reason for our visit was to show some of the winning films from our Angelus Awards Student Film Festival at a seminar for Christian filmmakers called the Windrider Forum, which by design overlaps with the dates of the Sundance festival (click here for more details). We videotaped interviews with students, filmmakers, and others in Park City... including Roger Ebert {who, by the way, was singing the praises of Million Dollar Baby... more on that movie later).

I had a chance to see three films at Sundance:
The Squid and the Whale - story of the fallout of divorce on the two sons of some writers in 1980's Manhattan. At the screening I attended, the audience loved this pic (although maybe it's simply because Sundance audiences appreciate how difficult it is to assemble a film), and enjoyed the Q&A with the director, who admitted it was based on his own experiences growing up. I'm not certain what the appeal was; there were some really disturbing sequences documenting the psychosexual problems of the 12-year-old son... and the failings of both parents made the movie quite bleak. The primary insight seemed to be, "life is harsh, people are selfish and weak, and the best you can do is face that fact squarely." But maybe, for the audience, it was cathartic, as the director admitted it was for him. Somehow I'm not sold on the idea that it's enough for art to be therapeutic, like a personal journal for public consumption.

The Puffy Chair - story of a twenty-something guy who purchases a recliner for his dad on eBay, and then crosses the Eastern US to pick it up, accompanied by his girlfriend and his younger brother. While the cinematography wasn't great, there was some strong writing behind the film, and it took an honest, and often humorous, look at the challenges this generation faces in making a commitment.

Stranger - an odd film, with very European sensibilities, but a lot of potential. The story follows a single young woman who decides to carry her child to term... and the joys/difficulties she encounters along the way. There was some incredible imagery, and several strong pro-life moments (such as the scenes where she is speaking to her unborn baby, because she knows it can hear her)... However, the pro-life theme was undercut by an ambiguous ending, an insinuation that her mother euthanised her father (who suffered from dementia) and some other rather cryptic moments.

The best part of the week was the natural beauty of Park City; the clean air, the quiet and the snow-capped mountians were a welcome respite from the wilderness of Los Angeles...

Labels: movies

I went to see Clint Eastwood's Mystic River last night, as part of my goal of seeing at least the five Oscar-nominated films before the Academy Awards are doled out.

This was one of the most disappointing movies I have seen in recent memory, and I say that as one who didn't have high expectations going in to the film. My biggest problem with this movie is that the only themes I could discern were: people make fatal mistakes, and people are generally schizophrenic and so we shouldn't form judgments about character.

If many people are praising the movie, I suspect it is because it has a thriller-ish edge to it, and because it passes itself off as complex and clever. But really I felt that the movie was more of an enigma than a mystery-thriller... and it was an enigma because it fails to have anything coherent or meaningful to say about the human situation.

I want to be clear that my dislike for this movie has nothing to do with the fact that it is dark and sad. By way of contrast, I really enjoyed 21 Grams, another dark film with Sean Penn. Mystic River was, for me, the Calvinist version of 21 Grams: a world depraved rather than a world fallen. I don't get very interested in characters who are simply victims, or whose personalities and motivations are presented to me by way of postscript.

I don't want to dignify this movie by wasting more words on it. Barbara Nicolosi has a good critique of the film on her blog.

I will watch Seabiscuit this week to round out my viewing of Oscar nominated films. But I think it is safe to say that I consider Mystic River the least deserving of the five nominated movies of 2003.

Labels: movies

I went to see 21 Grams last night.

I appreciated the film (notice: I said “appreciated,” not enjoyed). For me, it was a gritty but honest film about the culture of death in which we are living, an effective expose of the sort of “freedom” championed by Planned Parenthood… effective because it presented that notion of freedom without makeup and in a way that was not heavy-handed.

I will say that I didn’t trust the movie for the first 40 minutes. I didn’t think the movie understood Benecio del Toro’s character until 45 minutes into the film. But as soon as that was established, and as soon as I forgot the weak acting at the very beginning by Naomi Watts, I was able to settle in and appreciate the richly nuanced and – to my mind – honest portrayal of the characters. I felt that some of the performances were Oscar-worthy (particularly Sean Penn’s). The characters in this film are both multi-dimensional and eerily consistent. For example, you get the sense that the writers understand how codependency can actually be a mask for narcissism. For me, the movie had an intelligent ambiguity to it – not the sort of ambiguity that comes from a relativistic worldview, but the sort that comes from taking the human condition seriously.

This movie succeeded for me where American Beauty failed – it seemed to me that American Beauty wanted to be unrelentingly honest about sin, but then decided it couldn’t take the weight of that decision and decided to tell a lie to glamorize it. I felt duped when I left the theater after seeing American Beauty, and the following quote from Flannery O’Connor helped me to understand why: There is something in us, as storytellers and as listeners to stories, that demands the redemptive act, that demands that what falls at least be offered the chance to be restored. The reader of today looks for this motion, and rightly so, but what he has forgotten is the cost of it. His sense of evil is diluted or lacking altogether, and so he has forgotten the price of restoration.

This is not the case with 21 Grams. If you’re looking for a feel-good movie, or a movie in which you have a character you can champion as a hero, you’ve come to the wrong place. If you didn’t appreciate Dead Man Walking, you probably won’t enjoy this film; you need to be able to stomach a film that forces you to examine sin without its typical Hollywood makeup. If, on the other hand, you want to contemplate soberly the grim realities of our world through a lens that is moral without being moralizing, you’ve come to the right place.

So does 21 Grams give us the sense that -- to borrow Flannery O’Connor’s notion -- grace is being offered? I think I detected several moments that gave us this sense… in each case, where the offer of grace was rejected with some deliberation. For me, they were effectively disturbing, and the weight of guilt haunted the film. Without giving away too much, I will say that Leo and Del Toro have a scene that evokes the same feelings as Lady Macbeth’s famous “out damn spot” speech. For me, the film effectively captures this tragic sensibility in a modern tale.

What will this film mean for our culture? Not much, I fear. I am reminded of the line from T.S. Eliot in Burnt Norton: “Human kind cannot bear very much reality.” Nearly half of the audience attending this matinee performance was laughing at the most disturbing moments of the film – not laughing at bad production values, or at poor characterization or silly dialogue, but nervous laughter I cannot quite explain… perhaps laughing to create distance at those moments when the action on the screen was shining too much light on our disordered hearts. It felt like the sort of laughter one hears from people who feel the need to run back into the shadows. This is too bad – to me, this is a movie that succeeds at the sort of catharsis achieved in the ancient Greek tragedies. But in spite of this film’s intense, compelling, and well-motivated portrayal of sin, I have a feeling many people may walk away unmoved. This doesn’t speak to a weakness of the film, but to the weakness of our nature, and to our conditioning in a culture that has hypnotized us with the messages “your choices are your own, your ‘values’ are your own, your freedom is your own, do what you want with it, and that’s the only thing that matters.” I am not sure that tragedy works anymore when we live in a culture that has effectively sanitized us into believing that we can no longer speak about Right and Wrong. I think we have forgotten the Greek sensibility about sin: that hamartia literally means “missing the mark.” Sin has instead become merely a label created by intolerant religious freaks in our midst. (Of course this is ridiculous. No honest person who participates in archery and misses the bullseye turns around to say, “I meant to hit the hay bale instead.” But this is what our culture does. Okay, enough of my soapbox already.)

My hope is that the movie might nudge our consciences toward admitting that we can’t escape a moral framework, in much the way Albert Camus did in his novel The Stranger. Though we may believe in a do-it-yourself ethic (and, in a self-contradictory way, seek solace in being victims rather than free agents), we still experience ourselves living within a moral landscape larger than ourselves and, regardless of our creed, we are not exempt from navigating this landscape with our choices. I think the movie 21 Grams knows this and is able to preach this message without approaching the pulpit.

I do have a couple of criticisms of the film: One has to do with the structure, and the other has to do with some gratuitous nudity / sexual intercourse. Regarding the structure: I felt the film jumped back and forth in time in a way that was unnecessary. If the filmmakers chose this structure in order to hold our attention, I would argue that they didn’t need this. If it was done to place the viewers inside the consciences of the characters – slowly admitting their guilt to themselves, as in Dead Man Walking – I would say that this movie did it much less effectively. If it was done in order to relieve the writer of the burden of believable character arcs or consistent story development, I will say that it succeeded. But I don’t get the sense that the writers of this story needed any cover, so I am puzzled by the use of the “back and forth” convention. Regarding the nudity: nothing really new here… it is the familiar practice of throwing in some erotic material in a violating manner for actor and audience, particularly in the case of Naomi Watts’ character.

So I give it three out of four stars… but just be clear, this is not a family film. It earns its R rating, not so much for the sex and violence, but for sitting us down squarely in the midst of a culture of death without deodorant – and the stench is weighty indeed.

Labels: movies

Tonight I went to Tim Burton's latest film, Big Fish. I highly recommend seeing this movie.

Many of the things I would want to say about this movie have already been said by Barbara Nicolosi, but a couple of additional comments:

The film is masterful storytelling - masterful in the way the Bible is, or the ancient historian Herodotus. Most people today would never accept Herodotus as a historian, but those are the people I would especially like to have sitting in front of Big Fish. Story is not something less than the facts, it is something more.

I began counting the number of homilies that could be drawn from the movie - and I stopped counting at 15. This is a movie with some wisdom in it.

The acting was brilliant... with the exception of one brief moment by Billy Crudup in the first ten minutes, and this was completely excusable because of the brilliance of the rest of the film. And probably the weak moment was due to a momentary slip in the editing room.

Visually, the movie was stunning, as one might expect from a Burton film. I was particularly interested in the way the movie depicted the human body, and the couple of "nude scenes" that will inevitably make some Christians uncomfortable. I count this movie among the few I have ever seen that included nudity in a non-violating way for both the actors & audience. Later this month, I will begin presenting a 15-week series on John Paul II's TOB (Theology of the Body) at Family Theater in Hollywood, and I will definitely be citing this film as an example of several TOB themes.

I left the theater wondering why I plan to become a screenwriter, when I know that - even if something I write makes it to the screen someday - nothing I create will reach the level of artistry I witnessed in this film. I guess I will just stick to the maxim (from Chesterton? or Eliot?) that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.

At any rate, this movie has my highest recommendation.

Labels: movies