The Green Lantern

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (2 ½ stars) Fr Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv069.htm
Roger Ebert’s Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110615/REVIEWS/110619994

The Green Lantern (directed by Martin Campbell and screenplay co-written by Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg) is based on the Green Lantern comic book series.  The series appeared in its first incarnation in the 1940s as part of the All American Comics franchise.  All Americans Comics eventually merged with two other comic book companies to create DC Comics, which became the chief rival of Marvel Comics.  In the decades following, the Green Lantern series has been repeatedly reworked and reintroduced by DC Comics.  During this rather complex history many of the elements and characters appearing in the current movie were introduced and developed.  As in the case of many/most comic book based movies, the movie’s screen-writers themselves tweaked the characters and plot elements into their current form.

Thus in the movie, Hal Jordan (played in the movie by Ryan Reynolds) a hot-shot American test pilot working for Ferris Aerospace (the daughter of the founder, Carol Ferris (in the movie also a test pilot and played by Blake Lively being the movie's love interest) receives a green ring along with a green lantern from a dying alien named Abin Sur (played by Temeura Morrison).   After saying “the Green Lantern oath,” the green ring transports hall to an alien world in another part of the universe where he discovers that he has been selected to serve as part of the Green Lantern Corps whose purpose is to police the universe on behalf of a group of super-intelligent aliens called The Guardians of the Universe.  All this derives from the 1950s DC Comics relaunch of the Green Lantern series.  

The principle antagonist a monster named Parallax, who appears in subsequent versions of the story.   Parallax had been one of the Guardians of the Universe, but he had been seduced by the power of the emotion of Fear, breaking away from the Guardians who maintained the universe together by their Will.  Fear it turns out, has a corrosive effect on the Will, hence why Parallax (which paralizes and consumes other beings) became an enemy.  The Green Lantern's universe presupposes a kind of "emotional electromagnetic spectrum" in which among other color representations, the Will is represented by Green, and Fear is represented by Yellow.

Most adults will _rightly_ find all this talk of “The Will” disturbing as it evokes memories of the infamous pre-World War II, Nazi-era propaganda film The Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl, a film which arguably made World War II possible. 

And a teenager ought to quickly appreciate that “The Will” standing alone, without being tempered by other attitudes/emotions like compassion, justice, mercy and love becomes simply arrogance and a prescription for Nazi-like crimes.  Consider simply that someone may _wish_ that someone become his girl friend.  But if he proceeds to try to simply overpower her (by imposing _his_ Will on _her_) then his actions approach/become rape.

So there are real problems with this movie.

Movies like this are not a total loss as they often invite audiences to imagine realities larger than themselves.  However, the disturbingly bipolar (Fear vs Will) presentation of the world is indeed a scary one and one which most teenagers seeing this movie, upon reflection, ought to reject. 

Catholics and other Christians ought to understand that in our understanding of the universe, God created the universe and sustains it, _not_ through his Will but through his Love.   “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16), “My commandment to you is love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12), “In the end, these three remain: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor 13:13).


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Super 8

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Dennis Kriz (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650062/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv067.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110608/REVIEWS/110609989

Super 8 (written and directed by J.J. Abrams and produced, not surprisingly, by Steven Spielberg) is a reminder that before science fiction began to “grow up” in the 1960s-70s with Star Trek, Star Wars, there were the 1950s era sci-fi horror flicks like The Blob. 

Watching 1950s-era movies like The Blob, The Thing, Invaders from Mars, etc in the late 1970s was something of a “Father-Son” inter-generational affair.  Whether my friends and I actually watched these movies with our parents on newly invented VCRs (or watched them, mouths agape or smiling ear-to-ear munching on newly invented microwave popcorn lying down on the "shag" carpet in the basement or “family room” while our parents were happily doing other things) when “dinner” came around and we all sat around the family table, these kind of films always gave _all of us_, parents and kids, something to talk about.  Cheesy, gory or scary as these films often were, our parents generally thought them to be “safe” as they remembered watching them as teens themselves in drive-ins or in sticky-floored movie theaters with lousy plush/satin-covered chairs and they brought back good memories.

I write all this because, I do think that aspects of Super 8 are somewhat anachronistic (that the military would come in and try to seal-off/occupy a small town to cover-up a “deep dark secret” is much more of a 1950s plot device than a 1970s one).  Still, I do believe that J.J. Abrams did this purposefully to produce a similar inter-generational experience today. Today’s kids get to watch with mouths agape (thank God, _not_ with 3D glasses on this time) a fun 1950s style horror movie with obvious homages to legitimate 1970s-era sci-fi films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and ET, while their parents get to reminisce about growing-up at a time when the songs of ELO or The Cars did rule the airwaves (or were encased in beloved but goofy-looking 8 track cartridges); when owning a walkman (by today’s standards an almost dinosaur-like precursor, both in size and technology, to the ipod) was really, really cool; when dad (obviously) owned the _only_ motion picture camera in the family and these fun but noisy and clumsy devices used 8mm or Super-8 film that could be spliced at home (ah, “splicing” film with dad was fun ;-) to remove all the out of focus or “lens cap shots” from the film of “last year’s family vacation,”); and when truly _no where in the world_ was it possible to get a film developed (or really get _anything done_) “overnight.” ;-). 

As I reminisce, I remember that when I was in 6th grade (1975?), a group of us actually did film a necessarily _silent_ 8mm rendition of Jason and the Argonauts as an end of school year project complete with a friend’s “rubber/inflatable canoe” serving as Jason and the Argonauts’ boat and another friend’s fleece floormat from home serving eventually as “The Golden Fleece.”

Ah, what a time... ;-).  So it is clear to me that the setting and structure of this film was designed in good part to give today’s parents and kids something to talk about.

The film itself follows a classic Spielberg, ET-style, trajectory:

A group of middle school kids (6th-9th grade) from a small non-descript steel town in eastern Ohio in the late 1970s are playing around at the end of the school year, filming a (zombie) horror movie, that they are inventing as they go along.  There’s Charles (played by Riley Griffiths) a somewhat overweight and certainly somewhat overbearing kid who’s the ringleader and director of the production (Hey, it’s his family’s camera initially. And if he is rather overbearing, what else were the others going to do that summer?  He was the only one with “a plan” and the plan was fun).

There’s Charles' best friend Joe Lamb (played by Joel Courtney) a somewhat sensitive kid, who lost his mother that winter to an industrial accident at the steel mill and who “does the make-up” for his friend.  Make-up?  Well, it’s not exactly “girly make-up” that he’s working with.  He’s specializing in “gross make-up,” you know, to make people look like zombies.  Still his dad (played by Kyle Chandler), a deputy in the local police department is somewhat “concerned” and would really like to send his son to a “sports camp” for the summer.  Joe doesn't appear to be excited about that prospect ...

There’s Cary (played by Ryan Lee) who’s the kid who’s always playing with matches and fireworks, who therefore scares most parents and even a lot of the kids, but who makes for _the_ "perfect special effects guy."  He's also strange looking enough that he gets to play most of the zombies, etc in Charles' film.

There’s Martin (played by Gabriel Basso) the tallest and "put glasses on him" the most mature-looking kid in the group as well as one with some “stage presence” who therefore plays the lead actor/detective in Charles’ film.

There’s Preston (played by Zach Mills) who’s a “tag-along.” So he gets to “at least hold the boom” (be the group's nominal sound man) as well as play random non-zombie extras in the film. 

Finally, there’s the “love interest” Alice Dainard (played by Elle Fanning).  She’s a couple of years “older” than the rest.  Though still not old enough to have a license she can still “legitimately drive” (well, she knows how to, sort of, better than the rest ...) and as "an older woman" both Charles and later Joe have serious crushes on her.  A somewhat brooding teenager – she’s growing up at home without her mother and an troubled, alcoholic father, Louis Dainard (played by Ron Eldard) – she nonetheless as an innate (dare one say, “God given” talent) to “light-up” to _perfectly_ fit into _any_ role that she’s given by Charles (to the surprise and jaw dropping admiration of _everyone_ of the others in Charles' group, hence why _everyone_ really gets to have a real crush on her).  Charles casts her as Martin's wife in his picture, but she also plays a really awesome zombie afterwards ;-).

So this group finds itself filming a scene for Charles’ movie late one early summer night (a day or two after school let out) at a rather abandoned train station some ways outside of town (Alice was needed to drive them to the location).  They are filming a tear driven scene where Alice expresses her concern for "husband"/detective Martin’s safety and Martin in turn is trying to convince "his wife" Alice to leave town while he brings the town’s “zombie threat” under control.

Suddenly, a mysterious train is suddenly seen speeding along the tracks toward them.  Not wanting to waste the potential shot (hey it's "production value" and let's face it, with _no money_, scrapy/imaginative/'resourceful" Charles has to "take" whatever shot that drops into his lap), Charles has the two redo this tear-jerker scene while the train speeds by.

As the train approaches the station, however, a pickup truck suddenly appears and its driver appears to purposefully put the pickup directly in the way of the oncoming train.  A HUGE accident and train-derailment ensues, which gets caught on the kids’ film.  Much ensues afterward... ;-)

Parents, the PG-13 rating is appropriate.  There is some marijuana drug use and heavy drinking alcoholism portrayed among the older teen and 20-something adults in the film (but not among middle school heroes of the movie).   Nevertheless, I do believe that Super 8 is a movie that a whole family would enjoy.  The really young kids will have most of the movie pass them by, while the middle-school and above kids/teens would probably enjoy it quite a bit.  And parents and even grandparents will be able to reminisce about what it was like “back in the day...”

Finally, if this movie would inspire a few teens to pick-up their digital cameras and attempt making a movie or two with their friends over the summer, then certainly this movie would have more than fulfilled its "mission."  Happy dreaming! ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Mountains and Clouds / The Senators Bargain (How Democracy Works Now)

MPAA (unrated) Fr. Dennis (4 stars)

WorldCat.org listing

Official Website - How Democracy Works Now

Mountains and Clouds and The Senators Bargain are two parts of a recently completed 12 part documentary series entitled 12 Stories: How Democracy Works Now (directed by Michael Camerini and Shari Robertson).  The two films played recently at the Chicago’s 9th Annual Human Rights Watch Film Festival at Facet’s Multimedia in Chicago. 

Both stunning and exasperating, the series documented the struggle and ultimate failure of Congress to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform between 2001 and 2007.  What makes the series stunning is the access that the film makers, Camerini and Robertson, were able to secure to tell the story.  They had the full cooperation of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) as well as their staffs and then access and cooperation to a wide range of coalitions and interest groups on the outside. 

The result is a must-see primer for anyone who seeks to become seriously involved in a legislative campaign for change.  And yet it can also seem exasperating.

Discernable in the series appear to be at least 4 levels on which a serious campaign has to be waged:

At the top are the Members of Congress (Senators and/or Representatives) themselves and as Michael Camerini pointed out in the forum discussion following the film screening, in the United States today, it all comes down to getting to the magic number of 60 Senators on your side.  60 Senators (out of 100) are needed to close debate on an issue.  Without attaining this magic number an bill can not be brought up for a vote. 

Below the Senators/Representatives are their staffs.  This documentary series focuses above all on them (as well as the some of the lobbyists/strategists of the various interest and lobbying groups with whom they interact).  The staff members are the work horses.  Yes, they are given general direction by the Senators / Representatives for whom they work, and at key moments the Senators/Representatives step-out to “seal the deal."  Yet, the staff members are the ones who are talking to /setting up appointments with the staffs of other Senators/Representatives as well as with other representatives of the various outside interest groups.  And they are the ones manning the switchboards and keeping track of the e-mails received from constituents, keeping tabs on the pulse of the constituents back home.

Below the staffs are the various interest and lobbying groups.  And they are important, because they understand how a particular policy or piece of legislation would effect their interest and they do therefore help Congress to write better legislation even if there are generally competing interests fighting for the Senators/Representatives ears.

Finally, below them are grass-roots constituents.  In something of a surprise to me, it became _clear as day_ in this documentary series that phone calls and e-mails from constituents _do_ have an _enormous impact_ the success and failure of legislation.  So if you ever doubted the value of responding to an appeal by an advocacy group for a cause that you believe in to e-mail or call your Senators/Representatives, PLEASE DON’T.  Your voices _are being heard_.  And indeed, it was clear as day that Comprehensive Immigration Reform was defeated precisely because its opponents were far more organized/vocal in bombarding Congress with e-mails and phone calls than its proponents. 

The other surprise (though perhaps less so on reflection, because even Senators/Representatives are people) was that “the giants at the top” (those elected Senators/Representatives) CAN BE VERY PETTY.  A good part of the Mountains and Clouds episode (the title not coming from any actual mountains and clouds but from a large modern metal statue gracing center of the atrium in the Hart Senate Office Building ...) dealt with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) trying to placate aging Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) who became a distracting obstacle to the immigration reform bill over a perceived slight on an unrelated issue. 

Indeed, I watched _with my jaw dropped_ as this incident played out: Sen. Kennedy telling one of his staff members to make sure that Sen. Byrd had a comfortable seat, make sure that he felt comfortable, had a cup of coffee, etc, etc, when Sen. Byrd finally came in to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Immigration Reform (at Sen. Kennedy’s invitation) so that Sen. Byrd could finally publicly air his grievance against the process.  It was basically a turf issue, and Byrd, who was head of the Senate Appropriations Committee felt slighted when the Senate had blocked a $15 billion request for Homeland Security that he said would have paid for the Border Security portion of the Immigration Reform proposal at the time.  Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Blackburn were trying to tell Sen. Byrd “all in good time” and wanted the rest of the bill to be settled first, but Byrd felt “slighted.”

I asked the two makers of the documentary at the forum discussion following the screening what they made of Sen. Byrd’s antics, asking them if they (like me watching him in the film) thought that he may have been simply senile.  They answered that Sen. Byrd did feel himself to be an “elder statesman” in the Senate by then (he was in the Senate for over 50 years) and that he did like to portray himself as a “defender of the traditions/ways of the Senate." But they also said that his behavior had a purpose. As a conservative Democrat he was opposed to Comprehensive Immigration Reform in any case.  However, the perceived "slight" _gave him an excuse_ to cause proponents of the measure problems.  Indeed, Shari Robertson, one of the documentary’s film makers, concluded her answer to this question by saying that it _is_ instructive for people to know that if they wish to lobby Congress for change, that they are going to be dealing with Senators and Representatives with egos and hence to come prepared for that. 

The ego issue came up again in the Senators Bargain episode when in 2007 Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made what appears to have been a critical error during the Senate debate of the very complex (and very fragile) Comprehensive Immigration Reform measure by seeking to end debate on the measure too quickly.  To be sure, dozens of amendments had been considered and voted on.  Most of these amendments were rejected but some, already severely weakening the bill had been accepted and many more amendments were still pending.  As such, Sen. Reid may have sought to bring the debate to an end to “save the bill.”  However, the result was a disaster.  Not only did he not get the 60 (out of 100) votes to end debate on the bill, he didn’t even get a majority 50.  Why?  Because _a lot_ of Senators voted against “cloture” because they were felt slighted once more.  Indeed, in the press conference that followed, Sen Kyl (R-AZ) who had worked out the “Grand Compromise” for the bill with Sen. Kennedy blasted Sen. Reid’s stupidity noting that Sen. Kennedy _knew well_ the importance of just letting everybody have their say.  And Sen. Kennedy, again one who served in the Senate for 40 years agreed.

After several weeks of behind the scenes work by Sen. Kennedy’s office (and _all those staffers_) the bill was resurrected for one final try (something of a gargantuan feat in itself because most bills _die_ after a failure of a cloture vote).  However, after a compromise had been worked out on the number and choreography of amendments, the Bill failed a second cloture vote _anyway_, largely because grassroots opponents to the bill kept-up pressure on Senators to oppose the bill without a similar effort in support of it. 

But then, many expected supporters of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill saw the bill so weakened that they began to walk away from it.  In a very powerful scene near the end of The Senators Bargain episode, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called in the representatives from Sen. Kennedy’s office as well as representatives of various groups that have lobbied in favor of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Then noting that, yes, the bill would offer a pathway for legalizing the status of the 12 million undocumented aliens currently in the United States, but in return the point system proposed (by Sen. Kyl) in the bill to regulate future immigration applications into the United States would _all but guarantee_ that _the vast majority of the 500 million Latin Americans_ living south of our borders would _never_ qualify for getting an immigration visa to the United States, Sen. Menendez asked them, “Tell me why I should support this bill?”  The staffers and proponents of the bill could only answer “It’s the best that is possible now, and in the future we could fix its difficulties.”

It would seem that the loud, organized opposition of anti-immigration/nativist forces on one side and the bleeding away for reasons to vote for the bill on the part of pro-immigration forces on the other appeared to seal the bill’s doom.

Still, what an incredible job on the part of the film-makers of this documentary series in showing how Washington (democracy) works!  And I would definitely recommend the series to _anyone_ interested in advocacy.  The entire series can be purchased through the film-makers How Democracy Works Now website for the (current) price of $150, which is not an exorbitant price for an advocacy group.  Individuals could look to see if they could check out the series at a public library.

But again, what a _great_ documentary series for _anyone_ considering getting involved in advocacy to see!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Out in the Silence

MPAA (Not Rated) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1564058/
Official Website


Out in the Silence (directed by Dean Hammer and Joe Wilson) played recently at the 9th Annual Chicago Human Rights Watch Film Festival at Facet’s Multimedia in Chicago.  It is about documentary film-maker Joe Wilson coming back to his hometown of Oil City, Pennsylvania to document the case of a teenager C.J. Mills who had been so harassed at his high school for coming out as gay that he was forced to leave it in favor of being schooled at home.  Joe Wilson, who had grown up quietly gay in the town before leaving it as soon as he left for college, had come to hear of C.J.’s case from C.J.’s mother who wrote him after Joe Wilson had put an announcement in Oil City’s local paper following his recent (gay) marriage to Dean Hammer with whom he lived happily for years in Washington D.C. 

C.J.’s story presented in a very gentle way in this film will nonetheless certainly cause a veritable spectrum of immediate reactions in a whole host of people hearing/reading about the film.  I would note here simply that while the Catholic Church, obviously, does not support gay marriage and considers homosexuality to be an intrinsically disordered condition, it nevertheless opposes mistreatment and _most_ discrimination against homosexuals.  Whether or not this position is ultimately tenable is definitely not for me or anyone else to necessarily argue here.  However, my point is that the Catholic Church, while honestly having doctrinal issues over morality of gay sex (or any sex that isn’t open to the possibility to creating life) and therefore opposes gay marriage and finally gay adoption (yes, one position links to the next and down this three rung chain), it nevertheless _also_ recoils (I believe) with _sincere_ revulsion at the thought of violence perpetrated against gays.  Ah, if the writers of the Book of Leviticus only knew of penguins...

Having personally dealt with pastoral situations in which practicing Catholic families had to deal with children coming out as gay – and I am truly happy and I do believe even the whole Catholic Church similarly rejoices that the VAST MAJORITY of Catholic parents (and ALL of them, 100%, that I’ve _ever known_ or worked with in this situation) come to ACCEPT THEIR GAY CHILDREN -- I don’t think it is a bad thing for Catholics to see a movie like this, because this movie deals with real life.

All of us believe what we do (and largely as a result of our origins and upbringing) and the vast majority of us wish to be as good as we can be.  But I think ALL of us are also sickened at the thought of a 16 year old being beaten-up for ANY reason, be they that he/she was black, Jewish, Arab, or gay.  All of us instinctively understand (and again THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDERSTANDS) that there’s something deeply wrong with that.

As such, no matter what one may think/believe regarding homosexuality in a doctrinal/theoretical sense, this movie's worth seeing because most of us probably want our kids / young people to be happy and certainly no one wants to see 16 year olds being terrorized or beaten-up.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Tree of Life [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Roger Ebert (4 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv064.htm
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609998

Tree of Life (written and directed by Terrence Malick) is a movie that has certainly created a buzz among film critics.  Very long, explicitly religious and rather strange, it has been suggested as being something a “mainstream”/“liberal” “answer” to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.  I’m not sure if that description is either particularly correct or particularly useful because I’m not sure if “liberal”/”conservative” are particularly useful terms in talking of a God who _one hopes_ is BIGGER than the _faddish_ peculiarities of American political discourse. 

It would seem to me that the buzz created by this movie is indicative of a legitimate thirst in the artistic/better educated communities for God Talk that goes beyond tendencious slogans like “God hates government sponsored health insurance.” 

That this movie stands _so alone_ -- I’d compare the movie _more_ to Martin Scorcese’s Last Temptation of Christ than to Gibson's Passion of the Christ – only underlines the God Talk "Desert" that we find ourselves in.  And here it must be said that Church leaders both Catholic and Protestant are as much responsible as anybody for sucking water out of religious discourse in contemporary American film. 

In the name of everyone who’s ever actually read Nikos Kazantzakis' book The Last Temptation of Christ or seen Scorcese’s movie, I’d like to declare the obvious: the “last temptation” _wasn’t_ any kind of “sexual experience with Mary Magdalene.” Instead, the Temptation coming between Jesus’ words ON THE CROSS of “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46) and “Into your hands I commend my spirit" (Lk 23:46)  was TO GET OFF THE CROSS (after all, HE WAS GOD, HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT) and lead a normal, simple, happy life. 

The book Last Temptation of Christ and the movie that it inspired were _great_ (and _fun_) explorations of possible back-stories to the Gospel texts that we have, that _could_ give joy/spiritual nourishment to _anyone_ who’s ever really enjoyed “chewing” on God’s Word, that is Scripture.  Instead, both the book and especially the movie were condemned.  The result has been a near 20 year creative drought.  Afterall, why would a mainstream director _want_ the career risking hassle of putting out an overtly religious work?  So the ONLY overtly religious explorations in American film produced in the last 20 years were occasional SAFELY CONSERVATIVE productions.  Even then the producers of _these productions_ were shelled, if not by the religious community then by America’s creative community, as Mel Gibson and Roland Joffé (director of the recent movie There be Dragons) could attest. 

So whatever else one could say about the Tree of Life, at least it offers the possibility of breaking this generational drought in religious exploration in American film.  And I’d like to take this opportunity to tee-up and aim for a home run here: I’d like to challenge the film community to take this film as a starting point, and take _also_ the artistic insights of the likes of Salvador Dali (a not-insignificant portion of whose work had an obvious religious dimension [1],[2],[3]) and James Joyce [1] [2] (to some extent the latter has been used in movies like the Coen brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? and more recently A Serious Man) and go out to produce a new generation of religiously grounded films. 

I can think of at least three religiously based films that are crying to be made:

A film based on the life of the biblical Jacob, who went through most of his life as arguably _a con man_ but one, as one reads his story, who _didn’t have_ much of a choice.  Yet _this_ was the one whom God eventually blessed with a new name, Israel, that is “one who wrestles with God.”  

A film based on the life of the Joseph of Genesis, who had every right to just hang himself in prison after having been betrayed once by his Brothers and again by the wife of his Master/Boss.  And yet, there in the Darkness of the Dungeon that he found himself in, with arguably ONLY his Dreams as his company, he was able to slowly rebuild his life and then to the extent that he actually ended up Saving the Brothers who betrayed him in the first place.  Reading that take on Joseph’s life, it actually starts to look NOT ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT from that of the young teenage girl who after the death of her mother was “sent into an insane asylum” by her step-father which formed the foundation of the story-line for Zack Snyder's recent movie Suckerpunch that was roundly panned by critics, though interestingly not necessarily by the Church.

Finally, a film based on the life of Saint Patrick, the rich Christian boy (Patricius was probably derived from Patrician, meaning upper class in Latin) from Britain who was kidnapped by still pagan Irish raiders (perhaps in hopes of extorting a ransom), who after his escape _decades later_ had _every reason to be bitter_ and to _hate_ those Irish raiders for stealing what would have been the “best” (young adult) years of his life.  Instead, he _chose_ to make lemonade out of the lemons that he was given, became ordained as a priest after he escaped and found his way back to Britain, AND RETURNED to Ireland to convert the very people who had so thoroughly damaged his life. 

There are countless other stories that one can think of once one starts going and I mention these three in part because one wonders what the creative community of today could achieve with them if the free-form techniques used by Terrence Malick to make the Tree of Life (based on the Book of Job) were applied to them.
 
Okay now, to the actual movie ... Malick’s Tree of Life begins with a quotation from the Job: “Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it?  Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone, While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7). 

The beginning sequence of the movie featured two people, a woman in the 1950s, Mrs O’Brien (played by Jessica Chastain) and a man, Jack (played by Sean Penn), a generation later calling out to God about the difficulties in life that they were facing.  The visual response was slow, awesome and long.  About 5-6 minutes were devoted to the age of the dinosaurs alone..., who we are eventually reminded (again visually) were destroyed in more or less an instant by a meteor strike. 

That sequence ends with Jack calling out to God “when did you speak to me first,” which begins heart of the movie.  Presented initially are mostly images of Jack’s birth and early experiences, playing with his mother, playing with blocks, playing with mud, playing eventually with a new younger brother and encountering also his father Mr. O’Brien (played by Brad Pitt).  Much happens afterwards.  The movie closes _without_ it being altogether clear what exactly were the crises that Mrs O’Brien faced or her son faced a generation later.  But most viewers will probably get the point.

The Tree of Life is an _awesome_ movie in the proper sense of the word.  It won’t necessarily be for everyone.  Indeed, I can’t think of _anyone_ that I would immediately recommend this movie to in my mostly “meat and potatoes” ethnic parish, though after to some reflection I would recommend it to some and perhaps to some of their adult children.  But I do believe the movie to be brave and it could become the inspiration of a lot of brave and reflective film-making in the future.   Thanks Malick for making it!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

The Green Wave

MPAA (Not Rated) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1667130/
Official Website -
http://www.thegreenwave-film.com/

The Green Wave (directed by Ali Samadi Ahadi and co-written again by Ali Samadi Ahadi as well as Oliver Stoltz) is a well produced film about the nationwide protest movement born in Iran during the 2009 election.  The movie is one of the selections currently playing at Chicago’s 9th Annual Human Rights Watch Film Festival being held at Facet’s Multimedia in Chicago.

Having witnessed the revolutions of the Arab Spring this year in Tunisia and Egypt as well as continued protests and conflicts in Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen, the Green Protests in Iran in 2009 may seem like ancient history to us today.  Yet, it was the young people in Iran who first converted social media like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube into platforms for organizing their opposition, “Green” movement, which were used so extensively in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere throughout the Middle East to do the same this year.

The Green Wave weaves interviews with opposition figures including Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi and Shadi Sadr as well as younger leaders, often in exile, including Mitra Khalatbari, Payam Akhavan, Navid Akhavan and Pegah Ferydoni with poignant animations of testimonies posted by Iranian young people on blogs and twitter feeds during the height of the protests and subsequent crackdown in which far more people were killed on the streets, and subsequently arrested, tortured and killed in prison than most people outside of Iran are aware. 

There is the reason for why the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran did not succeed, the people were terrorized back into submission. 

Still the cracks in the regime appear to be there.  In a particularly poignant testimony, a member of Iran’s religious police confessed to having blood on his hands, having participated in the beating deaths of three young boys during the crackdown on the protests.  Disturbed, he along with others in his squad asked their mullah chaplain what they should do to get forgiveness.  The mullah chaplain assured them that they killed only infidels who had it coming to them.  Yet, this member of the religious police confessed that since the killings he’s stopped praying convinced that he had done wrong and that Allah knew ... Similar stories trickled out of Argentina during and after its “Dirty War” with the Communists in the 1970s (LA Times, Mar 8, 1995).  Good, fundamentally honest even patriotic people can’t be convinced to kill the innocent forever to keep a regime in power.  And the next Presidential elections in Iran are only 2 years away in 2013 ...


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

X-Men: First Class [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110602/REVIEWS/110609997

X-Men: First Class (directed by Matthew Vaughn, screenplay co-written by Ashley Miller and Zach Stentz and others) is based on the X-Men comic series by Marvel Comics.

Set initially during World War II and then principally during the period immediately leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, this movie is a “prequel” to the X-Men series, focusing on the origins of the X-men comics’ principal adversaries: (Professor) Charles Xavier (played by James McAvoy, young Charles played by Lawrence Belcher) and Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto (played by Michael Fassbender, young Erik played by Bill Milner). 

Born into privilege though with a tragic home life in Westchester, New York, Charles Xavier was a young boy during World War II.  Erik Lehnsherr (Max Eisenhardt in the original comic) was born Jewish in Nazi Germany.  Sent to Auschwitz during the Holocaust, Erik watched his family (in the original series) or his mother (in this movie) murdered before his eyes by the Nazis. 

Both discovered early that they had “special powers,” Xavier that he could communicate with people telepathically, Erik that he could move and bend iron. 

Initially neither knew of anyone else with similar powers.  By chance one evening (and perhaps because his childhood was less traumatic than Erik’s) the young Xavier encounters a young girl named Raven, later calling herself Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence, young Raven played by Morgan Lily), who had shape-shifted into looking like Xavier’s mother.  Since Raven was acting much too nicely to be his mother, Xavier realizes that something is awry, and when Raven shape-shifts back to her blue skinned, young girl self, both Xavier and Raven discover that “they’re not alone.” He realizes that these special powers derive from some kind of genetic mutation.  Xavier then decides to make the study of genetic mutation and its effect on human evolution his life’s work. 

In contrast, Erik does not discover anyone else with special powers until he’s an adult.  In fact, he’s not particularly interested in finding out if there were any others like him.  Instead, he remains understandably consumed with avenging the deaths of his family, especially of his mother by the Nazi doctor, Baron Wolfgang von Strucker in the original series, Sebastian Strucker (played by Kevin Bacon) in the movie.  Strucker took interest in him and wanted to harness Erik’s power, which he discovered was set off by anger.  (Hence, why Strucker had Erik’s mother brought into the lab and shot in front of him, in order to set Erik off ...).

After the war like many Nazis, the evil doctor Strucker fled Europe.  More than a decade later now an adult but still _very angry_, Erik follows Strucker's trail down to Argentina where he discovers that Dr. Strucker had changed his name to Sebastian Shaw and had become a nefarious international arms merchant working out of Miami, Florida dealing with both the Americans and the Soviets and playing them off against each other.  Erik decides to head to Miami to “take care” of him there.

But there’s more to Shaw/Dr Strucker as well.  It turns out that he’s a mutant too.  That is what US intelligence agent Moira MacTaggert (played by Rose Byrne) discovers.  To better understand what the U.S./world is up against in regards to the "mutant" Shaw and his allies, she looks up "an expert," Charles Xavier... 

This then sets up the rest of the story.  Xavier now knows that there are at least three mutants in the world: himself, Raven and Shaw.  He does not know of Erik yet.  Along with Moira and her agency, he quickly sets out to look for more.  There is little time to waste as Shaw is bent on playing the Americans and Soviets against each other in the events that lead up to what the world remembers today as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  (History of course, don't remember any "mutants" involved, but Marvel Comics, here "sets us straight" ;-).

The rest of the movie is about the three key mutants – Xavier, Erik/Magneto and Strucker/Shaw – playing out their approaches to dealing with “being a mutant," that is, being Different, a radical "Other:" 

Strucker/Shaw _wants_ the Americans and Russians to blow themselves up, to destroy humanity and create _more mutants_.  Xavier believes that humans and mutants _can work together_ especially if humans better appreciated what mutants could do for the world.  Erik/Magneto, already literally marked by a tatoo for his radical Otherhood (being Jewish) in The Holocaust, hates Strucker/Shaw and wants to kill him to avenge the death of his mother.  But he does not believe that humanity would ever accept “mutants” as good.

Other mutants including Angel (played by Zoe Kravatz), Hank/Beast (played by Nicholas Hoult),  Alex Summers/Havoc (played by Lucas Till), and Raven/Mistique struggle in different ways with their Otherness and choose sides brewing the conflict.

It all makes for another rather compelling morality tale presented in Marvel Comics' "trademark" style/language to adolescents: How do we look at our “Otherness” or the “Otherness” of those around us?  Can we see it as potential Gift to the Community, the larger Whole?  Or do we see “Otherness” something to be feared, put-down, hidden, eliminated? 

And yes, there’s a religious question in all this which pertains with a particular importance to the Catholic Church: What could/should the role/place of "the Other" be in our faith, which after all is to be: "One, Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic?

Finally, this isn't the first X-men movie to come out based on the Comic.  There have been four others X-Men (2000), X2 (2003), X-Men Last Stand (2006), X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), of varying suitability to younger viewers.  Most, while somewhat confusing to follow, were fine.  The last, X-Men Origins: Wolverine was however criticized for being too graphic in its violence and, well, showed a bit more physically of one of the male mutants than was really necessary ...

This new movie, X-Men: First Class, returns to the realm of legitimate PG-13 fare and in terms of plot clarity is probably the clearest of the series thus far.  All in all the movie's not great but still pretty good.  Marvel's made better, but it's also made worse.  Perhaps the story's just too complicated, with too many nuanced characters for a comic book / series.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>