There be Dragons [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-III) Fr Dennis (3 1/2 stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review


I found There be Dragons (written and directed by Ronald Joffé) to be an excellent film about the early years of St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the Opus Dei movement.   Since just about everything regarding the Opus Dei movement tends to produce extremely strong reations both pro and against, I do believe it is useful to put this film into the context of both the other films made by Ronald Joffé and other hagiographical films (biographical works about saints) made in our time.   

Ronald Joffé had previously directed the Oscar nominated films The Killing Fields (1984) about a New York Times reporter seeking to find his Cambodian translator after the fall of Cambodia to the Communist Khmer Rouge, as well as The Mission (1986) starring Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons about the suppression of the Jesuit Mission to the Guarani Indians in Paraguay in the late 1700s.  He also directed the 1995 remake of  The Scarlet Letter starring Demi Moore.  An excellent interview with Joffé regarding his decision to make There be Dragons about the St. Josemaria Escriva can be found in the National Catholic Register.  I do believe that a number of the themes/concerns present in these previous works can also be found in There be Dragons.  These include Communism both in its ideal (The Mission) and its documentable historical excess (Killing Fields), discerning the best path for the individual / the weak to combat (The Mission) or at least witness against (The Killing Fields / The Scarlet Letter) the horrific abuses of the Powerful.  Even the use of the figure of “a common man”/”reporter” to tell the story of the heroic deeds of “the Saints / Martyrs” can be found in both The Killing Fields and The Mission and is certainly present in There Be Dragons.  So Dragons is not the work of an ideological hack.

Then, I do believe that it is useful to compare There be Dragons to other hagiographical films of recent memory including, A Man for All Seasons (1966 directed by Fred Zinnemann and both the play and screenplay written by Robert Bolt) about St. Thomas More, Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972 directed and cowritten by Franco Zeffirelli) about the early years of St. Francis of Assisi, Bernadette (1988 directed and cowritten by Jean Delannoy) about St. Bernadette of Lourdes, as well as the influential films (in Catholic circles) produced by Paulist Media, Romero (1989, directed by John Duignan, written by John Sacret Young and starring Raul Julia as the slain Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador) and Entertaining Angels (directed by Michael Ray Rhodes and John Wells and starring Moira Kelly as Dorothy Day and Martin Sheen) about Dorothy Day of New York co-foundress of the Catholic Worker Movement during the Great Depression.  Included in this category could even be the Gandhi (1982, directed by Richard Attenborough, written by John Briley and starring Ben Kingsley as Mahatma K. Gandhi of India) and Seven Years in Tibet (1997 directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud screenplay written by Becky Johnston based on the book by Heinrich Herrer and starring Brad Pitt as Herrer a “recovering sinner” living and working in Tibet in the presence of the Dalai Lama during the years of WW II up until the Chinese occupation (or re-occupation) of that country). 

All these films can help one appreciate both the various characteristics that do make one come to stand-out as a Saint and also various techniques used by writers and film-makers to tell the Saint’s story. 

Viewed in the context of these other Saint’s lives, if one had doubts about St. Josemaria Escriva’s “qualifications” to be a Saint, I think that they can be dispelled.  I do also believe that St. Josemaria Escriva both in life and after-earthly-life, exhibited the same “lightning rod” nature of many of the Saints (and non-Christian/secular ‘saints’) listed above.  It's not easy to be "neutral" about these people.  For instance, it was all but inevitable that St. Thomas More would have to be put to death under Henry VIII.  (Four centuries later, rather than put another excrutiatingly irritatingly honest man to death, Mahatma Gandhi, the British chose to leave India rather than fight (and sin) to continue to dominate it).

Then while finding someone to play Oscar Romero proved not altogether hard (and it was Raul Julia’s true role of his lifetime), it proved _extremely hard_ to find someone to play Dorothy Day.  Why?  Dorothy Day was an ex-Communist, Catholic convert who had earlier in her life had an abortion which she immediately regretted, and when she got pregnant a second time she had both herself and her child baptized and later in the 1960s came to compare the advent of the Birth Control Pill to the H-bomb.  From the mid-1930s onward she spent her life feeding the poor and on during the 1950s when New York City would hold atomic bomb drills, not only did she and her community not participate, they publicly went to Central Park to play volleyball instead.  Almost _no Hollywood actress_ was brave enough to play her though Moira Kelly finally did (and did a great job) even though Martin Sheen was more than happy to play Peter Maurin, who helped Dorothy Day co-found the Catholic Worker as well.  I doubt that many Hollywood actors were lining up to play St. Josemaria Escriva "in his early years" either, though Charlie Cox did so, and again, did a great job.

So what of Josemaria Escriva’s life do we learn that make him compelling as a Saint?  Obviously, I’m not going to list everything or even most things to not ruin the movie for the reader but I will list some.  First, he knew something of _failure_ (economic and otherwise) early in life.  His father went bankrupt several times when he was growing up.  At a time currently when up to 40% of Americans have a negative networth (owe more than they own) someone who knew something of economic failure (and survived/transcended it) becomes already a compelling figure. 

Second, Josemaria Escriva was clearly formed during the Spanish Civil War (something that the bulk of the movie is about).  But the movie portrays Escriva as someone far more complex than what could be assumed.  At a time when priests and nuns were being _rounded-up and shot_, (my own Order has a recently beatified martyr Sr. Maria Guadalupe Ricart Olmos, OSM of Spain who was executed by the Reds during the Spanish Civil War) and Escriva himself had to spend a number of years _in plain clothes_ conducting his priestly ministry, the movie did portray him as someone who _did understand the Communists_ as well.  He did disagree with their methods but he did not deny the fundamental injustices that they were fighting.  Finally, Escriva is presented in the movie as _despising careerists_ in the Church _and_ actually refusing the protection and “mentoring” of a Bishop in Valencia who could have made the initial years of his fledgling Opus Dei community much easier than it turned out.  Instead, Escriva and his community arguably chose to “go it alone” _in much the same way_ as Dorothy Day and _her community_ did in New York during roughly the same time (Amazing, isn't it?)  I find that these surprising and _compelling_ bits of information about St. Josemaria Escriva make him an interesting and challenging saint at a time when _we_ often dismiss those we disagree with out of hand, without realizing that the justice of their arguments as well.

Indeed, like Zeffirelli’s Brother Sun, Sister Moon became an interesting “topic of conversation” over the years with Franciscans, it will be interesting how There be Dragons comes to be seen by Opus Dei in the years and decades to come.  Will it be seen as a source of renewed inspiration?  Or will it come to be seen as a story that Hollywood didn’t get quite right?

Folks, honestly check back in five years ;-).  In the mean time, here's an excellent review of the movie from Opus Dei's American website.  And yes, I would recommend the movie to all teens and adults.  There is something to be learned here for all people of good will.


<< 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! :-) >>

Something Borrowed

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491152/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/s/somethingborrowed2011.shtml
Roger Ebert’s review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110504/REVIEWS/110509995

It should be said at the beginning that like many other recent so-called rom-coms, Something Borrowed (directed by Luke Greenfield, screenplay by Jennie Snyder based on the novel by Emily Giffin) is not really all that light or funny.   On even short reflection, however, this should not be surprising.  After all it is about at least two young people (and possibly a third) who make a critical relational mistake.  Perhaps they did so inadvertently, perhaps they were somewhat “forced” into it by both their “upbringing” or “circumstances.”  Nevertheless our decisions (or indecisions) have consequences and that’s what this somewhat cautionary tale is about.                                           

Rachel (played by Ginnifer Goodwin) and Dex (played by Colin Egglesfield) had spent an entire year of law school studying together.  Yet, due to shyness, insecurity (“Could he/she really like/love me?” or perhaps “I don’t want to ruin this great friendship that we have”) both decide (internally, without discussing the matter with the other) not to pursue the matter further.  Things come to a head, when Rachel’s louder, somewhat bombastic friend Darcy (played by Kate Hudson), who knows Dex from Rachel’s much talking about him, runs into them in the midst of a “celebratory _non date_ dinner” to mark the end of that intense year at school.  She challenges Dex to ask Rachel on date (all this is in the movie’s trailer).  Rachel responds “oh no, we’re just friends.”  Darcy, somewhat unthinkingly responds “Ok, then Dex ask me on a date.”  Somewhat disoriented by the sudden urgency of the matter Dex dutifully asks Darcy on a date (in front of Rachel).  She accepts.  Rachel steps out to the bathroom, when she comes back D&D are talking away.  Rachel, then excuses herself to go home.  Dex even follows her out the door to check if “everything was okay.”  Rachel responds “Oh sure, I’m fine, who knows where it will lead?”  And five years later, when the movie takes place, this exchange led all three of them  into a really big ditch.  Darcy and Dex are about to get married and only under that matrimonial gun do the real feelings start to come out in this triangle.

Yes, like most movies of this kind, Something Borrowed’s characters, especially those surrounding the lead three are somewhat exaggerated.  They are “types” more than people.  Still some of the psychology behind all three of the lead characters is presented, making the movie certainly more realistic but (at times) also much more painful to watch.

I do believe that there are a number of rather good messages present in this movie. 

First, and foremost, younger folks, _please_ don’t let your otherwise “shyness” or “niceness”/”decency” become an obstacle to your asserting yourself when it’s really important.  Dex was not a random guy for Rachel (and vice versa).  Yet, in an instant both proved capable of throwing away an entire year of memories/history, for what?  To be “nice” to a friend Darcy, for whom (at least initially) Dex was _exactly_ a “random guy” who could have been replaced rather quickly by her if she had been indicated to “lay off” by either Dex or Rachel.  Instead, neither Dex nor Rachel took responsibility for their own lives and feelings and in a vacuum, Darcy “took over.”

This is not to say that Darcy’s unreflectiveness (both in her relationship with Dex as her fiancé and Rachel, who she almost certainly sincerely continued to consider her best friend) is an attractive trait.  She plays the elephant in the china shop.  Still, nature abhors a vacuum and if Dex since Rachel chose to abdicate responsibility for their own lives and happiness, Darcy was there to fill the space.  But “Darcy” could have been “work,” stupid diversion,” video-games, etc.

Second, the institution of marriage _is valuable_.  Its very permanence / seriousness forced ALL THREE to confront the demons present.  Without the impending wedding, Darcy and Dex could have continued to simply “live together” indefinitely in unreflective ambiguity essentially forever with no one except unreflective Darcy being happy but without any crushing need to finally resolve the situation.

Third, true friendships survive blowups.  Without revealing the ending, it seemed rather clear to me that even if the chess pieces were moved around a bit (and there were other “side characters” involved as well), it seemed clear to me that all three of the friendships involved in this triangle were going to survive if perhaps somewhat redefined.  If you truly love someone, if you’re truly a friend to someone, you want the other person to be happy.  So yes, friendships survive blowups.

But of course, there’s much to discuss/reflect on in this movie.  I found Something Borrowed to be be a very good young adult movie, reminding me of St. Elmo’s Fire from "my time,” perhaps better.  I found Kate Hudson's playing of  "party girl" Darcy particularly compelling.  Hers was a character with a lot of unspoken problems really, among them being that she seemed to _always_ have a drink in her hand... (something that someone of my age no longer fails to notice ...) 

I’d certainly recommend the movie to the 20 something crowd.  In one's 20s one is making (or not making) key decisions that will effect the rest of one's life.  And if there’d be _one piece_ of advice in line with the spirit of this movie that I'd like to offer the 20 somethings of today, it is in the words of one of the great bards of my generation, Bruce Springsteen: “If there’s something you need, if there’s something you want, you’ve got to raise your hand.”  It’s a great song that Springsteen always sang with a smile, fits the spirit of this movie, very, very well, and it’s absolutely true.


<< 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! :-) >>

Jumping the Broom

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert’s review

I found Jumping the Broom (directed by Salim Akil, story by Elizabeth Hunter with the screenplay co-written by her and Arlene Gibbs) to be a lovely movie about two African American families meeting for a wedding of the spirit and caliber approaching that of My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Moonstruck.  Yes, there are differences in all these movies but there are also many similarities.  And ultimately families are families.  All have their traditions, their stories and occasional secrets.  And occasions like weddings do flush them out.

What I found utterly endearing in this movie was that BOTH the bride and the groom explicitly appealed to God for help during the course of the story; the bride near the beginning and the groom near the end.  Further, during the whole of their courtship and engagement, the bride Sabrina Watson (played by Paula Patton) wishes to remain a “good girl” (no sex) because she made a promise to God and her fiancé Jason Taylor (played by Laz Alonzo) lets her keep her promise. 

Two comments here:  First, I find _both points_ (that the two would both ask God for help in times of crisis, and that the two would abstain from sex prior to marriage) _completely believable_.  And second both points underscore a truth about the African American community that often goes unnoticed and certainly goes underappreciated outside its bounds: African Americans make-up the single most church going ethnicity in the United States.  And even among those who do complicate their lives and end-up in jail (and the poorer strata in _any society_ always make-up disproportionately those who find themselves in jail), everyone of them has an mother, grandmother or aunt who is praying for them. 

To the story.  While driving home from another schmuck that she had been dating, Sabrina asks God to find her a man, and tells God that he’s gonna have to give her a real sign.  Well even as she finishes her little prayer/complaint, she _nearly runs over Jason_ who was trying to cross the street.  Feeling about guilty as one can be for grazing him with her car and knocking him to the pavement, she runs over to him apologizing profusely.  And they start a conversation ... ;-)

Five months later, they’ve been dating for some time and hitting it off.  Sandra, an accountant or financier of some sort gets a job that would result in her moving to China for some years.  Jason tells her to take the job, but then drops on his knee, with a ring in hand and asks her to merry him.  She says yes.  But now they have two months to put together a wedding

That’s the story’s setup.  Of course, since the wedding is so rushed, friends and family of both parties believe that Sandra must be pregnant.  And both Sandra and Jason have to tell "the curious" that no this wasn’t the issue.  The larger difficulty, however, was that the families hadn’t yet met and both families have their problems.

Sandra’s family (mother played by Angela Bassett, father played by Brian Stokes Mitchell and aunt played by Valerie Pettiford) is moneyed, probably from the Caribbean and lives on Martha’s Vineyard (where the Kennedys live).  While Jason himself had gone to college and is an accountant/broker at Goldman Sachs, his mother (played by Loretta Divine) works for the Post Office and lives in Brooklyn, NY.  Jason’s father is deceased. 

While both families are black, they come from different socio-economic worlds.  And while this is manifested in the movie in many ways, it comes down to the famous African American ritual “jumping the broom,” at the end of the wedding.  Jason’s mother simply can not imagine a wedding without this little ritual, which goes back to slavery times in the United States. Sandra’s family on the other hand notes that their family actually owned slaves at some point (again, probably in the Caribbean somewhere).

Much ensues, various secrets and family demons (on both sides) get exorcized.  And it all ends happily in the end.  But as the preacher, Reverend James (played by T.D. Jakes) tells both Sandra and Jason as they sit down with him a day (_only a day_) before the wedding, marriage even in the best of circumstances is a trial for both.  Again, the movie does end well, and both families had their issues that needed resolving.  Yet, the movie is a good reminder that marriage is serious business and at times various issues and secrets have to be confronted. 

I liked the characters and liked the movie.  Yes, the particulars in the film are at times exaggerated but the point made that a wedding/marriage isn’t simply a party is indeed true and true for all.


<< 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! :-) >>

Thor [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Mike Phillips (3 Stars) Fr Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips review

Two things to say at the outset about Thor [2011] (directed by Kenneth Branagh, screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, and Don Payne, story by J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich), Marvel Comics’ latest comic book (by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby) to be brought to the big screen:

First, Thor is a movie that’d be worth spending the few extra dollars to see in 3D.  With rare exceptions (last year’s Avatar and more recently the documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams), I’ve generally thought 3D to be a gimmicky waste of money.  Five minutes into this movie, however, I was regretting that I let my "cheap Czechoslovakian heritage" ;-) get the best of me and not splurging to get the 3D experience here.  I say this because the scenes from Thor’s realm of Asgard and that of the Frost Giants must have been absolutely awesome to behold in 3D.  (Note to self and others: When a film is about an alternate world filled with sharplined objects like towers/skyscrapers or even icebergs, it’s probably worth the money to see this in 3D where available).

Second, OMG, can one think of _any_ actor or actress at _any_ time who’s had the kind of year that Natalie Portman has had over the last 12 months?  She’s been in FOUR films released over the last six months: Black Swan, No Strings Attached, Your Highness and now Thor.  In the course of the year, she’s gotten married and is about to give birth to her first child.  But what a way to bring the curtain down on one’s “young adult” years!  I don’t think that _anyone_ since Harrison Ford was cast in a relatively short space of time as both Han Solo in the Star Wars series and as Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark has _any_ actor or actress had similar good fortune in casting. 

Wonderful.  Now what’s Thor about?  The movie is inspired by Marvel Comics' Thor (appearing first in 1962), itself inspired by Norse Mythology, with significant updating and adaptations.  Thor, of course, was the Nordic God of Thunder (for whom Thursday or Thor’s Day is named).  The young and still arrogant son of Odin (in German Wotan, for whom Wednesday or Wodin’s Day is named) the King of the Nordic Gods, in the Marvel Comics' imagination, Thor was cast down to earth without his ability to use his prized Hammer until he became “worthy” of its power once again. 

In the comic book series, the period of time between his banishment and his redemption was much longer (10 years) than in the movie (a few earthly days) and the trajectory of his earthly life in between was more complicated.  In the comic he came down to earth as a cripple, who eventually became a medical student where he met his love interest Jane Foster a nurse.

In the movie, Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) crashes down to earth somewhere in New Mexico, without his powers to be sure, but still as one heck of a hunk; good natured, immature, but certainly with a stop-you-in-your-tracks godly physique.  That’s how (in the movie) _astrophysicist_  Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman) meets him.  She was out in the New Mexico desert with her team -- grad student (?) Darcy Lewis (played by Kat Dennings) and older, mentor-like scientist Erik Selvig (played by Stellan Skarsgard) -- in a RV-like vehicle searching for tornado-like “wormhole” phenomena, when suddenly such an astrophysical phenomenon does occur and out of the sky crashes, good ole Thor.  And Jane Foster, driving her RV like a tornado chaser, knocks him over with her car.

Knocked-out on the desert floor, this 6', flowing blond haired and bearded, nothing but pecks, biceps and six-pack abs, godlike stranger appears to be in need of help.  And Darcy “self-lessly” ;-) offers to perform CPR on him “I _totally_ know how to do CPR...”  Jane, who had grazed him with her car is there first however and she’s the first person that Thor sees when he wakes up a few moments later. Thus begins the rest of the movie in which Thor needs to be redeemed and then return to his realm of Asgard to help save his father Odin (played by Anthony Hopkins) against a plot perpetrated by Thor’s brother Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston) who set-up Thor for his banishment and then proceeded to try to take aging Odin’s throne for himself. 
                               
And if scenes of Asgard and the battles with the frost giants on their planet of Jotenheim are Epic, indeed, Awesome [TM], the Thor’s time on earth are mostly _just plain fun_.  Afterall, here’s a good natured, but supremely confident (and for good reason, because he _is_ drop your jaw, turn women’s knees into mush studly) Norse God, Thor, strutting around some nameless hamlet in New Mexico (remember Roswell happened in New Mexico) without actually having much of a clue as to what to do.

In one scene, he enters into a pet store asks the attendant: “Get me your finest steed, fine man.”  The gum chewing teenager working in the store responds, “All we have here sir are dogs, birds and cats.” Somewhat bemused but still supremely confident, Thor replies, “Then get me a dog big enough to ride.” Jane catches up to him just before the now _really confused_ teen replies and offers to take him to where he wants to go with her RV.  

Then at one point, a group of Thor’s friends from Asgard come down to earth looking for him.  They look like the Barbarians of the Capital One Credit Card comercials.

All in all, I found the this movie to be _wildly entertaining_ ;-).

Given Thor’s Nordic roots, both the Marvel comic book series and the movie could have been “problematic,” as the Nazis used to be great fans of Norse Mythology and Richard Wagner.  Yet the trajectory of both the comic and the movie was one of Odin teaching Thor a lesson about self-control and, indeed, compassion/humanity (hence why Thor was sent down to earth).

I could count only one possibly racially problematic scene in which the blond and studly Thor wrestled with and defeated a very large African American U.S. Service-man as Thor first tried to recover his Hammer.  Discovering the Hammer, the U.S. army had put up a guarded perimeter around the hammer as it tried to study it.  The scene recalls the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones trying to recover the Ark of the Covenant from the Nazis is confronted by a large brutish German serviceman who challenges him to a boxing match that Indiana Jones through some trickery and luck was able to win.

Yet, Thor was very well cast, with people of all races cast as various Norse Gods.  Indeed, the Guardian to the portal used by the Norse Gods to travel among the nine “realms” (Earth, Asgard and Jotenheim being three of them) was played by an African American.

Further, it is abundantly clear that Jane Foster of this movie is an independent woman, who’s clearly smarter than Thor but who’s attracted to Thor for his eye-candy physique and somewhat goofy personality rather than his “dominance.”  And the movie leaves open the possibility that _she_ will figure out (_on her own_) how to make it to Thor’s realm of Asgard before Thor figures out how to get back to earth.

While Thor will not be for everyone, I would imagine that teenagers and twenty-somethings as well as _anyone_ who’s ever liked graphic novels and comic books would probably like this movie.  I certainly thought it was an absolute blast ;-).


<< 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! :-) >>

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

IMDb (unrated) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1664894/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert’s review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110427/REVIEWS/110429983

Cave of Forgotten Dreams is a documentary written and directed Werner Herzog and filmed in 3D about the paleolithic art found in the Chauvet Cave in Southern France discovered in 1994. Carbon dating of the charcoal outlines of the animal figures drawn on the cave’s walls date back to 30,000-32,000 BC making it the oldest known repository of representational art found anywhere. The story of the Chauvet Cave and its art is fascinating and it is worthwhile to read-up on it prior to seeing the movie.

The cave is closed to tourists because changes in the temperature and moisture of the cave’s environment by heavy human visitation would have detrimental effects on the cave walls. As such, the only way that most people will ever experience the art present in these caves would be through photographs and films like Herzog’s. Herzog’s choice of making this film in 3D is a good one as the cave walls, floor and ceiling are _not flat_ and the 3D experience makes one immediately appreciate how the paleolithic artists made use of the contours of the cave to enhance the representations (mostly of animals) that they drew.

What was the cave used for? Interestingly, while scratch-marks on the walls indicate that bears periodically inhabited the cave, humans apparently never made use of the cave for living. Instead, the cave seemed to have a reflective/spiritual purpose evidenced by the cave drawings and perhaps ceremonial one evidenced by a bear skull found lying on top of an altar-like rock and evidence of torches or fires having been lit by it. In one of the most memorable scenes in the documentary, Herzog was able to help the viewer appreciate how shadows would appear to "dance" along the walls as a person or group of people danced (or otherwise moved) before a fire. Having noticed this "dance of the shadows" phenomenon when he began his filming in the cave, Herzog noted that he was immediately reminded of a famous "dancing with the shadows" scene Fred Astaire’s Swing Time.

All this reminds me of Joseph Campbell’s famous work Primitive Mythology in which Campbell sought to ascertain the earliest indications of a spiritual life in humans and our animal kingdom cousins. Specifically, he noted that chimpanzees appear to enjoy twirling around (approaching dancing) just for the heck of it (just for the joie de vivre). He also noted that the acquisition of fire appeared to have had a truly profound (and even guilt producing) effect on the human psyche, suggesting that even the Christian concept of "original sin" may have its roots in human acquisition of fire.  Finally, he noted that a bear cult (evidenced by the purposeful placement of a bear skull prominent spot in a cave) appeared to be among the oldest forms of archeologically attested worship. Herzog offers the viewer of his documentary the opportunity to imagine all three of these phenomena – the interplay of dance and artificial light/shadows in the service of some kind of bear skull / animal worship – taking place in this cave.

In the end, Werner Herzog reminds us that we can only imagine how the cave was experienced by the early humans who would visit it over 30,000 years ago. The cave becomes, therefore, truly a Cave of Forgotten Dreams.


<< 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! :-) >>

Hoodwinked Too - Hood vs Evil

MPAA (G) CNS/USCCB (A-II) Michael Phillips (1 star) Fr. Dennis (1/2 star)

IMDb Listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844993/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/h/hoodwinkedtoo2011.shtml
Michael Phillips review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0426-hoodwinked-2-20110428,0,6521350.column

I found Hoodwinked Too - Hood vs Evil (directed by Mike Disa and co-written by Cory Edwards and Todd Edwards and two others) to be a very creative, often honestly very funny, but on reflection also a very disturbing animated film, one of several (including Hop) in which I found the accenting of the animated characters to be really problematic.

The film features various re-imagined staples from Grimm’s Fairy Tales working for the HEA (Happy Ending Administration) dedicated to keeping things running happily and ending well in their make-believe world.  Honestly, a “kinder, gentler CIA?”

Little Red Riding Hood (voice by Hayden Panettiere) begins the movie getting “green beret” training at a Himalayan martial arts center reminding one of Kung Fu Panda.  The Big Bad Wolf (voice by Patrick Warburton) who’s now her partner is (when one thinks about it, unsurprisingly) a “master of disguises.”  Grandma (voice by Glenn Close) is the keeper of a secret truffle recipe on which the well-being of the world depends. 

Then there are the villains.  There’s the "mostly talk," but when it comes down to it "incompetent" green African American sounding Troll (voice by David Alan Grier) who serves as Red Riding Hood's sparing partner during her training.  There’s the Slavic sounding witch, named Verushka (voice by Joan Cusack), jealous of Grandma for "always coming to second to her" early in life.  There are the rather vindictive Hispanic sounding Three Little Pigs (voiced among others by Cheech Marin).  There’s the Italian mafia like “big guy”/”gumba” (Giant) from Jack and the Beanstalk who runs a seedy club in San Francisco. 

And then there is are the German accented twins Hansel and Gretel (voices by Bill Hader and Amy Poehler) around whom the whole story comes to revolve.

I found the story creative, and yes at times very funny.  Still, I can’t help but be concerned about the use of accents in these animated stories.  I have a sister who’s name is Vera, known to us in our Czech immigrant family as Veruška (pronounced Verushka).  And ironically, she’s spent most of her life trying really, really hard to be an American.  And here’s a Verushka cast as a Slavic sounding witch ...

Then there’s Cheech Marin saying “arriba los puecos!” (Long live the pigs!) as he leads three heavily armed “little pigs” as they try to get their vengeance against the English stately sounding  “Big bad wolf” who previously tried "to blow their house down." 

The Silverster Stalone looking “gumba” Giant isn’t exactly a bright light for Italian Americans trying to get past their stereotypes. 

And even Hansel and Gretel turn out to be rather “complex.”

Honestly, how’s is one supposed to wrap one’s head around all this if one is not a WASP?

It’s funny, no doubt. But honestly, what a collection of non-Anglo-Saxon stereotypical villains ...


<< 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! :-) >>

Prom

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB (A-1) Michael Phillips (2 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (2 stars)

IMDB listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1604171/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/prom2011.shtml

Michael Phillips' review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-prom-20110428,0,3805785.column

I was somewhat guilted/talked into going to see Prom (directed by Joe Nussbaum and written by Katie Wech) by one of my parish’s teenagers.  To be honest, I figured that the Prom Night horror movies and Carrie had about as much to say about Prom that I’d be willing to give the subject.  However, movies like the High School Musical franchise and the television series Glee have revisited high school in recent years and spun it in probably the most positive light since Happy Days of my teenage viewing days.  So I figured I’d give it a shot.

And I have to say that it did have its moments.  In particularly I could not but feel for student council president Nova Prescott (played by Aimee Teegarden) trying her heart out to make her hitgh school’s prom the “best prom ever.”   I’ve known people like this and for the sake of a good soul trying to make something work, most of us probably could be convinced to take a grenade or something.  The rest of the cast is the typical collection of characters assembled for high school movies.  There was at least one more or less obvious homage to The Breakfast Club.  But all this was more or less obviously stitched together by Disney in the service of repackaging and remarketing Prom.

And therein to me lies the problem: No matter how Disney, Inc spins it, Prom remains largely a crass commercial enterprise with questionable and even objectionable social value.  Prom has always been something of a social report card.  In generations past it was even a final exam of sorts. But on what criteria?  One’s looks, one’s date’s looks, one’s money, one’s date’s money, at times even the two’s sexual performance.   No wonder therefore that Prom became the subject of teenage horror movies...

At least in generations past, a fair percentage of prom couples did eventually get married and _not just_ because a fair number of the women got knocked-up as a result of the whole thing, but because the couple had been dating throughout a good part of high school, and after high school the guy got a decent job at the shop, factory or farm and the couple could set-up house.  Today, _that’s generally impossible_ and most prom couples end up splitting up, heading in different directions to different schools after high school graduation. 

All this has thankfully contributed to Prom becoming Prom-Lite over the last 20 years.  Parents have stepped it to make it less of a free for all.  It’s now socially acceptable (again?) to go to Prom in groups rather than rigorously paired up, saving both parents and kids money and frankly diminishing the previous annual “off to college”run on abortions at Planned Parenthood in August-September that the “May Prom Season” used to spawn. 

But then, if Prom is thankfully becoming Prom-lite is that “good for business?”  Well, that may best answer Disney’s interest in producing this film, Prom – to repackage and resell Prom's “mystique” to the High School Musical generation.   Folks, an end of high school dance is certainly nice.  But folks, please, please don’t let Disney or anyone else make this single high point in your life be your last.


<< 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! :-) >>