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! :-) >>

Midnight in Paris [2011]

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars) Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
Roger Ebert's review

Midnight in Paris (written and directed by Woody Allen) is a fun film that probably would be enjoyed by anyone who’s ever dreamed of living in another “golden" era.

Gil (played by Owen Wilson) is a successful but unhappy Hollywood screen-writer who's long felt that he "sold out" and would much prefer trading-in his celluloid success for some serious writing.  He finds himself on vacation in Paris with his fiancé Inez (played by Rachel McAdams) where they meet-up with her parents, John (played by Kurt Fuller) and Helen (played by Mimi Kennedy).  Future father-in-law John had come Paris on a business trip to sell "the Frogs" some stuff, but it's obvious that John hates the place.  Gil, instead, falls in love with Paris, even its rain, while the rest, including his fiancé just want get their business done, buy stuff and go back to the States.  Worse, Gil and Inez run into a couple of Inez’ friends, Paul (played by Micahel Sheen) and Carol (played by Nina Arianda).  Paul, like similar characters in other Woody Allen films, is extremely knowledgeable (to the point of arguing with a tourguide (played by Italian actress and current French first lady Carla Bruni), but (1) can’t shut up and (2) after all his fact spewing is taken away, just doesn’t “get” where he is, PARIS, and certainly doesn’t appreciate it the way Gil does.

So after a particularly awful wine-tasting party where Inez’ dad declares that anything from California’s Sonoma Valley is better the pretentious French swill that they were being served (and Paul disagees only in the details), Gil decides to “take a walk” rather than join the rest who want to go out dancing (To what? no doubt bad Anglophone music...).

Walking about, Gil finds himself at a random fountain on a random street corner in Paris when at the stroke of midnight, a 1920s-era Peugeot pulls up.  A woman holding a teetering champagne glass, dressed in 1920s flapper garb opens the window and calls him over.  She and her well-groomed partner invite him in to join them.  Inside the car, they pour him a glass and introduce themselves as Scott Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hiddleston) and Zelda (played by Alison Pill).  Gil does not believe them.  It's only when they come to the pub / dance hall that they were going to and introduce him to Ernest Hemingway (played by Corey Stoll), _that_ Gil spits out his drink.  The characters around Gil are _exactly_ like they were portrayed in the various biographies about them.  Zelda is spacy, F. Scott Fitzgerald is a gentleman, Ernest Hemingway can’t get way from leading every conversation back to bravery and honor...

Gil spends sometime talking to Hemingway about the novel he’s been trying to write, gets Hemingway to promise to take a look at it.  Sometime afterwards, Gil decides that he really ought to go home, says his goodbyes, steps out of the bar, turns the corner then realizes that he didn’t set where he was supposed to meet Hemingway to show him his unfinished novel.  Returning to the bar, he finds that the bar had turned back into an all-night laundromat.  Still, what a night!

The next evening, Gil makes an excuse to take a late night walk again, and heads, manuscript in hand, to the same fountain on the same street corner and is met at the stroke of midnight by the same Peugeot.  This time, Hemingway’s in the Peugeot.  Gil hands him the manuscript.  Hemingway turns it down saying, “Don’t ever give another writer your manuscript.  If it’s terrible, he’ll hate it.  And if it’s good, he’ll hate it even more. I’ve got someone better for you to show your manuscript to...” And so they head over to Gertrude Stein’s (played by Cathy Bates).  When they come over to her flat, she’s busy arguing with Pablo Picasso (played by Marcial di Fonzo Bo) over a painting he was making of an altogether unassuming model named Adriana (played by Marion Cotillard). 

I mention all this because Gil then hits it off with Adriana and much of the rest of the movie is about Gil balancing two relationships in two different eras until it all eventually gets resolved.  In the meantime on his midnight adventures, Gil gets to meet all sorts of other famous personalities of Paris in the 1920s including Josaphine Baker (played by Sonia Rolland), T.S. Elliot (played by David Lowe), and Salvador Dali (played by Adrien Brody).  Indeed, one of the funniest scenes in the movie involves Gil explaining his apparent time-traveling journey to Salvador Dali and two other Surrealists, Man Ray (played by Tom Cordier) and Luis Buñuel (played by Adrien de Van).  Man Ray responds “I see a picture,” Buñuel “I see a film.”  Dali, “I see a rhinoceros.” LOL ;-)

Adriana, however, is not happy in the "Paris of the Lost Generation" (the 1920s).   She dreams of “Paris of the Belle Époque” (the 1890s).  And lo and behold, one evening as Gil and Adriana are sitting ourdoors at a random café on a random street in Paris of the 1920s, a horse and carriage roll up and call to Adriana to come in.  Gil and Adriana take the invitation and soon find themselves taken by the couple inside to a "salón" of the times.  Soon they make their way to the Moulin Rouge where they meet Toulouse Lautrec (played by Vincent Menjou Cortes) and soon meet Paul Gaugin (played by Olivier Rabourdin) and Edgar Degas (François Rostain), who they find dream of “what it must have been like to live in the Renaissance.”

The movie resolves itself in typical, gentle but funny Woody Allen fashion (and yes there is a point to the tale).  Most importantly, one is left with a 100 minute masterpiece that will tickle the heart of any arts, literature and/or history student and will offer a “cliffnotes” video-stroll to _any_ high school kid struggling with a term paper about the writers and artists presented in this film.

I’ve been a Woody Allen fan since my college days.  I’ve long explained to friends that Allen’s movies (especially in recent years) are a “hit or miss” affair with about ½ “hitting” and the other half, well ... In this case however, I believe that he hit a bulls-eye.  Indeed, as amazing as Woody Allen's career has been, I do believe that this film is _certainly_ one of his best.  And it may well be that in the future it'll be said that Midnight in Paris was the capstone of his career.  I'll still be going to Allen's films as they come out, but it's hard for me to imagine that he'll do any better this one.  Congrats!


<< 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! :-) >>

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

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

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1298650/
CNS/USCCB Review -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/pirates2011.shtml
Roger Ebert's Review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110518/REVIEWS/110519968

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (directed by Rob Marshall, co-written by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, et al) is the fourth in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, which was famously born of a popular Disney theme-park attraction.  As such, part of the attraction of these films always been wondering if their creators could “pull it off” or with each sequel continue to do so.   Like many others, I personally believe that the first Pirates of the Caribbean (The Curse for the Black Pearl) movie was a wonder and the subsequent ones, less so.  I don’t believe that On Stranger Tides was the worst of the four movies in this series.  That dubious honor I believe goes to the the third movie At World’s End.  The second movie, Dead Man’s Chest, was okay as I believe was On Stranger Tides. 

My single biggest criticism of the series since the original, Curse for the Black Pearl, has been _terrible_ editing.  The creators of this series could learn a bit or two from the Silvester Stalone Rocky series, which also extended an initially unlikely but then enormously successful original movie into a series with five sequels.  The stories were often very thin and predictable, but the editing was often the best in the business keeping the films on pace and every scene in them having a clear purpose.   In contrast, the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels had often circled and meandered seemingly forever (I believe the worst in this regard was the third film, At World’s End, where I honestly was wishing “would they _just get there_” already). 

Additionally, the ligthing in this movies has often been very dark.  I do realize that half the day is night, often there is fog on the sea, and often the most action on the sea happens during storms but I’ve found the persistent dark lighting most of these films, especially in the sequels to be very burdensome.  And anecdotally I can report that not a negligible amount of viewers end up falling asleep during parts of these films.

More positively, I do believe that the films’ creators have mined well the “lore of the seas” for their stories – ghost ships, sea monsters, voodoo priestesses, cannibal tribes (in previous episodes) as well as mermaids and the search for “the fountain of youth” in this one.  I just wish the stories could be told with better lighting and with tighter scripts ;-).

In this episode then of the series, On Stranger Tides, Jack Sparrow (played by Johnny Depp) finds himself back in England about to be tried (and hanged) for piracy while a rival Barbossa (played by Geoffrey Rush) holds a piece of paper declaring himself “legit” as a “Privateer for the Crown” rather than a pirate anymore :-).  Yes, that was true!  England did hire private captains in those years to attack Spanish shipping on behalf of the English crown and the main difference between such “privateers” and pirates was simply that they had a “piece of paper” (a contract) allowing them to do so and that they limited the targets of their raiding to enemies of the English crown (ie left English shipping alone...).

Anyway, as always, Jack Sparrow finds a way to weasel out of his legal predicament and soon both he and Barbossa find themselves on quest – for the Fountain of Youth – that they discovered that the Spanish (archenemies of the English at the time) were on.  Barbossa actually appears mostly after Blackbeard (played by Ian Shane) who he finds is on this quest already.  Jack Sparrow initially all that interested as meeting-up with Blackbeard would be awkward for him as he seemed to have had an earlier fling with his ½ Spanish daughter Angelica Malon (played by Penelope Cruz), worse just days before she was going to take her vows to enter the convent. 

Much ensues.  Many of the characters from the previous Pirates of the Caribbean movies are not present in this film, notably Elizabeth Swann (played by Keira Knightly) and Will Turner (played by Orlando Bloom).  However, I do believe that addition of Penelope Cruz’ Angelica was not a bad one.  Then there was also the mermaid Syrena (played by Astrid Berges-Frisbey) as well as a young hunky English protestant missionary Philip (played by Sam Claflin).

Regarding the PG-13 rating.  I think that the movie’s rating was appropriate to probably a little overly conservative.  Yes, the mermaid was topless, but she’s _always_ discreetly covered.   Compare this to other recent PG-13 fare like Suckerpunch (set in a brothel/insane asylum where all the female protagonists dressed in provocative/slutty costuming throughout) and Limitless (which glorified the use of performance enhancing drugs even to the point of graphically portrayed addiction to them).  In comparison, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides runs like a somewhat dark/rainy Little House on the Prairie episode.

All in all, the elements for yet another good story are present in On Stranger Tides and I do believe it basically works.  I just wish that lighting was brighter and the script had been tighter and we could have gotten out of the theater in 2 hours rather than, with the inevitable 20 minutes of advertisements for upcoming attractions, nearly three.


<< 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! :-) >>

Kung Fu Panda 2 [2011]

MPAA (PG) CNS/USCCB () Roger Ebert (3 ½ stars) Fr Dennis (3 ½ stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/
CNS/USCCB review -
Roger Ebert review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110524/REVIEWS/110529984

Kung Fu Panda 2 [2015] (directed by Jennifer Yuh, cowritten by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger) is a well-written, well-animated (3D once again IMHO utterly unnecessary), well-voiced sequel to the first Kung Fu Panda movie written, directed, voiced and animated by the same team.

There’s a lovely gentle humor running through these young kid, family-oriented movies.  My favorite character remains Panda Po’s (voice by Jack Black) more or less obviously adoptive father, the noodle shop running Goose named Mr Ping (voice by James Hong).  That almost certainly Mr Ping could not possibly have been Panda Po’s actual father was a running gag through the first movie (even though it was obvious that Mr Ping cared deeply for his much larger, far furrier and certainly far larger/fatter son, and that Po never knew anyone else other than Mr Ping and presumably Mr Ping’s long deceased wife, as his parents).   Note simply that there are a lot of Chinese children that have been adopted over the years by American couples and that most of the time, they don't look much at all like each other (kinda like Po and Mr Ping) even if they certainly love one another (again much like the two in the Kung Fu Panda stories).  Panda Po’s origins and who Mr Ping came to take care of him is developed/explained nicely in this, the sequel.

Then there are the lovely paradoxes so much part of traditional East Asian spirituality (and which are actually part and parcel of _most_ spiritual/religious traditions even Christianity).  These include that the fabled “Dragon Warrior” master “destined to save Kung Fu” would turn out to be an overweight panda named Po, when so many _seemingly_ worthier candidates could be found, frustrating Shifu the Red Panda master (voice by Dustin Hoffman) who had to train Po, as well as some of Po's initial rivals including the Tigress (voice by Angelina Jolie), Mantis (voice by Seth Rogan), Viper (voice by Lucy Liu) and Crane (voice by David Cross) This made-up much of the story in the first Kung Fu Panda movie.

In this movie, a rich, spoiled, young peacock, Lord Shen (voice by Gary Altman) who had everything, but wanted more, and turned a substance (gunpowder) which previously brought joy (fireworks) into a weapon (a dragon headed cannon) is warned by a soothsayer water-buffalo (voice by Michelle Yeoh) that he will be defeated by a “great warrior” who is “black and white’ (Panda Po) who had obviously lost his parents somehow and had been raised by a kind, well meaning, goose (Mr Ping). 

There is much for young children and their families to learn as this story plays out, and if the story is expressed in an East Asian narrative form, (1) the lessons are easily translatable into Christian language as well “the last shall be first and the first shall be last" (Mt 20:16) and (2) the story is a reminder of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate that “the Catholic Church does not reject anything that is true or holy in these other [South and East Asian] religions” (NA#2). 

This statement of the Second Vatican Council may not be altogether appreciated by Christians and Catholics of European or Latin American ancestry, but is of enormous importance to South and East Asian Christians and Catholics from nations like Korea, Vietnam (with large Christian and Catholic populations), China, Japan and India (with smaller but often very ancient Christian and Catholic populations) and even the Philippines (overwhelmingly Catholic but with a culture and sensibility that is still profoundly East Asian) where the need to integrate one's faith with one's cultural origins is a matter of day-to-day life and necessary for maintaining an internal peace/equillibrium. 

A point is also made in this sequel that no matter how difficult or sad one’s previous life may have been one has the choice of responding positively toward the future.  This too carries a Christian equivalent where Jesus told his disciples "do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gahenna" (Mt 10:28).  Again, no matter what our past may have been, we always have a choice of how to respond regarding the future.  We can choose to live in hurt, but we can choose to let go, or even and especially to forgive. 

Hence this story which is so beautifully expressed with an East Asian idiom has a message that is easily translatable into Catholic/Christian language as well and so I do hope that well meaning Catholic/Christian parents would not fear taking their kids to the film, because it is lovely (and probably because you're taking your kids to Tae Kwon Do or Karate classes anyway ;-). 

Finally, it remains interesting to me how so many spiritualities (in this case an Eastern one) talk of both searching for inner peace and yet also of external conflict and how often the interelationship between these two realities (the internal and the external) show up both in our ancient stories/Scriptures like the Book of Revelation or in the Islamic concept of Jihad and in more modern stories and films, perhaps most notably in the Jedi spirituality of the monks in Star Wars.  I’ve mentioned a number of times as I’ve reviewed a number of recent, more young-adult oriented “Apocalyptic” films like Suckerpunch or Priest.  Don't get me wrong, Kung Fu Panda 2 is a kids film while the other two are _certainly not_ (oriented to older teens and young adults).  Still the theme of external conflict being present even in the midst of the search for inner peace is present in all three.  And this theme may give adults something (a paradox, even a koan perhaps) to contemplate as they watch this film with their smiling, 3D glasses-wearing kids.  Happy viewing to 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! :-) >>

Priest

MPAA (PG-13) CNS/MPAA (O) Mike Philips (1 1/2 stars) Fr. Dennis (3 stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822847/
CNS/USCCB Reviews -
http://www.usccb.org/movies/p/priest2011.shtml
Mike Philips' review -
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/sc-mov-0513-priest-20110513,0,7130757.story

Priest (directed by Scott Charles Stewart, screenplay by Cory Goodman, based on the graphic novel series entitled Priest by Min-Woo Hyung) is a movie that many movie critics and many Catholics would certainly find much objection to.  Yet, as I often do in the case of movies like this, I found both the movie and the concept behind it far more intelligent than its critics would like to make it out to be.

Priest is based on a graphic novel series by the same name created by South Korean writer Min-Woo Hyung.  The graphic novel series’ mere existence underlines several points.  First, about 1/3 of South Korea’s population is Christian and about 1/3 of that is Catholic.  Catholicism has made definite inroads in South Korea’s cultural imagination and that has gotten expressed in some surprising ways, including in this particular graphic novel series.  We should feel so lucky if America’s teens would generally find priests _so cool_.

As is often the case in comic books and graphic novels, the story in this movie is written in _broad strokes_ and must be taken symbolically.  Man is presented as having been fighting from the beginning of time blood-sucking vampires, that is Evil.  This Evil could not be defeated until the Church came along with its priests trained in combating “Vampires” (Evil).  The Priests succeeded in this “Battle” so well that Evil was consigned to “Reservations” and locked-away from the general populace.   Subsequently, the Church disbanded the Evil fighting force of the Priests and became complacent.  So Evil began a comeback, something that the Church leadership in the movie initially sought to deny.

Ok, let’s go to our world.  The world really was an awful place before the arrival of the Church/Christianity.  The Church/Christianity did, in good part, civilize the world.  Perhaps we did become complacent and Evil did make an attempt to re-enter the world (through among other things, the priestly sex scandals of recent years, a scandal that the Catholic leadership initially tried to paper-over/deny).

Thus I do think that the movie’s essential point regarding the Church is an interesting one: “If the Church’s purpose is largely to fight Evil and it ceases to do so (papering it over/denying its existence) then what good is the Church?”  And the movie shows the Church (and indeed Humanity) as being saved by its individual Priests who continue to fight Evil.

As I wrote in a review of another recent heavily stylized “Apocalyptic” movie, Suckerpunch, I do believe that a danger in this genre of storytelling is that the struggle against Evil is _externalized_ when virtually every religious tradition, including Christianity, has told us that this struggle is, above all, internal.  Even Jihad in Islam is supposed to be an internal_ battle.  However, apocalyptic literature has always been popular, witness here the enduring popularity of the Book of Revelation that ends our Bible, or more recently the Left Behind series.  On a symbolic Good vs Evil level, these stories speak to us.

So would I recommend this movie?  If the movie is to be taken as a “The Church is to be hated” sort of way, OF COURSE NOT.  However as a call to the Church to take seriously its mission of combating Evil, yes, I would recommend this movie.  And I do believe that a lot of good, sincere, YOUNG Catholics are going to see this movie and _like it_ and I’d like to give them permission to do so, to yes, dare to believe that Catholic priests can be cool, fighting (spiritually please) Evil.

Indeed, I do believe that many who’ve liked Bladerunner, The Matrix and/or the Book of Eli would probably like this movie as well.  There are even shades of the Star Wars movies, if actually MORE CATHOLIC in this movie (than in the Star Wars movies) and I’ve long believed that the most compelling contemporary _pop-cultural_ presentation of why someone would want to give-up marriage and family was given in the Order of the Jedi Knights of Star Wars who took a vow of celibacy to focus on their mission of keeping the Universe in Balance on behalf of "The Force" and for the benefit of all.

I do understand that I may be a dreamer here.  I understand that many critics simply don’t like or don't understand movies like this (and don't wish to).  I also understand that many in the Catholic hierarchy would not particularly appreciate as being portrayed self-serving and complacent.  But I do believe that movies like this have much more positive in them than meets the eye.


<< 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! :-) >>

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! :-) >>