December 31, 2009
December 30, 2009
(This review may only be shared in its entirety.)
I was asked to review this movie for "The Catholic New World," Chicago's Archdiocesan Newspaper (being that I am its storied movie reviewer). However, the language and jokes are just so lewd and coarse, I could never do that. Note to guys everywhere: Women hate this kind of humor. If we say we like it, we're just pretending, like we say we like sports. And we think you should hate it, too.
There are very few women in the film. Only two young women who get dissed (and avenged), two bimbos, and Queen Clothilde. Yes, the dead French saint, but it works. It's kind of unfortunate that this isn't family viewing (an option was obviously made for "adult fare" to preserve the authenticity of the worlds of stand-up comedians, the street, addiction and guy-dom.) You know when a joke is off-color, but the general concept of the joke and its execution are really, really funny? That's "Tapioca."
Also, the DVD says "2007," and we try to review mostly current films.
That being said, this is actually a very interesting, though at times rather staged, movie. Call it "gutter theology"—literally. "Pipes" (Chicago stand-up comedian Mike Houlihan) is a down-on-his-luck Chicago used car salesman and TV pitchman. He descends into homelessness because of booze and the fact that he's basically a jerk. Or "slimebag" as St. Peter calls him. Yes! Another dead saint that totally works. Not corny. I really liked this grizzled St. Peter with his fisherman's slicker, sitting in a southside Irish pub. Oh yes, and Pipes is a racist. But the tables are turned on him by "Nuts" (Ben Vereen!)—a mysterious, crazy, homeless guy with one of the cutest, shiniest-coated homeless dogs ever. The tables are COMPLETELY turned on Pipes, and he is forced to eat his words, almost to his utter degradation. It reminded me of the Israelites wandering in the desert—who complained to God that they would die there. And so they did. The Houlihan/Vereen thing also reminded me of the famous episode of "All in the Family" with Archie Bunker and Sammy Davis, Jr. (one of the greatest moments in TV as far as I'm concerned).
Out of all the things I like about "Tapioca," my favorite thing is that it's LOCAL, GRASSROOTS FILMMAKING. If I didn't know some guys like Pipes here in Chicago, I may not even totally get "Tapioca." It's that local. I'm from Boston, have lived in various cities around the country, and only Chicagoans say "goofy." A lot. Hollywood can do a "version" of Chicago, but Chicago can do Chicago best. "Streetwise." "Fermilab." "Little Company of Mary." Unintelligible to the rest of the country. Yay.
What really DIDN'T work in this movie was—alas—the title! And it's almost as though the filmmakers knew it, because they keep bludgeoning us over the head with the word and the convoluted concept. This movie should have been called, pardon MY French now: "Saving A**." The tagline should have been the wonderful advice (among a lot of other wonderful advice in the film): "Think about saving someone else's a** for a change." THAT'S what this movie is all about!!! (It would also have given a clue to the rough nature of the film.) Someone called in to Relevant Radio recently (our Midwestern Catholic radio station) and asked, "How can I make Christmas holy?" After seeing "Tapioca," I thought to myself, "simple": "Think about saving…."
It's hard to classify this film—and that's good, too! Truly experimental, ground-breaking stuff. There's lots of improv woven in (lots of stellar sob stories from panhandlers—just like we've all heard—that deserve remuneration just because they're so entertaining), cartoons, one-liners, soliloquies, a sudden busting out of rhymes (hip-hop), a kind of jazzy vaudevillian soundtrack (for Pipes is a sort of tragic clown), a brilliant scene where Pipes meets an old Black street preacher—this actor is incredible. I laughed so hard and rewatched a few times to catch each flawless second/detail.
There are many poignant moments, like whenever the homeless Danny shows up: an abused child in an adult's infirm body. There is a realism, a verite to most of the film—which, of course, contrasts with the self-conscious "staged" parts, and the tongue-in-cheek parts, and all the other parts. The dialogue is more real than the most realistic screen dialogue--because it doesn't go for verisimilitude—it feels more like a partially-scripted "reality show" or like "The Office." It's like a prolonged, enhanced sketch comedy. It doesn't feel "all over the place," but rather like a variety-pack with a big dose of crazy.
Pipes' humor is that Irish, melancholic, crying-in-my-soup brand of humor. It reminded me of the classic 1960's documentary, "Salesman," about a Boston-Irish Bible salesman whose sales are going down because of his increasing cynicism.
"Tapioca" deals with lots of stigmas: mental illness, alcoholism, losing one's job, homelessness, LOTS of urinating and defecating….
There's a bit of Dickens' "Christmas Carol" to "Tapioca." This dark comedy is also a story of redemption. Men discovering their own and others' humanity. Wanting to discover it. The "brotherhood of man." Who won't go to heaven? "Those who forget what it means to be a human being," warns the gatekeeper. There is a meeting of the minds, a rough coming together of Black Mississippi-bred Christian faith and White Irish Catholicism. It reminded me also of the movie "Crash," where people REALLY say what they're REALLY thinking without holding back. And it's for the better. Gets things in the open air where they can be dealt with.
Religion is not icing in "Tapioca." It's the entrée. All our good deeds are written in the Big Book. God is real. The divine is poking through all over the place.
Besides Mike Houlihan, Mark Borchardt, and Ben Vereen (Emmy and Tony Award Winner—"Roots," "All That Jazz"), "Tapioca" features Gregory Hollimon ("The Fugitive," "Strangers with Candy") and Tim Kazurinsky ("SNL"). http://www.tapiocathemovie.com/
December 29, 2009
"Da Vinci Code"? "Angels and Demons"?
Church History Study
20-Week Overview of 2000 years!
"EPIC—A Journey Through Church History" Jeff Cavins DVDs and a facilitator!
JANUARY 16—JUNE 26, 2010
WHERE: PAULINE BOOKS & MEDIA 172 N. Michigan Ave. (between Lake and Randolph)
Pre-registration required: 312-346-4228 or HELRAPHAELFSP@aol.com
It's the greatest story…NEVER told!
Name:_________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:______________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip:________________________________________________________________________________ Phone:_____________________ Email:____________________________________________________________
Method of payment: CASH CHECK VISA MC
December 28, 2009
"Avatar" is not all about action and special effects, however. There is superlative acting by Sam Worthington* (the soldier), Sigourney Weaver (the chain-smoking scientist), Stephen Lang (the ruthless Colonel). The story is entertaining and satisfying. The banter is amusing and truth-telling.
"Avatar" documents the soldier's struggle. The soldier is always in the middle. Always the one who pays the most: with body, soul, conscience, sanity. (That is, the soldier pays the most after the "collateral damage" innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire.) A soldier's intentions are not necessarily those of the war machine behind him/her (big business, big science, multi-nationals, the military, the government), and the soldier may not always realize this till he/she is in deep.
Jake Sully is a wheelchair-bound Marine who is nobody's first choice for a mission to the moon Pandora where a priceless substance called "unobtanium" is found "below the ground." It's the new petrol that Earth (led by the USA, of course) must have by any means necessary.
Jake goes to Pandora as a native avatar (the natives—the Na'vi--of Pandora are blue, nine-feet tall and have a culture/dress/jewelry/weapons/beliefs/language very similar to Native Americans). Like the movie "Surrogate," people are immobile in a bed-like device while their avatar is active.
Jake is just following orders, doing a job on Pandora--but his heart is strong, good and fearless, which is readily recognized by the natives, especially the chief's daughter, Neytiri, (Zoe Saldana—superlative voice-acting). The natives agree to teach him their ways (as Jake secretly reports back to the Colonel and Grace, the scientist). But when Jake realizes the Na'vi will never move from their uber-valuable home, and the expedition to extract the unobtanium is going ahead at whatever cost, he must choose sides.
What is so thoroughly new and earth-shaking (cosmos-shaking) to me about "Avatar," is its theology. The Na'vi live in harmony with nature (although they kill animals for food, but ask forgiveness of each animal they kill—like Native Americans) and worship a Mother Goddess who is completely transcendent and outside of nature. (Therefore, this is not pantheism, panentheism, or even New Age). We never see her, but the Divine is firmly a character, sustaining life and intervening. Something like the concept of Providence. The Na'vi even say at a certain point: "God will provide." We haven't really seen this kind of a God in the movies before. If there is a mention of God in movies, it's often a kind of magical, God-as-Santa, God-as-a-just-in-case-cover-all-the-bases-God, God-as-superstition, or fleeting references to a rather distant, occasionally meaningful Judaeo-Christian God ("Christian" films and some African-American films are an exception, because God is either central or taken seriously or both).
"Avatar" presents a rather sound natural theology. God is beyond nature, but acting upon and within nature. Nature is presented according to "The Gaia Theory": all of Nature is one giant, interactive, interlocking, entirely interdependent living organism, starting at the sub-atomic level. Usually, the Gaia Theory (a scientific explanation) is presented without reference to God; and religion tends to teach only about God and humans without reference to Nature. "Avatar" brings the two together.
We are so individualistic that we need this message of our profound organic connection--that only modern science could have concretely revealed to us! Yay, modern science! This is ultimately what http://www.themanhattandeclaration.org/ is all about. Our profound interconnectedness.
Extremists at both ends of the environmental movement are actually reading from the same playbook ("extremes meet"). Both those who trash Mother Nature with impunity and those who believe humans are a scourge/plague on the face of the Earth that should be eliminated believe—falsely—that HUMANS ARE NOT A PART OF NATURE. We most certainly are! If we could only recognize our God-designed, God-planned, God-willed "naturalness," which begins with "bodiliness," (Theology of the Body, anyone?) we would all be on the right track. Why else could St. Francis say: Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brother Wolf? Was he New Age? Pagan? I think not.
Kudos to writer-director James Cameron (although "Avatar" is obviously not a complete, Christian worldview) for filling in the blanks and connecting the dots between God, man and nature. I really do believe that it's time we started to see more of this convergence on the silver, TV and computer screen. Hollywood's basic silence about God is very unnatural and distressing. We need to see more of this GOD AS EVERYTHING. GOD AS PRIMARY. God who is the Source of all life. Our life. God who is our all. God whom we can and must rely upon. God to whom we have the most basic, fundamental, forever relationship. God who is benevolent and whom we can trust. God, without whose constant love and solicitude we would instantly non-be. God to whom we owe everything (Neytiri: "all energy is borrowed and must be given back some day"). Cameron's script says that we shouldn't be focused on one substance from the earth (oil or "unobtainium"), but on the whole earth as a whole. And what is oil but an energy source? The point is clearly made that God is the energy source we all need to be in touch with first, from whom all life and healing and necessities will flow and be taken care of. WOWZA. (Unfortunately, this worldview seems only to apply to Pandora, not anywhere else. But it's a start.)
A word about the women in "Avatar." The female soldiers are all tougher-than-thou, swaggering broads (OK, Michelle Rodriguez really IS tough) who exemplify the male paradigm better than men. Newsflash: This is Feminism 1.0. Can we please see women in traditionally male-held occupations who are, well, a little softer? Who don't look like they're going to suddenly spew tobacco on my shoes at any minute? You see, if we can be women on screen rather than men, this means we've arrived. This means that we don't have anything to prove, that the female paradigm is legit. "We're not there in the real world yet," you say? Well, how about using the media to hasten the day? Is it not arguable that shows like "The Cosby Show" portrayed what can be, or rather a section of the population that existed, but had no visibility in the popular imagination? Practice can precede precept. The female Na'vi are also just female males. They are hunters and warriors. There are NO pregnant Na'vi chicks, and there are NO children nowhere. Only when our emotional heartstrings are being pulled at the end –SPOILER ALERT!—and the Na'vi's home is ready to be fire-bombed do we hear: "There are children and babies down there!" Um, OK—we'll take your word for it (and we've already seen lots of crowd shots). All I could think of was the nomadic Neanderthals. It's believed they went extinct for many, many reasons, but one of them was the lack of division of tasks. Pregnant women and infants went on the hunt. I shudder to think. (There was no way to cook or preserve food—it was hand-to-mouth.)
This is a film squarely about culture, about God, and about the colossal shooting-oneself-in-the-foot foolishness of "might makes right." It made me think: who COULD kick the butt of the "just take whatever you want" United States portrayed in "Avatar"? Hmmm, Mother Nature, perhaps? I have huge doubts about where "global warming" is actually going (I've read Al Gore, the "disaster" scientists who says it's too late to do ANYTHING, and the "denying" scientists who say we're going to be fine), but if you "you-know-what" in your own bed or "you-know-what" where you eat, you're going to have to sleep in it and eat it.
--Jake has good instincts. And shouldn't all the awesome technology he's using also be used for the wonder, fun, exploration, and joy Jake wants to use it for in the beginning (not just for profiteering and destruction)? But in the end, isn't he dumb for not seeing the big, destructive picture he was an integral part of? But in the end, wasn't he smart to know how to win the respect of the tribe back?
--Wasn't Jake cruel to let Neytiri fall in love with him (an avatar!)? But of course there are two examples in the movie (don't wanna spoil it) when/where the real J & N meet....
--J & N are like online dating. You get to know what's inside a person first (if they're honest) and then you meet in the flesh....
--This coming together of real and virtual worlds is another huge theme of "Avatar." At a certain point, I wasn't really distinguishing too much (I "fell for it"!), and by the end, there's a total enmeshment during the battle and of course after....
--I was disappointed by the small IMAX 3-D at Navy Pier, Chicago. First of all, what happened to those huge nausea-inducing-side-of-20-barns-size screens? And the 3-D wasn't all that. But, I was in the first row. And my 3-D glasses were smudgy. And maybe I wasn't supposed to have my 3-D glasses smashed against my eyes, but perched on the end of my nose. And maybe they were getting all foggy because I ran to the theater in a snowstorm. And maybe my eyes are aging and I need real glasses.
--"Avatar" is available in 2-D, IMAX 3-D, Digital 3-D, and Real D 3-D. Say wha????
--I thought the stakes could have been higher than Jake wanting his legs back. And he was never in any real danger, only his avatar was. If there had been some kind of life-and-death CONNECTION between avatar Jake and real Jake, that would have totally upped the ante.
--"Avatar," set in the future, refers to wars in the past with Venezuela and Nigeria….hmmm. What do these two countries have in common?
--If the "Mother Goddess" is outside of and acting on "Mother Earth," where's the yin and the yang? Why is it OK to say "Mother," but not "Father"?
--We don't seem to see any worship/adoration/praise of God in "Avatar," but petition, trust and providence is a good start.
--Like "Book of Eli," is Cameron using exciting, entertaining violence to tell us that violence isn't the way?
--1/17/10 New York Times crossword puzzle already using "Tree of Souls"!
--My definition of Virtual Reality: ANY media representation of reality. If the FULL gift of the bodily presence is not there, it's VR. To put it positively: VR can extend a PART of the gift of the bodily presence in space and time.
--For me, the very simple difference between reality and VR is the body.
1. God created us as bodies. 2. Bodies define us. 3. Bodies are not optional.
Even though it seemed like Jake was really getting in touch with his body and nature and animals on Pandora, he was not. His body was in a pod. He may have been able to experience scent, touch, taste, etc., neurologically only, but—that ain't livin'. Of course, as a paraplegic, this is the ONLY way he could experience being ambulatory again. But it still wasn't his own legs.
--At a certain point Jake says: "Now 'out there' is the true world and here is the dream." Will we ever get to that point as we develop VR? Are we already there? Made me think of Native Americans and the importance they put on DREAMS, a kind of virtual reality! While they were awake, they were also very aware of the "spirit world," which--I think I read somewhere that along with the dreams they believed came from the spirit world--was more real to them than "reality." Interesting. And the Native Americans didn't have the media gadgets that we have today. I'm not even sure that they all had written languages.
--The Na'vi call the earthlings' avatars "dream walkers." And when one disconnected avatar falls to the ground mid-sentence, a Na'vi picks up the body and says: "These are demons in false bodies!" Hmmmm.
--This is a true humanist movie. Yay! Humans (or humanoids) have dominion (not domination) over the earth (or Pandora) and are called to be good stewards. Yay!
--Interesting use of the word "natives" and "aliens." Who's who? When and where?
--Hurrah for the hammerhead rhinos!
--The ultimate cynicism of the Colonel: It will always come to force. Force is the only way to get things done.
--Could an avatar ever be made of organic material? Can organic and synthetic materials ever be fully fused? (It's being attempted as we speak.)
--"Avatar" seems to be James Cameron's idea of utopia (or he is just tapping into the Joseph Campbell deep mythology school of filmmaking).
--The Na'vi "mate for life."
--If I could ask James Cameron ONE question, it would be: Why did you make a THEOLOGICAL film? He didn't have to. It could have been about "the Force" or just life energy. This is THE most theological film (centered squarely on the absolute necessity of God) that I have ever seen.
Seems I have my answer in this interview with "Entertainment Weekly" (1/22/10) p. 35. The magazine was quoting some comments on the film and Cameron was replying.
COMMENT: "This movie in all aspects was the best movie ever, the Holy Spirit spoke to me all the way through.... I am convinced this was of God."
Cameron: "Well, that's nice. Forget about the divine or the mystical. I think it's really more about being in touch with the unconscious.... The more you are in touch with that kind of unconscious dream state, the more you're in touch with the audience."
The question still remains why he DID make it theological, though, although Cameron goes on to state that he doesn't always know why he makes the choices he does in his films and can't explain it.
--The audience clapped at the end.
AFTER THE GOLDEN GLOBES 1/10:
--Cameron explained his movie thus: "We are all connected, and we're all connected to the earth. If we have to go to a moon with blue people to understand that, so be it."
*Worthington has mastered that American soldier look in his eye, and he's not even American. He resembles a cross between a young (singer) Everlast and wrestler John Cena. Worthington was in "Terminator Salvation" and was seriously considered to play James Bond in "Casino Royale" which went, of course, to Daniel Craig (BIG MISTAKE).
From an email I received:
Maybe I'll say Pope Benedict XVI and your "Catholic New World" review are at odds on the theology of "Avatar."
Did you read AP's quotes from L'Osservatore Romano and Vatican Radio on the movie? Supposedly they "reflect Pope Benedict XVI's views on the dangers of turning nature into a 'new divinity.'"
And then there's Sister Helena (the Lib) "connecting the dots between God, man and nature."
We also have the decorated Marine veteran alderman of the 11th ward who says, the film makes Marines "look like lunatics." He added, "We are a good, generous country that helps people. They never mentioned America but when you have the eagle, globe and anchor -- the Marine Corps emblem -- it has to be America." And Tom Roeser (Catholic conservative) echoed that with "This is the only time I ever sat in a theater where people were cheering the forest and the blue people, attacking ex-Marines."
I knew "Avatar" would cause a stir (the movie itself and any halfway positive review, like mine).
There are two major points of "controversy": First, the portrayal of not just the (thinly-veiled) U.S.-led "Earth" military, but how big government, big science, big business (multi-nationals, not just the U.S.), all work together for better or for worse. Second: the huge theological underpinnings of the world of the Na'vi (on the fantastical animated planet).
First: The "military-industrial complex" (as you know, this term was coined by Eisenhower). Although "Avatar" makes a kind of caricature out of each character representing military, science, business, government, "Avatar" is actually an ode to the individual SOLDIER, doing all the dirty work, putting their life on the line, getting caught up in moral dilemmas. It is interesting that "Jake," the soldier is recognized as having a "very pure spirit" by the Na'vi. Jake is not against violence or use of force, only if it is used immorally. If you read my full review: http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2009/12/movies-avatar.html I really bring this out. I chopped this piece from the CNW review because I wanted to focus on the "God" part and I only have 450 words. eek!. "Avatar" really warranted a longer review to do it justice and avoid confusion. (Please read my whole review, even though it's lengthy.)
Second: I knew people would cry "New Age"! with regard to the God/religion element in "Avatar," but it's not. Unfortunately, what happened, (Catholic News Agency for one) is that it got called "Gnosticism"! "Avatar" is the exact opposite! There is a great lack of critical thinking here and ignorance of the actual meaning of words and concepts. The God/religion in "Avatar" is concrete. It's not a fuzzy "spirituality," it's a concrete nature religion. "Religion" means "to bind," "to connect." Religion deals in tangibles. "Spirituality" deals in just that: the spiritual, the unseen, the often "whatever you want it to be." As I mentioned, the religion is very similar to Native American religions. There is a transcendent God over all who gives and sustains everything, all life. It's a Mother Goddess (see my blog review for my problems with that). The amazing thing to me is that we don't see this kind of COMPREHENSIVE God (of whatever ilk) in the movies. Ever. God is always kept at a safe distance with a small role to play (if any). The entire ending of "Avatar" depends on GOD. And not "deus ex machina" either. GOD is everything, God is integral, God is absolutely necessary. Everything depends on God. This is the point I was trying to make.
Something else that has been going on lately with movie reviews/critiques: people are taking anything that is said by anybody in Rome about a movie and saying "the Vatican declares..." even though nothing has been said in an official capacity or by people with the duty to speak for various offices, etc. Taking the Pope's words out of context and applying them is not good either. In the movie "Avatar," nature is NOT worshipped, is NOT divine, but is dependent on an outside God for life. Actually, if one reads the Pope's strong pro-Creation talk from Jan. 1 (from which the cautionary words about making nature divine were taken), they would be found to be more in SUPPORT of "Avatar"'s respect for nature/living in harmony with nature, actually!
I have great respect for Tom Roeser and his writings. But what is being portrayed in "Avatar" is a (fictional) immoral action by the Marines/U.S./multinational-army-representing-Earth, which nobody should want to defend.
In the end, this is a fantasy. Pot-shot at U.S./military? Perhaps, but not a cheap shot. Again, Jake, the soldier is a hero (who never ceases being a soldier/warrior).
I would suggest you see the movie for yourself and see if what I'm saying isn't true....
thanks again, Sister -- you have a fresh approach, without an obvious agenda -- that's why you're sometimes dangerous.
ha ha--basically what i do is write a rambling, freestyle, non-linear, no-holds barred review for my blog. then i trim that down and edit it like crazy to be much more formal and non-first-person and appropriate for CNW. 450 words is the standard length of my review for CNW.
thanks for saying i don't have an agenda cuz i like to think that. i try to come at it very honestly AND unsuspiciously. i don't bend over backwards to "find the good"--i just really let the thing speak to me, judging it by filmmaking (screenwriting mostly) standards, philosophy, media literacy, theology of the body and the Catholic Faith! i am not looking for the usual "red flags" that causes predictable, stereotyping, alarmist reactions. I am in nobody's camp, but I know how various camps will interpret movies (and my reviews). but i must call 'em like i see 'em. my most difficult review that i'm still rather uncomfortable with actually was "new moon" and this whole thing about "losing one's soul".... i'm still rather disquieted by it. more and more we are seeing this "in between" world on the screen--neither earth, purgatory, heaven or hell--it's just this "other place" where people like the undead hang around.....with it's own rules and stuff. lots of this on TV, too: "medium," "ghost whisperer." maybe it's a kind of limbo. which should now be shuttered (pope B).
i meant to mention to you that James Cameron is no "friend" to Christianity. That's why it's so curious to me that he got "sound natural theology" down quite correctly! (he executive-produced that Canadian documentary on "They Found Jesus" Family Tomb!" in Israel. Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene was in the family tomb, of course, along with Jesus' bones and the bones of his mother Mary.) HA HA HA.
Check out this NYTimes review that says "A" is actually insulting to indigenous peoples: http://nyti.ms/4UcofD because of the "White Messiah" thing.
Here are some more interesting reviews:
Fr. Robert Barron praises the prominence of religion in "A," (but I still disagree about the "pantheism"). The mother goddess IS personal: she "decides" and "provides" and when one of the characters dies, they go to "be with" the mother goddess. There are two different things going on: created energy/interconnected life force on the moon Pandora, and the goddess outside of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtZyku2H1PI
Randy Beeler (young Catholic dude) does fascinating reading of "A" as a kind of anti-Gospel. The blue princess Neytiri is a demonic anti-Mary! I don't think "A" is that sinister, but this is still a fascinating read (check out the anti-Pieta!) http://triptbishop.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatars-cuddly-demons-naah-blue-is.html
Check out the obsessed fan site: http://www.naviblue.com/
December 21, 2009
December 19, 2009
I was born and raised in Boston, but never visited the world-famous Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum at the Fenway until a few days ago. It exceeded all my expectations, or rather SHE did.
One word to describe ISG's sensibility? Victorian. The very best of the gilded age (to which I am romantically partial). The courtyard, filled with Roman statues and fountains is looked down on by eight balconies and four Venetian facades. The greenery gives off a palpable hothouse feel. The art galleries are on the first three floors, and the fourth floor where Mrs. Jack used to live has been turned into offices. (Mother was rightly upset that they hadn't preserved--and we didn't get to see--how she lived, that her private quarters weren't PART of the museum.)
A Well-Appointed Room
Intimidated by Art
An Original Among Originals
A Wrinkle in Time
December 13, 2009
"Precious" is a hard movie to watch. "Precious" is the ironic name of a young woman (played with perfectly stifled emotion by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe ) who is anything but precious to her brutal parents (Mary, her devil incarnate mother, is played by Mo'Nique). Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire, and set in Harlem in 1987, "Precious" is an unblinking look at abuse of every kind heaped upon an adolescent who is basically treated as a slave in her own home. There is no searing tension or terror as we observe the intricacies of the abuse playing out--simply a sick, sinking feeling in the pit of our stomachs. It's the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt wrote of.
I knew this film would depress me, and it did, even with its somewhat game-changing ending. But "Precious" is, overall, a life-affirming film—not in a facile Hollywood fashion, but in a "wisdom of the streets," "life goes on" sort of way. I did buy that Precious—for the most part--did not retaliate or act out in kind (she turns the abounding hatred she's surrounded with into self-hatred) because some of the kindest people I know are those who've been abused. Abortion is not a viable option in "Precious." Somehow, Precious (in addition to her own kind and stalwart heart) finds enough people to help her make it through. Precious lives, discovers more about, accepts and then changes up her life story with the same kind of simplicity she has reduced her almost monosyllabic verbal communication to. (Her more elaborative voiceover is interwoven in all the right places.)
Some African-Americans are reacting to the film by saying it's stereotyping the experience of Black poverty, others are saying it's about time everyone saw what's "really going on." I couldn't help thinking of the pop culture truism that you've really arrived when your "type" doesn't have to always be portrayed as "saintly" (the noble victim, the hero, the moral character, etc.) any more. It also made me think that "Precious" didn't necessarily have to be an African-American story. Precious could be anyone in the heart of my neighborhood or your neighborhood, who looks like everyone else (although Precious' abuse made her obese) and goes about her day and seems to function like everyone else. Trapped in her own private little horror story.
Subtle social statements are made about the welfare system, illiterate students being advanced year after year, the ideal and emulation of whiteness by non-Whites, superficial social work, even fast food compromising health in lower-income neighborhoods. The way out? Education. There's a familiar role in "Precious" of the self-sacrificing , getting-personally-involved teacher. But thankfully, this part doesn't overshadow Precious herself: her inner reserves, her strength, her innate knowledge down deep somewhere that she was good and her parents bad, her desire and determination to do so much better for her own two children.
From a Media Literacy Education point of view, the educational stress (as it would have been in 1987) is all about reading and writing. Precious' teacher (in the alternative school) goes back to basics (the alphabet) and gets Precious and her cozy all-female class reading, writing, expressing themselves, connecting school and life, and actually enjoying it.
Two singer-actors are a surprising and talented insertion: Mariah Carey and, yes, your eyes don't deceive, Lenny Kravitz.
"Precious" ends in a fitting though unusual place with a "speech," not by Precious, but by her mother. (If Mo'Nique doesn't get an Oscar, it will be as criminal as Mary's self-indictment.)
Precious is a story about breaking cycles—the cycle of abuse and unchecked hatred of a most devastating kind. About the almost limitless ability of human beings to alter any situation, no matter how ingrained or bleak. It starts with love. Love of self. In Precious' case, being able to say one good thing about herself. Precious possesses a kind of inner quietude that matches her exterior: a scrunched-up, silent face of continual consternation. And I think it is from within this solitude that she begins to dig out of the ravages of her non-family's extreme selfishness. The script of our lives is only partially written by others. One does wonder, however, about her future need for ongoing psychological healing. ("Precious" is scrupulously free of any "psychologizing.")
The cinematography is not raw, not slick—it's all over the place and somewhere in between. But it grows on you until you feel it unequivocally belongs with this movie.
Although some have not found much hope in the film (no widespread systemic social change is forthcoming), the transformation really happens at the level of caring individuals, keeping Precious and her ilk from falling through the cracks totally. Precious herself had her own escape valves (picturing herself as an adored pop star or somebody's girlfriend, imagining non-existent happy family memories) when things were worst. The story is left unfinished, but somehow we know that Precious is going to make it because she now knows who/what she is: precious.
COMMENT FROM ANDY KIRCHOFF: The end of your review makes me want to see this movie BADLYI'm guessing this film isn't overtly religious, but I can think of only one way someone could know that they were"precious" despite indications to the contrary in almost every instance of day-to-day life. If a person knows that they have intrinsic value, in spite of everything that happens to them, in spite of everything they've ever done, they will "make it," to say the least. Of course, as Catholics, we know exactly why we have this "intrinsic value"; it's because we are created by God in His image, to love and to serve Him in this life and the next. ... See MoreIf this movie communicates a theme even remotely close to what I've described above (even if not explicitly), I am sure I will like it, if not love it. Heck, it'd be a huge step forward for Hollywood, which seems so dedicated to banality, if not raw obscenity, if a dedicated director could produce something to this effect.
It's a very honest, almost plain film. But not raw. It's not even gritty. It just tells this terribly sad, quiet story. The only overt religion in it is a Gospel choir singing at a certain crucial point. I am cool with the film showing someone being able to find their dignity even without direct knowledge of God because we are the image of God and can intuit our dignity. True humanists do this.What I think I'm most fascinated by is the fact that there is exactly zero "psychology" in the film--just hardcore lines of right and wrong with no excuses. Reminds me of James Baldwin's writing. We don't find out about Precious' parents' tragic childhoods or anything. No excuses. It reminds me of CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy). CBT doesn't delve into the subconscious or motivations--it's about the here and now--what people are actually DOING or NOT DOING. CBT is not interested in what you say you believe. Only what you actually DO or DON'T DO. Um, didn't Jesus say something like that? "Not those who say: 'Lord, Lord,' but those who do the will of my heavenly Father"???Yes, run see this film! (But it's still not better than "Gran Torino") :]
December 4, 2009
November 24, 2009
It seems that a Monsignor Franco Perazzolo of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture called "New Moon" a "deviant moral vacuum." (The president of the Council is Archbishop Gianfranco Ravisi.)
The USCCB (U.S. Catholic Bishops) review* was nowhere near this harsh—I believe because they are taking it in the fantasy genre it is written in. They gave it a mild A-II rating (adults and adolescents) and briefly mentioned that the film contains "a hazy discussion about the possible loss of her [Bella's] soul. Edward [the vampire], we learn, believes that all his kind, no matter how courtly, are damned, though precisely what that means Melissa Rosenberg's script never tarries long enough to explore or explain." Um, Edward just "thinks" he's damned? I mean, wouldn't you KNOW something like that one way or the other? He seems to be confused about being alive or dead, also. Or maybe there's more to come in the sequels that will explain?
At first, all this talk of damnation (there is more of it) didn't quite follow Judaeo-Christian understandings, so I just dismissed it. But then I started to think: But how are young people (and others) interpreting it? Religious ignorance is so rampant, will they even get that this is NOT following Judaeo-Christian understandings? Will they dwell on this at all? What is unsettling is that Bella is pretty adamant that she doesn't care about her soul. If she has to "lose her soul" to be with Edward, she makes it clear that she doesn't care. But what is meant by "soul" here? Are young people going to get the idea that they should "give up their soul" if needs be to be with the love of their lives? Maybe. Do they really know what "giving up one's soul" means? Maybe. So, perhaps the question here is: Why don't young people know what "soul" and "giving up one's soul" means (if they don't)? Are we teaching them so that they can dissect the semantics for themselves with a truly Christian understanding? Are we talking about movies at all WITH young people? It's true that--unfortunately--people ARE getting much of their religious education from whatever religious trends and tidbits are floating around in pop culture (USA Today___________), but shouldn't we be addressing the cause of this religius ignorance and confusion (nonexistent or deficient catechesis) instead of trying to kill the messenger (that didn't come from our camp anyway)? Another example of spiritual half-truths (I'm sure not maliciously intended to deceive) can be found on the otherwise excellent show "Medium." The show is an exemplar of a great marriage, realistic and loving family life (Patricia Arquette's character and husband are raising three girls). The show's title, "Medium," refers to the fact that "Mrs. Dubois" (Patricia Arquette) is a medium who gets futuristic dreams of crimes and communicates with ghosts. Bad people go to a "bad place" after they die. People live on after death. After about a year of watching this show I suddenly realized--OMGosh, communicating with the dead in this way is forbidden! Mrs. Dubois, however, doesn't conduct seances or anything in order to communicate with the dead. In fact, they find her. But still, there is no mention of God who allows any kind of "good contact" that might occur between us and those who have gone before us.
What is also unsettling is that the comments made by the Monsignor from the Pontifical Council for Culture ("culture," especially) shows, perhaps, a lack of understanding of basic literary genres, or an overriding of this understanding due to a kind of fear-filled literalism. I understand his concern for "real souls," but this pastoral approach, to my mind, will not be effective in the long run. Why not, instead, ENGAGE the world of metaphor and moral imagination? Edward cares about Bella's soul, even if she doesn't. He has more information, life experience than she does. I was told by some young friends that they watch horror films because it makes them ask how much they value their own lives. They ask themselves what they would do in the same dire situation. Even with faulty "theology," one can ask these very real questions.
Do we have a problem in today's world with literalism and the loss of an understanding and appreciation of metaphor? Oh yes! Fundamentalism implies literalism, and our world is gravitating more and more toward all kinds of fundamentalism: religious, scientific, political, etc., so the Monsignor may be thinking of this situation as well. But, again, I don't think the pastoral answer is to join the world in putting nails in the coffin of metaphor. We are lost without metaphor. Neuroscientists tell us that the brain works completely with metaphors. That's how we are able to understand anything and everything. And the mysteries of our Faith can only be understood/expressed through symbols, signs and sacraments.
The Vatican puts out documents on the media that embrace the "Media Literacy Education position" with regard to media. There seems to be a conflict here. Perhaps there is concern that the SAME WORDS are used ("soul," "damnation") as real theology. But, again, the world of vampires is the world of make-believe. The authors of vampire stories simply make all this stuff up. If they didn't use some of the same words we use in reality, we wouldn't get any general idea of what they're talking about at all. Could some people get confused by the use of these real words that have a very precise meaning in Catholic theology? Yes. But, again, we need to remember that the world of fantasy is an "in between" world--neither reality NOR the heavenly, mystical realities of our Faith. Does an "in between" world exist? God has not revealed any such world to us (just as He hasn't revealed the existence of aliens if they exist). Therefore, we know all that we need to know. The Scriptures and our Catholic Faith are reasonably clear about "the last things." We don't need to start wondering if elements of FICTION actually exist. THIS, to my mind, would be a waste of time. (It seems that the upcoming film "Lovely Bones," although not a fantasy film, is also going to take us to an imaginative "in between" world of what-happens-after-death.)
Can we bounce all of these stories off of Catholic theology to see how they match up? Certainly! But are we actually expecting to get decent, correct, orthodox theology from a fantasy movie? I think it would be cool if this intriguing series ("Twilight") COULD play off good theology—just adding some fantastical creatures, but so far it doesn't seem to be doing so. (Also, the lack of any mention of God so far.) Series author Stephanie Meyers is also a Mormon (which is not a Christian religion because they don't believe that Christ is God), so I don't think we should expect any traditional understandings of Judaeo-Christian beliefs here, if she is even trying at all to put some "real theology" in her tales. And it's known that Meyers makes up her own vampire lore (not following traditional or already-established vampire tropes). Vampire lore doesn't follow ANY real "theology" because it is fantasy, just like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Irish fairy stories, etc. However, the fantasy genre may use some of the same language of theology, some "real world" terms, which can be confusing IF we don't keep in mind that we're in the fantasy genre.
The book "Imagining Faith with Kids--Unearthing Seeds of the Gospel in Children's Stories" is a great primer on how to use fantasy, fiction, fairy tales and fables to activate "moral imagination" in these realms:
[Full disclosure: I have not read the "Twilight" books.] I thoroughly enjoyed this uneven film (as I did the first movie). (To see my review of the first installment in the vampire series, "Twilight," just google "Kristen Stewart" in the upper left hand search box of this blog.) I'm sad that Catherine Hardwicke is not the director (she directed the first movie and set the tone which this movie keeps). The special effects are not all that more exciting than Hardwicke's. It seems Hardwicke was not given a decent-enough budget to do the SPFX she wanted because the studio was unsure if "Twilight" would be a hit. Yes, you heard that right.
Here's what's wrong with the film: There are huge logic gaps and weird continuity issues. There are so many rules governing vampires and werewolves and humans' interaction with them that it's hard to follow, BUT the rules also make for exciting plot points and quick "turns." The rules also have logic gaps—especially the mind-reading thing. In addition to the rules, there are lots of promises being made and partially broken, depending on how the characters interpret them. I don't want to make any lawyer jokes here, but this film could sure use some on screen. Or at least an ethicist.
Another quirk of the movie is the bad dialogue moments (frequent) and melodrama (rampant). Of course the books are known for their bad dialogue, so I'm sure screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg is only being faithful to the text. But the movie acknowledges its own camp somehow, and I'm sure INTENDS us to laugh at all the wrong moments (and right ones). Sometimes, "New Moon" is like a really yummy B-movie, including all the awkward, unnatural, obvious, bad blocking. (And Robert Pattinson, who plays Edward, is perfecting his "Snoopy Vulture" look again.)
Kristen Stewart (Bella) holds the whole thing together. Without her supernaturally professional acting, the Twilight movie series might be a big mess. And she makes it look easy. Kristen takes lemons and makes not lemonade but lemon meringue pie.
One of the "Twilight" series biggest hooks is the quest for immortality. We are all on this quest, some with full awareness, some with only dim awareness. Bella, a very ordinary young woman, suddenly finds herself beloved and in love. This changes everything. But she will grow old, she will die. How can she preserve this love? How will she make sure she'll never be separated from her love? If we don't believe that strongly in love or immortality, we're going to fill this "hole in our chest" with other things. Maybe small pleasures. My own moral imagination asks: Jesus Christ DOES offer me immortality (the human soul is immortal, but we must "cooperate with grace" to insure a HAPPY eternity for ourselves) and holiness and heaven--but first He offers me love, HIS perfect, overwhelming, ecstatic, never-ending, ever-increasing, free, full, faithful, fruitful love. Am I as passionate about receiving that love? Am I as driven as Bella to seize what is "mine"? I think one of the biggest reasons we are so lukewarm in our faith (although I love how young people today are reclaiming the word "devout Catholic" and self-identifying as such!) is that we've made heaven and the afterlife about US. I will go to MY happy place and be with MY loved ones and do what I like to do. Forgetting Someone? Heaven is primarily about God! About being WITH God. Heaven primarily IS God! That doesn't inspire us with warm, fuzzy feelings? That's not a big impetus? Then something needs to change. We obviously need to develop our relationship with God here on earth. Embarrassed that we've kind of forgotten this is what heaven is? Don't be. Even we, His dumb brides, forget. There is much working against our proper understanding of heaven and our desire to be with God. (See "Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis.) It will take a lifetime (however long we are granted) to expand our capacity to receive more and more of His love and return it.
The true beauty of the "Twilight" series is the URST—Hollywood's acronym for "unresolved sexual tension." Paradoxically, without sex, it is even MORE about loving the WHOLE person. Because many factors keep Bella and Edward apart (and Bella and Jacob), they show their love in many other ways. WAY more interesting that hopping in the sack after the first kiss. Or before. The characters have to…brace yourself…TALK to each other! LOVE in the "Twilight" series is heroic. LOVE is always looking out for the good of the other and doing what's right for them. It's unselfish LOVE, sacrificial love. That's what makes "Twilight" so "Theology of the Body." It's also LOVE from a girl/woman's perspective. A rarity in male-dominated Hollywood. This is the kind of love WE want to see.
Edward and Bella find everything in each other. The worth of a human life is stressed. We see that love is the measure of a human person. Teens get infatuated and obsess over their crushes and can tend to go to extremes in their young loves, but they are right that love is everything, the best thing, not even a thing.
--John Paul II
--This is going to sound really, really strange, but I've been thinking about going veggie and "New Moon" clinched it for me. If those vampires can go human-veggie, I can certainly go animal-veggie. I guess this is one of those examples of life imitating art. It's my gift to Baby Jesus this year. I'm not gonna eat the ox and lamb.
--Is Bella going to "commit suicide" if she becomes a vampire? It's interesting that when the Cullens family was voting on whether she should "go vampire," one member of the family said: "It's not a life I would have chosen for myself. I wish someone had been there to vote 'no' for me. So, 'no.'" Many negative reviews say this is a "suicide-obsessed movie." I can kind of see their point--I mean, what about Bella's Dad and Mom and friends if she "goes vampire"? But aren't we supposed to give everything for love? Aren't we supposed to do whatever it takes for love, for the pearl of great price (TRUE suicide aside)? Did Jesus commit suicide on the cross? (He could very, very easily have avoided it, naturally and supernaturally.) Are the Christians martyrs who could have avoided martyrdom (without denying their faith) suicides?
--Is it just me or does Pattinson look a little like David Bowie?
--Love the vampire's golden eyes.
--Taylor Lautner is really developing as an actor. He's from Grand Rapids, MI, and is part Potawatomi! Long hair or short? Long.
--A fan's sign at "New Moon" premiere (this fan favored Jacob over Edward): "Real men don't sparkle."
--Great quote: "It's just blood, Bella. No big deal."
--Bella's Dad's great advice: "Sometimes you have to learn to love what's good for you."
--The highest use of something can be to sacrifice it.
--Love the "Elysian Fields"!
--Love Victoria's hair. And clothes.
--I've been reading some (negative) Christian reviews of the movie. They say it portrays the most immature kind of love. "Immature" or "the raw essence of love"? Remember--love in "Twilight" is always sacrificial, agape--as well as eros and philia all at the same time. That's kind of perfect love (see Pope Benedict's encyclical "God is Love").
*That unfortunately called Jacob "Bella's American Indian" friend twice. We don't say "Chinese" or "Black" friend over and over, do we? And isn't the term "Native American"?
November 22, 2009
First things first: People of a "certain age," (myself included) made sure to mention "those 70's TV specials" that were de rigueur viewing even in homes (like mine) where TV viewing was at a minimum.
--"Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"*—The granddaddy of all stop motion movies! First aired in 1964, it has been telecast every year since, making it the longest running Christmas TV special. "Rudolph" gave us the Burl Ives snowman and the abominable snow monster.
--"A Charlie Brown Christmas"*—animation, 1965, has aired more times on CBS than "The Wizard of Oz." Charles Schultz, creator of "The Peanuts," fought to have Linus' recitation of the Gospel of Luke 2:8-14 included. And is it really Christmas until we've heard that jazz soundtrack?
--"How the Grinch Stole Christmas"*—animation, 1966. Probably Dr. Seuss' most wickedly funny and poignant work. The theme song, "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch," can't be beat.
--"Little Drummer Boy"*—stop motion, 1968
--"Frosty the Snowman"—animation, 1969. Like other Christmas TV specials, it's based on a song.
--"Santa Claus is Coming to Town"*—stop motion, 1970
--"The Year without a Santa Claus"—stop motion, 1974. Suddenly, a new Christmas TV special appeared (before a continuing avalanche of them). It wasn't as good as the other specials, but we loved the songs "Heat Miser" and "Snow Miser." People of a certain age can still sing them on command.
--"A Muppet Christmas Carol"*—Jim Henson and Co. did Dickens proud. This is a masterpiece in felt (with two live actors, Michael Cane and his ex-fiancee). It's also a musical comedy. When Mr. Scrooge walks through the town square, everyone gets into the act singing about their distaste for the tightwad—even a wagon full of vegetables. Bob Cratchit's wife (the fashionable Miss Piggy) lists among Scrooge's faults "badly dressed." But I dare you not to sob when Tiny Tim (Kermit Jr.) sings and (century-old SPOILER ALERT!) dies.
Tied for third place were no less than six movies:
--"White Christmas"--1954 (Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye) I have a huge problem with this movie because they didn't let Danny Kaye be Danny Kaye. That is, funny.
--"Miracle on 34th Street"--(the old and new versions) 1937 and 1994
--"A Christmas Story"—1983, you know, with the high-heeled woman's leg lamp and "you'll shoot your eye out" BB gun. Guys in particular seem to favor this movie.
--"Elf"*—2003 (Will Ferrell) I thought all the Christmas classics had been made until this one. What IF we took Christmas seriously (like elves and kids do) and lived every day like it was Christmas? If you don't already, you'll have a "favorite part" every five minutes. Totally quotable. "The sea of swirly twirly gum drops…." "SANTA!!! I know him!!!!!" "There's room for everyone on the nice list." A few nods to "Rudolph" TV special in it.
--"Home Alone"—(1 & 2) 1990 and 1992. Because it happens at Christmas, many consider it a Christmas movie. If you check out this Christmas Movie website, that's considered fair game to be called a Christmas movie! http://www.http//tinyurl.com/ygludbg
--"A Christmas Carol"*—Dickens ("the older ones")
Other favorites (in descending order of popularity):
--"The Christmas Shoes"—2002. Based on a book and song of the same title. This tearjerker is about a boy who tries to buy a pair of Christmas shoes for his dying mother to "meet Jesus" in. A sequel has been made called "The Christmas Blessing," about when the little boy grows up.
--"Polar Express"—computer animation, 2004. This movie totally depressed me, especially the sea of little red-coated elves that looked like devils in the ninth circle of hell. I also know that this movie was made primarily in order to try out new technology. However, I have met someone who had a truly spiritual experience watching this movie, so, God can work through anything and "to each his own"!
--"The Nativity Story"—2006. A plain and simple narrative of what it might have all "looked like." The end becomes a bit more "Hollywood." St. Joseph steals the movie, but he didn't need to, because now he has his own movie! "Joseph of Nazareth" 2009.
--"Holiday Inn"—1944 (Bing Crosby)
--"Best Christmas Pageant Ever"*—1983 (Loretta Swit) From the 1972 book "The Worst Kids in the World." A bunch of scruffy kids find their way into a school play and everyone learns the true meaning of Christmas.
--"Fourth Wiseman"*—1985 (Martin Sheen) Paulist Productions—based on the short story, "The Other Wise Man," by Henry van Dyke. The Bible doesn't say there were three wise man. Only that there were three gifts. And where the purported bones of the Magi are preserved (Cathedral of Cologne, Germany) there are four skulls. Hmm….
--"The Juggler of Notre Dame"*—1984, Paulist Productions—based on a French legend of the 12th century. Simple and beautiful.
--"It Came Upon the Midnight Clear"—1984 (Mickey Rooney)—A California cop takes his grandson to New York City to see a white Christmas.
--"Bells of St. Marys"—1945 (Bing Crosby as a priest, Ingrid Bergman as a nun)
--"Miracle of the Bells"—1948 (Fred McMurray)
--"The House without a Christmas Tree"—1972—(Jason Robards)—A little girl living in Nebraska in 1946 wants nothing more than a Christmas tree.
--"A Child's Christmas in Wales"*—1987 (based on Dylan Thomas' recollections) Do you get all old-fashioned at Christmas time? This one's for you. Delightful.
Others movies, mentioned once:
"Mr. Krueger's Christmas (Jimmy Stewart and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir)", "The Holly and the Ivy" 1952 (British), "Man in the Santa Claus Suit" (Fred Astaire), "Smudge (1922!)," "Scrooged" (Bill Murray, "the epic ending"), "The Night They Saved Christmas," "Nestor, the Long-Eared Donkey," "Santa Clause" movies with Tim Allen, "The Bishop's Wife" (Denzel Washington), "Martin the Cobbler" (claymation from a Tolstoy tale)
--"12 Dogs of Christmas"
--"The Note" (there's a sequel coming!)
--"Christmas Card"--a rather sweet romance
--"Space Above and Beyond" 1995, "River of Stars"—A Sci-Fi TV episode
--"How the Grinch Stole Christmas"—live action, Jim Carrey
--"Christmas Vacation"—Chevy Chase (although I didn't ask my brother and he definitely would have mentioned )
--"The Nightmare Before Christmas"—Tim Burton
--"Jingle All the Way"—the Governator
--"Mystery of the Three Kings"* 2002, American PBS/Questar—we know a lot more than you might think about the Magi and the star (astronomers weigh in)! There is also a new documentary called "Star of Bethlehem," produced by Steve McAveety, but its information conflicts with this documentary. There also seems to be an attempt in "Star" to use the Scriptures as a science textbook, so I recommend "Mystery of the Three Kings."
--"One Magic Christmas"*—1985, (Mary Steenburgen, Harry Dean Stanton) A down-on-their-luck little family has few prospects for Christmas. Stanton is a black-clad cowboy angel who plays his harmonica in a tree. And it totally works.
--"Joyeux Noel"*—2006. The true story of WWI soldiers from France, Germany and Scotland calling their own little cease-fire and fraternizing on Christmas.
Sr. Helena's musical Christmas DVD picks:
--The Nutcracker Ballet*
--Any British boys choir*
--"Smoky Mountain Christmas"*—music video of the gorgeous Smoky Mountains in the snow with wonderful Appalachian folk instruments playing Christmas carols: hammered dulcimer, etc.
--"Christmas Angel--A Story on Ice" (featuring Dorothy Hamill and Mannheim Steamroller music. DOROTHY HAMILL, people).
Sr. Helena's picks FOR THE KIDS. There are a bunch of older, Christian animated films that are quite well done:
--Hannah-Barbera's Greatest Adventure Bible Series "The Nativity,"* full, old school, classic comic book style animation. The story of Christmas, straight up. Grand!
--CCC of America's "Nicholas—the Boy Who Became Santa"
--Veggie Tales' "The Star of Christmas," "The Toy that Saved Christmas"
--"The Story of Silent Night"*
--"The Town That Forgot About Christmas"*
Sr. Helena's "not sure about because I never saw it or forget if I like it" picks:
--"Prancer"—featuring LIVE reindeer! Reindeer are soooo magical.
--"Noelle"—Christian movie from a couple of years ago. I think there's a priest in it.
--Some movie with an older Loretta Young (no pun intended) as the family matriarch. They're all unhappy and are feuding.
--Some made for TV movie that's a humorous take-off on "A Christmas Carol." I remember they spelled Carol like "Karol," the name of the character. Anyway, Kathy Griffin is one of the three visiting Christmas angels, and when Karol asks about the people on the street: "Can they see me?" Angel Kathy says: "No. They're walking around, looking real, but they're not. Like people in L.A."
Is there such a thing as "Advent movies"?
Well, a lot of Christmas movies actually take place during Advent, but someone mentioned The Walton's "Homecoming." It's a tradition for his family to watch it while they put up the tree! There are also two series with Advent "clips": "Advent Calendar on DVD—A Christmas Countdown for December" and "Advent Calendar on DVD 2—Christmas Carols Edition." "Stories of Christmas"*—Fr. Tony Scannell, OFM, and Fr. Murray Bodo, OFM.