GOOD NEWS IN THE FACE OF PORNOGRAPHY

Pornography use is progressive, addictive, toxic and fatal (if not dealt with). Is there any hope? Plenty. But before listing resources, it's important to simply talk about what pornography IS--because that conversation just isn't happening in the Church (in any big way) beyond official Church documents and: "It's bad, stay away." And that's tragic, because bringing porn into the light is the ONLY thing that breaks its hold.

Actually, SEX hasn't been talked about in the Church (in any open way) beyond a kind of listing of "thou shalt nots." The devil is laughing up his sleeve at all this because while the porn industry is going mainstream, Christians are clinging to a puritanical and dangerous silence with regard to sex. Therefore, who gets to tell the young and not so young their story about the meaning of sex? Whoever isn't too shy to talk about it: Internet porn, Howard Stern, Playboy, "Sex and the City," "Gossip Girls," the Spice Channel, etc.

Enter John Paul II's "Theology of the Body." John Paul II talked about sex. A lot. About its beauty and goodness and desirability and centrality to our lives. He talked about how God invented sex, not as a forbidden fruit, but as an expression of our Godlike ability to give and receive love the way God loves: freely ("I do"), faithfully ("only you forever"), fully (total gift of self: body and soul), fruitfully (open to new life).

"Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it."

–John Paul II the Great

Since most porn users are men, we'll speak about it from the male side. Those lovely ladies don't really love you. They're being paid to act like they love you. (Drug use, STDs and suicide are high among porn stars because they are living a lie.) What about those porn stars who build their own empires and seem to suffer no consequences? Also a lie. They are living a radical body-soul split that will take its toll.

How do you know if you're addicted to porn? If you use it at all, you're addicted, because porn is addictive by nature. Porn is a multi-billion dollar business off of people's addictions.

Pornography is having sex with a fantasy. The porn user becomes addicted to their body's own chemicals. They become capable of being aroused ONLY by fantasy-images, and not their real-life, flesh-and-blood spouse. Therefore, porn emasculates.

Men lose interest in the real women around them, family, work, sports, hobbies, etc. The addiction becomes all-consuming. The addiction is also costly as bigger and more extreme thrills are needed. Porn addicts fear telling anyone because they fear losing everything: wife (whom they've rejected through porn), respect of family, friends, co-workers, church family. So, as angry as the revelation of a porn addiction may make us, if we make it too difficult for the addict to come clean, or too difficult when they do, everybody loses. God is bigger than addiction. God forgives those turning from addiction. God heals addiction.

Men who fight porn addiction in their lives are true heroes. They give the lie to a culture that says porn is normal and manly and harmless. As despicable as porn is, men willing to fight the battle against porn addiction need support and encouragement, like any other recovering addicts. Women need to applaud these men, who are strong in their weakness. "In weakness, power reaches perfection." Remember, these are the good guys, not the bad guys. These are the guys that don't want porn anymore and have risked everything to take a stand AGAINST porn (just as they risked everything FOR porn). These are men of incredible courage and character who are fulfilling their true vocation of upholding the dignity of women (and their own).

Shame and secrecy is the deadly combination that feeds the addiction. I once heard a priest say: "Why did Jesus call us 'children of the light'? Because we make our mistakes in the open." If we began openly acknowledging sex in a happy, healthy, reverent, non-graphic, non-trivializing, age-appropriate manner, the "naughty" factor that drives people to "forbidden pleasures" would be removed. Sex is the two-ton elephant in our Christian living rooms that nobody talks about because they don't seem to know what to say. The Theology of the Body is the answer.

DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL CHOIR

LET'S MAKE A MOVIE--RIGHT NOW!

Want your kids, grandkids, or religion class to feel empowered when it comes to media and making good media choices? There's no better way to understand how media is constructed than to make media ourselves. "Creating media" is one of four skills encouraged by the "media literacy" movement.

All you'll need is a video camera (or digital camera that takes a few minutes of video) and a computer (all Windows programs have "Windows Movie Maker" software). You can be as simple or elaborate as you want with everything else. Gather the kids and here's how to lead them.

1. "What's your big idea? What's your movie about? (Try a Bible story or parable--the story's already there!) Describe your movie in one sentence. Make your description exciting, fun, mysterious, or all three! What's the title of your movie? When you make the movie, who will do what? Remember, movie making is a team sport--no divas or divos! Respect each person and let them do their job. The writer tells the story by writing. The director tells the story by directing the actors and filming. The editor tells the story by editing. You can also have a producer (who makes sure everyone has what they need to get the job done). There's plenty of other jobs, too: casting director, actors, director's assistants, producer's assistants, wardrobe, hair, makeup, craft service (food!), location scout, prop master, agents, managers, lawyers, etc.

2. "Writer(s): The most important thing to know about writing a screenplay is: 'Show, don't tell.' Don't have too much talking. Use lots of action and tell the story through what people will see.

3. "When the story is written, have a "story meeting," and make sure everyone is OK with the story. The writer(s) job is now finished. Make copies of the script for everyone.

4. "Actors rehearse their parts by themselves, and then with the director. Actors can make suggestions about their parts, but the director has the final say.

5. "When all finished filming, have a 'wrap party,' and watch the raw footage!

6. "Now it's time to edit. The director can work with the editor. The editor gets rid of mistakes and everything that is unnecessary and makes sure the timing feels right. The editor can add narration, music and special effects. The editor can create the opening title frames and the credits at the end. In the credits, make sure to thank everyone who helped, even in little ways!

7. "Have a premiere (opening show). In Hollywood, everyone wears black to a premiere. Give yourselves a big hand!

8. "Have a meeting after the premiere. What did you learn from making this movie? What would you do differently? How could you have worked together better? Would you like to try another movie-making job?

9. "Start planning your next masterpiece!"

MEDIA AWARENESS TEST

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH & THE MEDIA

Do you know what the Catholic Church's position is on abortion? Helping the poor? You probably do. How about the Catholic Church's "official" position on the media? (By media we're referring to the whole enchilada: media content, technology and culture.) Not so sure? You're not alone. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church has been trumpeting (at least in her documents since the mid-twentieth century) that the media are gifts of God. Any gift of God can be abused, but that doesn't make it any less a gift. More recently, the Church has declared that Catholics must be an "active, listening" presence in today's world which is created in part by the media. When you think about it, isn't that what the Church is called to be in the world in general? "Active"—we're "in the world, not of it," helping our fellow human beings, creating a "civilization of love." "Listening"—we care deeply about the struggles of our contemporaries, their sorrows and joys. We strive to listen to the heart of humanity.

 

So, what do we call this "official" position of the Church toward the media? "Media Literacy." The Church began wholeheartedly adopting the language of Media Literacy in the 1992 document: "Dawn of a New Era." Then, in 2003, just two months before he died, Pope John Paul the Great signed off on "Rapid Development," a small document on the "new media." New media refers to the recent explosion of new media technologies and applications: internet, wireless capabilities, digital technology, cell phones, social networking internet sites like Facebook, mp3 players, texting, computer games, instant messaging, etc. John Paul II repeats over and over in the document: Do not be afraid of the new technologies! Do not be afraid to use the new media! Put out into the deep! (And JP2G also gave us the example—he wasn't exactly a scaredy-cat when it came to media.) Not being afraid of media is a big part of Media Literacy. How can we be "literate" in something we're apprehensive of? (Both Vatican documents are available at www.vatican.va.)

 

The "National Directory for Catechesis" from the U.S. Bishops (what every catechist has under their pillow when they go to sleep at night) is full of Media Literacy. Here are some powerful Media Literacy quotes from the NDC:

 

"Especially in the U.S., 'the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media.' In fact, the mass media are so influential that they have a culture all their own, which has its own language, customs, and values."

 

"If the Gospel message is going to make sense to the next generation of Catholics…catechesis needs to find more sophisticated ways to employ these new technologies."

 

"Reality, for many, is what the media recognizes as real; what the media do not acknowledge seems of little importance."

 

"Communications media themselves are suitable subject matter for catechesis."

"The Church's mission requires her to be 'in the very midst of human progress, sharing the experiences of the rest of humanity, seeking to understand them and interpret them in the light of faith.'"

 

"Those to whom the Gospel message is addressed today, both young and old, are, in a sense, children of the media."

 

"The anonymity and lack of accountability in cyberspace requires a more sophisticated level of MEDIA LITERACY that has ever been needed in the past."

 

So, as you can see, the Church is asking something new of us.

 

What's the history of the Media Literacy movement? Although Media Literacy is not a religious movement, Catholics have been involved from the beginning because we care deeply about communications and culture. Canadian (and convert to Catholicism) Marshall McLuhan, a brilliant scholar and professor, wrote extensively about how media was profoundly changing the way we live and relate to one another. He was famous for his dictum: "The medium IS the message." Fr. Walter Ong, SJ, was also an early ML pioneer. Canada has been teaching ML in its schools at all grade levels for many years now, and the United States is catching on. Pittsburgh is the first diocese in the U.S. to mandate ML in its Catholic schools.

 

The best way to define ML might simply be: to question media. (A comprehensive definition can be found at www.medialit.org.) We don't want to be cynical with regard to media, but we want to understand as fully as we can what our fellow human beings are trying to communicate to us and why. In this stance of inquiry, our relationship to the media is such that WE are in charge. WE have the power. WE are asking the questions. Teach young people to ask questions of the media, and instantly, they, too, are in charge. ML does not avoid media, but engages in dialogue with media.

 

There are five basic approaches we can take to media in life: 1) stay away  2) look mostly for the bad  3) MEDIA LITERACY: think critically, participate actively  4) look mostly for the good  5) couch-PC-console potato. Which do you think is most helpful for navigating the media culture we're all living in?

 

Media Literacy also wants us to develop four media skills: 1) access media (use it!)  2) analyze media  3) evaluate media  4) act (anything from giving feedback to creating media ourselves). As an example of skill #4, check out Chicago seminarian, Andy Kirchoff's blog: www.catholicvideogamers.blogspot.com  Andy plays and critiques video games from a Catholic perspective.

 

The Five Core Concepts of Media Literacy are also turned into questions to make them easier to use. They can be used with any media.

1. All media are CONSTRUCTED. Even the most "objective"-looking media (like a news report or documentary film) have been constructed and filtered through someone. Certain things were included, certain things were excluded. Question: How was this media constructed?
2. Every media uses its own media LANGUAGE. Novels, plays, TV sitcoms, science fiction movies, oil paintings, comic books—all have their own unique language, rules, conventions. Question: What techniques were used to get my attention?
3. Different people EXPERIENCE media differently. The easiest illustration of this concept would be a particular style of music. People will have completely opposite experiences of the same style of music. Question: How might different people experience this media?
4. All media have embedded values and POINTS OF VIEW. There is no such thing as "values free" media. To even try to create "values free" media would itself be a value. Question: What points of view are presented/not presented in this media?
5. All media messages are constructed for PROFIT and/or POWER. Profit and power are neutral. It's what we do with them. Power is acquired through media mostly by getting media users to agree with an ideology. Question: Who created this message and why? Who pains, who gains?

 

A new movement called "Media Mindfulness" seeks to bring the faith component to Media Literacy. A new book for use with pre-teens, teens and adults called "Media Mindfulness" is available from St. Mary's Press: www.smp.org. Media Mindfulness adds two more questions:

 

6. What CHRISTIAN VALUES does this media support or not?
7. In light of my Christian beliefs, what will my RESPONSE be?

 

Still feel conflicted about media? Think of it this way. "Everything works together for the good of those who love God." That includes media! Make media work for you with the "3 D's."

DISCIPLESHIP—If we are disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, we want to honor, glorify and imitate Him in everything we do, yes? But the same way we don't ignore non-Christians, we don't ignore media that doesn't represent Jesus' way of life.

DISCERNMENT—God has given us so many tools for discernment, not just for making good choices in our lives, but also for discerning media: philosophy, theology, our minds, wills, hearts, consciences, imaginations, the Bible, the Church, mentors, etc. The more we know about our Catholic Faith (and also how media works), the better we will be able to discern our media experiences.

DISCIPLINE—Self-discipline, self-mastery. We need to be constantly asking ourselves: How is this particular media influencing my relationship with God, myself, my family, others, my enemies, Creation? Adjust accordingly.

 

In addition to Discipleship, Discernment and Discipline, we need to pray about and with media in order to stay strong in our own convictions in a pluralistic media world.

 

Media Literacy and Media Mindfulness is a lifelong journey because we are constantly having new media experiences and growing in our faith. There is too much at stake for us not to be media literate in today's media culture. As the National Directory for Catechesis states it: "For many people, experience itself is an experience of the media." And as the Center for Media Literacy puts it:

"Media: love it or hate it, it's not going away." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCREENWRITER ESZTERHAUS CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM

Article published Saturday, August 23, 2008
A HOLLYWOOD PLOT TWIST
'Basic Instinct' author writes book about faith

Joe Eszterhas, who has written the screenplays for movie thrillers, now is the author of a book on faith: "Crossbearer."  ( ASSOCIATED PRESS/RON SCHWANE )

TOLEDO BLADE RELIGION EDITOR
Joe Eszterhas' latest book is a shocker, but not the kind that made him rich and famous.

The upcoming release from the man who penned dark thrillers such as Basic Instinct and Jagged Edge tells the story of his spiritual conversion and his newfound devotion to God and family.

In Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith, to be published Sept. 2 by St. Martin's Press, Mr. Eszterhas describes how his life got turned around during the summer of 2001.

He and his second wife, Naomi, had just moved from Malibu to a suburb of Cleveland - where he had grown up; she was from nearby Mansfield. They felt Ohio would be a better, more wholesome place to raise their four boys (he had two grown children from his first marriage).

A month after the move, Mr. Eszterhas was diagnosed with throat cancer. Doctors at the Cleveland Clinic removed 80 percent of his larynx, put a tracheotomy tube in his throat, and told him he must quit drinking and smoking immediately.

At age 56, after a lifetime of wild living, Mr. Eszterhas knew it would be a struggle to change his ways.

One hot summer day after his surgery, walking through his tree-lined neighborhood in Bainbridge Township, Mr. Eszterhas reached a breaking point.

"I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette," he wrote.

He plopped down on a curb and cried. Sobbed, even. And for the first time since he was a child, he prayed: "Please God, help me."

Mr. Eszterhas was shocked by his own prayer.

"I couldn't believe I'd said it. I didn't know why I'd said it. I'd never said it before," he wrote.

But he felt an overwhelming peace. His heart stopped pounding. His hands stopped twitching. He saw a "shimmering, dazzling, nearly blinding brightness that made me cover my eyes with my hands."

Like Saul on the road to Damascus, Mr. Eszterhas had been blinded by God. He stood up, wiped his eyes, and walked back home a new man.

In a phone interview this week, Mr. Eszterhas said it was "an absolutely overwhelming experience."

He went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol, to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."

He and Naomi have been faithfully attending Catholic Mass on Sundays ever since, and as the book title states, Joe carries the cross down the aisle. He asserts his nonconformity, however, by wearing jeans and Rolling Stones T-shirts when he does it. Despite the rebel attire, he says he carries the cross with more reverence than most.

Although he is a devout Catholic, Mr. Eszterhas writes bluntly of his disgust for priests who are pedophiles and bishops who have covered up for them. He and Naomi decided they could not, in good conscience, donate a dime to the church because of the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

He also writes about the inner turmoil he felt when he took his boys to catechism classes or other church events and kept a protective eye on them the whole time, making sure they were never alone with a priest.

And he complains about priests' homilies being boring and pointless.

When Mr. Eszterhas visited a nondenominational megachurch, he heard a sensational sermon. But he felt empty afterward, missing Holy Communion and the Catholic liturgy.

"It may have been a church full of pedophiles and criminals covering up other criminals' sins … it may have been a church riddled with hypocrisy, deceit, and corruption … but our megachurch experience taught us that we were captive Catholics," he wrote.

Mr. Eszterhas told The Blade that despite his mixed feelings over the church and the abuse scandal, the power of the Mass trumps his doubts and misgivings.

"The Eucharist and the presence of the body and blood of Christ is, in my mind, an overwhelming experience for me. I find that Communion for me is empowering. It's almost a feeling of a kind of high."

He said that living in the heartland, he sees how much Hollywood producers are out of touch with most Americans.

"I find it mind boggling that with nearly 70 percent of Americans describing themselves as Christians, and witnessing the success of The Passion of The Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, that Hollywood still doesn't do the kinds of faith-based and family-value entertainment that people are desperate to see," Mr. Eszterhas said.

He has turned down hefty offers to write scripts for movies with sinister plots and dark themes like the 16 other ones he wrote that made it to the screen- some paying as much as $3 million a script.

Mr. Eszterhas said he spent too much of his life exploring the dark side of humanity and does not want to go there anymore.

He was born in Hungary during World War II, grew up in refugee camps, and then moved to the United States and lived in an impoverished neighborhood in Cleveland.

He worked as a police reporter in Cleveland and "was always fascinated with the darkness. I covered countless shootings, urban riots, and in several situations I was there before police were because I had a police radio and used to drift around the city until something happened," he said.

But after his spiritual transformation, he said, he had had enough of death, murder, blood, and chaos.

"Frankly my life changed from the moment God entered my heart. I'm not interested in the darkness anymore," he said. "I've got four gorgeous boys, a wife I adore, I love being alive, and I love and enjoy every moment of my life. My view has brightened and I don't want to go back into that dark place."

Mr. Eszterhas' love and appreciation for life was magnified even more last year when his surgeon told him he didn't need to schedule another visit.

"He used the word 'cured,' a word that oncologists generally don't use," Mr. Eszterhas said. "He said I didn't have to come back for any checks, that my tissue had regenerated to the point where you cannot only not tell that there was ever any cancer there, but you can't tell that there had been any surgery there.

"Naomi and I were, of course, overwhelmed when he told us. I think it's truly a miraculous blessing."

One miracle Mr. Eszterhas has hoped for but not seen since returning to Ohio is to see his beloved Cleveland Indians win the World Series. But he is using the Tribe's woes as a lesson in faith and patience for his children.

"I think that our deity may have a pretty nasty sense of humor," he said with a laugh.

His new book is evidence of Mr. Eszterhas' victory over writer's block, something that struck him after going sober. It was a difficult adjustment to write for the first time in his life without sipping wine or cognac.

But he was compelled to write Crossbearer as "a thank you to God" and "to tell the world what he has done for me."

When his wife finished the book, he said, she gave it a hug. "That's how I feel. I'm very proud of it."

- David Yonke

TV: FALL SHOWS

 

Don't know what to watch on TV this Fall? Confused by all the cancelled shows and changing show times/dates? Why not watch some "real life TV"? Before you run screaming for the hills (oops, "The Hills" is a "reality TV" show), did you know there's a difference between "real life TV" and "reality TV"? Yup. "Real life TV" is following real people around their real lives or real jobs, unscripted. "Reality TV," instead, is a concocted, fully- or partially-scripted show like "Survivor," "Big Brother," "The Surreal Life," often throwing a bunch of strangers into a competition and having them behave badly towards each other.

 

When you think about it, we already love different kinds of "real life TV," as evidenced by wildly popular cooking shows, talk shows, sports shows, and top-of-the-charts talent shows like "American Idol," "So You Think You Can Dance?" and "America's Got Talent." Not only is it great to see non-celebrities on the little screen, we can interact by voting via cell phone for whomever we think is most deserving.

 

Interested in expanding your cranium? Why not dip into the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel, Chicago's own WTTW (channel 11), the History Channel, C-Span (Capitol Hill), or BookTV on C-Span2?

 

Need to get in touch with nature (but it's cold, dark and late at night) or learn about the world? Try the Animal Planet Channel, National Geographic Channel or Travel Channel which boast fantastic shows that will take you all over the world to explore diverse cultures and observe all creatures great and small in their natural habitats.

 

True "real life TV," (chronicling real lives, real jobs) would be shows such as "Jon and Kate Plus 8"--the family life of a young couple with twins and sextuplets; "Project Runway"--although a competition, aspiring clothing designers have their creations judged by experts; "Ice Road Truckers"--those hearty souls who risk their lives hauling goods and supplies over frozen lakes, rivers and, yes, oceans, to the planet's northernmost reaches; and my fourteen-year-old nephew's favorite: "Dirty Jobs," (the smellier and grosser, the better). Other "real life TV" shows throw charity into the mix, constructing or refurbishing homes for families in need.

 

But remember, the first rule of media literacy is: "All media messages are constructs." Therefore, no media are "pure reality," no matter how objective the media makers are trying to be. The media product is a human creation, filtered through perspectives and choices. What was focused on and emphasized? Why? What was left out? Why? What was put in a favorable light through use of music, camera angles, composition, juxtaposition? What was put in a bad light?

 

How can we know whether or not something is scripted, falsified, exaggerated? The truth of the matter regarding these shows usually outs itself, due to the close scrutiny of the shows' fans! For example, "Laguna Beach" and "Real Housewives of Orange County," 'fessed up to being part myth. Other shows (not recommended) like "Keeping Up with the Kardashians," "Denise Richards: It's Complicated," smack of trumped-up conflicts and motives of extreme self-promotion. They are shows about the show. (Sometimes you can trust what you see: looks phony? Just might be….)

 

Rather than voyeurism, "real life TV" can help us experience vicariously "how the other half lives," what daily struggles and victories our fellow human beings face. Some shows drag a little ("World's Deadliest Catch"), kind of waiting for something big to happen, while others consistently scintillate ("Dog, the Bounty Hunter").

 

 

MOVIES: "FIREPROOF"

YYY1/2

"Fireproof" is the story of two strangers living in the same house. And they're married. The metaphor of firefighters "never leaving their partner behind" fits perfectly. Caleb (Kirk Cameron) is a fireman married to Catherine (Erin Bethea) for seven years, and their relationship is in serious trouble. On fire. In a bad way.  

Caleb, although a heroic lifesaver, isn't terribly heroic in his marriage. He and Catherine have separate schedules, separate bank accounts, separate lives, and Caleb has become demanding and selfish. And if that weren't bad enough, he's addicted to internet porn and Catherine knows it. She tells her mother how humiliating it is and asks: "Since when did I stop being good enough for him?" She confronts Caleb more than once about it, to no avail. Although the problem of internet porn doesn't take over the story, it's a huge hurdle for the relationship. We are shown discreetly and effectively how tempting, easy and available internet porn is, and how radical a cure is sometimes called for.

Catherine is first to throw in the towel. Both have a good sense of their self-worth, so neither is going to let the other trample over them.  They are well-matched for the battle that lies ahead, although they continue to live together for practical reasons. The fights, the hurt, the lack of respect--all rings painfully true. There are literally millions of marriages in this very predicament right now. It is truly hopeless, even when Caleb starts to change, because Caleb's heart isn't in his "changes" and Catherine can feel it. Catherine also misinterprets his every out-of-character move (with the "help" of some well-meaning gal pals). Caleb is being coached by his Dad, who sends him a forty-day "Love Dare" book with daily instructions on how to woo his wife back (something that saved his own marriage), but more importantly, these daily instructions are about how to transform himself into the man and husband he needs to be permanently. Is nothing Catherine's fault? Basically, no, except the fact that she takes up with a doctor at the hospital where she works, while still married to Caleb.

"Fireproof" screams that working at a marriage—especially one on the rocks—is very, very hard work that takes lots of time and patience. But the film also provides a roadmap that either a husband or wife can use. And of course, everyone is going to want this book tie-in! Actually, there are two books: "Love Dare" and "Fireproof: the Novel."  www.fireproofmymarriage.com offers lots of resources for home, school and church. (I'm surprised the classic "His Needs, Her Needs" wasn't listed.)

Theology of the Body (John Paul II) enthusiasts will be delighted by this film. Without explicitly saying it, the film revolves around a key TOB passage, Ephesians 5. Marriage between a man and woman has a direct correlation to Christ and the Church.

When push literally comes to shove, there's no way around God. When Caleb tries to justify himself as a "good person" to his father, his father simply asks him, but do you love God, the God who gave you life? Whoa. Thank God for these fearless filmmaking Christians who are getting better and better at bringing the Good News to the screen. For every ninety-nine scoffers, there will be one who hears the message of salvation loud and clear. And repents.  And the angels shall dance and rejoice.

This scene of Caleb with his Dad is really the crux of the whole film. And it involves a big crux (you'll get it when you see the film). And I just have to quote Dad here: "God's standards are so high that He considers anger to be murder and lust to be adultery." Whoa again. I would put it a different way and say simply that our interior life is as real as our exterior life. It's not so much "God's standards" as "simple reality." To paraphrase Jack Nicholson: "Can you handle reality?" Lots of great advice and wisdom in this film: "You can't just follow your heart. Your heart can be deceived. You have to lead your heart."

"Fireproof" is definitely a "Christian" film—there are lots of portrayals of people of faith, Bible quotes, prayer, giving one's life to God, etc., far beyond what mainstream films show. Corny? Why should faith be corny? But yes, sometimes. A non-believer unfamiliar with Christianspeak might ask: Do people really talk this way? The answer is, um, yes.  Lots of people.  Are they for real? Indeed. The faith depicted is a kind of Southern Evangelicalism.  It seems that one just "confesses Jesus with one's lips" and that's that (no mention is made of baptism). However, there are no pat answers or easy solutions. We can feel the torture of people who believe they are doing everything right, and yet that's still not good enough. Every Christian who seems to have their life together is also one of the walking wounded. The difficulties tearing at this marriage are the same as everyone else's:  the little everyday attitudes, words and run-ins that belie much bigger deficiencies, and that build up over time into an impasse. Omissions are as important as commissions. Curiously and very effectively, we only see the estranged part of this couple's relationships throughout the entire film, but we know only too well what they have lost, or what could have been.

Perhaps we need a "Christian" genre in film, one that will allow for some detailed, in-depth conversations between characters, rather than just quips. We've been trained to not even want to get down to the nitty-gritty of relationships in films. We get nervous when a soundbite develops into a three-dimensional, reasoned-out motivation. "Fireproof" is not a big talkfest, either. The Kendrick Brothers (who created this film) excel at tense, big action moments like a car wreck on train tracks and a little girl trapped in a burning house. The realism was every bit as good as "Ladder 49." In some ways, "Fireproof" is a profounder "Ladder 49," that forces us to look beyond universally-acknowledged heroism (firefighting) to another dimension of heroism—but every bit as important—the heroism of the heart and hearth. (More fire imagery!)

Isn't it enough to save other people's wives and husbands and children? No. Real men dry the dishes (and not just at the firehouse). (Catherine works full time while Caleb has a much more flexible work week). Is this some kind of Promise Keepers "real men serve their wives"? Yes. But Promise Keepers doesn't have a patent on the "servant king" model. It was started by the first Servant King, Jesus, who laid down His life for His Bride, the Church. Wouldn't it be just ducky to see movies like this on "Lifetime"?

"Fireproof" offers a completely different view of marriage than is commonly accepted today: covenant, not contract. If it isn't working, you don't walk away, you try everything to make it work, even if you are "two different people now," even if "I don't love you any more," because you are both part of something bigger than yourselves here. "Fireproof" successfully lays out the theology of marriage, even the fact that marriage is a natural institution recognized by the Church even if between non-Christians.

The jokes and pranks are rather old, flat and predictable. The soundtrack boasts great ambience music as well as that ubiquitous "Third Day" Contemporary Christian Music sound ("Third Day" also contributed to the soundtrack), and there's a poignant and fitting song about waiting that accompanies an important montage/sequence like a Dalmatian on a fire truck. (This song became the answer to a prayer for me, as I found myself applying Caleb and Catherine's marriage covenant to my own vowed covenant with the Lord!) If the cinematography/editing were just a tad fancier, "Fireproof" would have a complete big screen Hollywood feel.

 "Fireproof" is a well-crafted story with plenty of secrets, questions and twists to keep us guessing. And it never looks away from the pain. There's pretty much solid acting all around, especially from the two leads. The dialogue is some of the most honest I've ever witnessed in a movie (it's the same reason I liked "Brideshead Revisited-- the way characters talked and related to each other was intimate, fleshed out and non-oratorical).  Catherine is truly a "modern" woman, right up to the end.  (Sorry, can't be a spoiler.) The ending is slightly long, but has a GREAT closing shot.

"Fireproof" augurs well for the future of Christian films. (And it doesn't hurt that it was distributed through giant Sony Films.)

NB: The cool graphics of the wedding rings in the title! (The use of wedding rings throughout reminded me of Karol Wojtyla's "Jeweller's Shop.")

The pitch-perfect trailer truly represents the movie. You like? You go see. Check it out on the superbulous website: www.fireproofthemovie.com

THEY TELL ME WORDS ARE DEAD

Let me tell you of MY HISTORY with words.

ENGLISH words.

I was raised on words in BOSTON.

We consider ourselves KEEPERS OF THE LANGUAGE.

Even with our funny accents.

But then I entered the convent with nuns from all over.

And I lost a lot of words.

Then I went to TORONTO for eight years

where hardly anyone has English for a FIRST language

and being in the heart of LITTLE ITALY every fourth phone call

was in ITALIAN and I was the phone operator and all our staff were ESL.

And I lost a lot of words.

And then I was diagnosed with a non-functioning thyroid and that caused "brain fog" (yes, the technical term) for many years.

And I lost a lot of words.

And then five years ago

I almost died.

An experience far beyond words and poems and even music.

And I lost a lot of words.

Now they tell me words are DEAD.

That it's all about the viz-yoo-al now.

IMAGES. Post-word-literacy.

As much as I LOVE and USE

ALL the NEW media:

iPods, Bluetooth, txting, Flickr,

YouTube, Google, Facebook, cell phones,

digital cameras, Tivo and the like

I believe there is a qualitative difference,

not better, just different

when it comes to words

deep words vis-a-vis utilitarian words

deep reading vis-a-vis utilitarian reading

and it's not so much about words really

but LANGUAGE.

But now we're wading hip-deep into PHILOSOPHY and CULTURE and WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN

and I am not afraid of that. BIO! (Bring it on!)

They tell me words are DEAD.

Well I say: poppycock.

I am tired of losing words.

You will have to pry WORDS from my cold, dead fingers.

"Only a continuous tradition of gentle speech, with all its implications--the avoidance of boredom and vulgarity, the exchange of complicated ideas, the observance of subtle nuances of word and phrase--can preserve the written tongue from death, and lifelong habitude to such speech alone schools a man to write his own tongue."
--Evelyn Waugh

YOUNG ADULT VOCATION RETREAT--CHICAGO, AUGUST 2008

Taken at night by Lake Michigan! The camera was on a trashcan.

back row: Sr. Margaret Michael fsp, Jennifer Dittman (IL), Sr. Laura Rosemarie fsp, Lindsay Trapp (SC),

Sr. Triphonia, fsp (KOREA), Veronica Han (CANADA), Angela Frayna (IL)

front row: Cheryl Galema (CANADA), Sr. Helena Raphael fsp, Jackie Gitonga (with water bottle) (KENYA/IL)

MOVIES: "BRIDESHEAD REVISITED"

 

YYYYY

"Brideshead Revisited" is one of the most Catholic movies I've ever seen. Not just because a Catholic aristocratic family is at its center with a cornucopia of Catholic images and vocabulary, but because of the way Catholicism matters, as it bumps up against the biggest vagaries of life and delivers some big answers. Charles (Matthew Goode), a non-aristocrat, enters into a relationship with every member of the eccentric  family who live at the majestic Brideshead manor. He is introduced into the inner circle by the son, Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw), a fellow student at Oxford with whom he begins a homosexual relationship. The teddy-bear-toting Sebastian is thoroughly miserable due in part to his completely overbearing, hyper-religious "Mummy" (Emma Thompson). But Sebastian is also the wisdom figure who is not deluded by life, who goes on to become a hero—the only one willing to break free of family, wealth, privilege, and "destiny" to find true Happiness.

"Brideshead" requires some familiarity with the inner workings of Catholic spirituality in general and early twentieth-century British Catholicism in particular. In filmmaking lingo, it "cuts deep" into the world of its characters. It's up to us, the audience, to do our homework if we want to take full advantage of the story. Without this prior knowledge, the jokes could seem like cheap potshots at the Faith (they're not: Evelyn Waugh--who wrote the novel that BR is based on--was a convert to Catholicism), and the portrayal of the family's religiosity could seem like a condemnation of hypocrisy and superstition. Waugh, like a good writer, stares the tragicomic truth in the face and lets no one off the hook.  As Dorothy Day said: "I converted with my eyes wide open." (Perhaps the most uncluttered Catholic character in BR is the happy-to -the-point-of-annoying Irish priest at Papa's bedside, trying to help him make a "beautiful death.") The filmmakers seamlessly capture Waugh's profound and satirical sense of humor which is so subtle that it mischievously echoes long after the credits roll. They also marvelously "get" Waugh's voice and don't just squeeze it into a droll, established formula. Either they are geniuses or Waugh is imminently adaptable to the screen!

As British as Waugh was (check his bio), I find him free of the usual British cynicism. (None can be as cruel as the British when it comes to lampooning the sacred.) Perhaps because, for him, Christianity was the only alternative to "chaos." Like his contemporary, Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World"), Waugh peered into the "post-Christian" future and shuddered.

How does Catholicism matter in BR? In the marriage covenant. Some really tough, heart-breaking choices need to be made, and they are. Unlike Graham Greene's "The End of the Affair," which relies on supernatural interventions in order for characters to do the right thing in regard to marital fidelity, BR relies on the unconditional faith and hope of some extremely flawed individuals.

The emphasis on guilt and sin, so prevalent in a pre-Vatican II milieu, could feel off-kilter today, but Waugh may be holding up a mirror-opposite (our all-too-frequent response) to what Catholicism is really all about (God's love). On second thought, BR is not about sin but about the absolution of sin. What greater gift is there?

The best love stories are horizontal AND vertical, but they are very, very difficult to execute. It's also very, very difficult to portray an inner journey of faith, prayer to an unseen Being, etc., in film (although there have been some very successful attempts recently:  see "Amazing Grace"), but the semi-autobiographical BR manages quite well through its ruthless, wart-exposing frankness. Would that we could all live our lives in the constant scrutiny of God's tender light.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:

Purists may find the screen adaptations not to their liking--especially since the book is a beloved classic--but many of the liberties taken are in keeping with the medium and structure of a film-story.

The 11-hour BBC 1981 made-for-TV version that launched the career of Jeremy Irons, now available on DVD, seems to have kept to the book verbatim. However, in a film, with only two hours, you can't be verbatim, and in film school one is taught that books SHOULD be adapted for the screen, not just slapped up there as they are.

Every poppet, of course, is entitled to their own opinion.

Some major differences of book/movie:

(In general, in keeping with the medium of film, drama is heightened, events conflated and strategically timed, relationships are tighter/closer, stereotypes employed, circles/levels of conflict are multi-layered, and information is given by showing, not telling. To have a same-sex kiss to show that Sebastian and Charles were in a same-sex romantic relationship would be consonant with the medium of film, although not found in the book. The book makes it very clear they were in a same-sex relationship, however. Their relationship does not appear to be any kind of agenda-pushing in the film, but rather a very three-dimensional, sensitive look at a commonly-known British "tradition" in all-male schools. It is rumored that Waugh himself may have engaged in one of these dalliances. One must not run out of the cineplex at the first kiss, but stay and see how both Charles and Sebastian are redeemed.)
BOOK: Lady Marchmain (Mummy) is not such a monster as she is in the film.
MOVIE: Lady Marchmain's character is a much more imposing presence than in the book.
BOOK: Charles is not obsessed with possessing Brideshead Manor for himself, nor does he "buy" Julia.
MOVIE: Sebastian and Anthony Blanche are both gay (as in the book), but not portrayed as lovers, as in the movie.

--What does the title "Brideshead" signify? Without having done any research into the matter, I believe it's a metaphor for the Church--Virgin and Mother, soothingly divine and shockingly human.

--If we don't understand that God is the Lover and Spouse of every soul, we'll never understand what Julia means by "I can't cut myself off from His mercy." However, I'm not sure that the characters or Evelyn Waugh himself saw God this way (due to the times), however much enamored he was of the Faith. The "awful," "fearful" element is very strong.

--The "little characters" flame onto the screen fully formed and fully necessary: Nanny Hawkins, Papa's mistress, Rex—Bravo!

--The soundtrack is lush, gorgeous, Romantic and sad. SPOILER: The "sad" part was a tad misleading.

--My first introduction to Evelyn Waugh (and of course I thought he was a she) was years ago in the "Vatican II Weekday Missal" meditations. It was a quote from BR and went something like this (probably Julia speaking): "'Living in sin,' 'living in sin'—it has a terrible ring to it. You bathe it in Dial and clip diamonds to it, but you never get rid of it." And years later I have discovered a new favorite author in Evelyn Waugh! I have never been able to unreservedly warm up to Tolkien, C.S. Lewis or even Chesterton. I think it was Waugh I was looking for. He even considers his best work his novel on my patron saint, "Helena."

--Evelyn Waugh is incredibly original (without trying too hard), his characters are "writer's-agenda-free" and truer to life than any I have ever met, and he is very, very funny. You never know what the characters will say next, but it's not quirky. It's real. And it's intelligent and clever. Check out the excellent entry for EW in Wikipedia.  Don't be fooled, you've never read/seen/heard anything like Waugh. He's in a category by himself.

--Great line: "Don't be vulgar, Cordelia. Vulgar is not the same as funny." –Lady Marchmain

--Great line: "As Catholics, we have to do all in our power to save those we love from themselves." –Lord Bridley Marchmain

--Sebastian's gay friends, the atheists, the Catholic matron, ALL have their say. (And when "Mummy" stated that the only important life was the life hereafter, EVERYONE in my theater snorted. Including me. Ha ha.)

--The house, of course, is a character.

--This is Charles' story and many people tell Charles who he really is, and it's a mixed picture (Charles is a painter). Good people automatically trust him, but the wicked also recognize their own wickedness in him and his capacity for monstrous greed.

--The actress who plays Julia Flyte, Hayley Atwell, is a sweet blend of innocence and passion.

--Who is the true believer(s) in "Brideshead"?

MOVIES: "THE DARK KNIGHT"

YYY

From the opening scenes of thugs holding up a bank and blowing employees and each other away, to the Joker carving smiles into people's faces (remind anyone of the Black Dahlia?), to a horrific half-faced burn victim, "The Dark Knight" is dark indeed. Definitely not for most kiddies under twelve. DK is shaping up to be a controversial film because of its genre-mixing: comic book (kid friendly) with psycho-thriller (not kid friendly). The Joker's makeup alone, in early publicity photos, clued me in that this Batman tale would be different. It wasn't cartoon/graphic novel/comic book style. It was disturbingly realistic.*

The Wall Street Journal blasted "Dark Knight" for being almost nihilistic in outcome, for "humiliating" the superhero in his own movie, and for killing off a main character. The Hollywood community is focused on Heath Ledger's "fearless" and brilliant performance as the antagonist (so, who's the main character here?)

Another point of controversy is: Did the depravity of DK send actors Ledger (who presumably accidentally OD'ed on prescription drugs he was taking for insomnia and depression) and Bale (charged with assault by his mother and sister) over the edge? As we know, actors have to bury deep inside their roles. But if this were the case, wouldn't there be such incidents after every horror, war and action movie?

A huge problem with DK is that there are many, many ideas—some of them inchoate, confused, complicated, unclear. I'm sure that if we were to do an exit poll of moviegoers, we would get cosmically different opinions about what just transpired, for this reason.** I found myself asking, "What did I just see?" A coherent story-line doesn't seem to be important in DK. The value seems to be examining the recesses of the psychotic mind, and setting up "Sophie's Choice"-type "social experiments."

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that this is a series, and writer/director Chris Nolan can get away with a down, ambiguous ending because another installment will follow on DK's heels. Already, there were several "resurrections" of characters we thought dead, so my money is on future character comebacks.

I also disagree with the critics who think that somehow The Joker won, that the only way to stop The Joker is for Batman to become like the Joker. Rather, Batman's seeming defeat is similar to the seeming defeat of nonviolent action: We pay the price ourselves rather than kill others (in this case, Batman won't kill the Joker). It takes more time when we won't do evil in order that good may result. But this is the only way to create lasting change. It seems that Batman's "one rule" is never to kill anyone. Actually, whenever he comes on the scene, the violence de-escalates. He doesn't use guns, but more of martial-arts, mano-a-mano type fighting. The nine year old next to me in the cinema will be chewing on this lesson for a while. He kept asking his big brother: "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?"

As the audience, we can't relate to the psycho, but we can relate to a good person who has overwhelming evil coming against them, or as The Joker says (he has all the good lines): This is what happens when "an unstoppable force meets and immoveable object." At the end, the young boy in DK says: "Batman did nothing wrong," and the Dark Knight's role as "watchful protector" is reiterated.

ALL that being said, this new addition to the Batman saga is certainly a very serious exploration of the Caped Crusader's escapades.

Some of the central questions are:  1) Who is the real hero of Gotham? Batman (the mysterious, brooding Christian Bale); Harvey Dent, the D.A. (a mighty, strong performance by Aaron Eckhart), or perhaps even the people of Gotham themselves?  2) What will a real hero do and not do? What is their code of honor? How far will they go? Just when does a hero become an anti-hero? What's the difference between a vigilante/outlaw and a hero?  3) Are Batman and the Joker both freaks? Two sides of the same coin?   4) Why be good anyway? The lengthy (2 hrs 32 min)"Dark Knight" is dripping with moral musings and conundrums worthy of an ethics thesis, and is stocked with some of Hollywood's finest: Gary Oldman as the police commissioner, Michael Caine as Alfred the butler, Morgan Freeman as Batman's technology meister, and Maggie Gyllenhaal*** (who thankfully replaced the lightweight Katie Holmes) as lawyer Rachel--Batman's love interest.

Of course, the real, real hero of DK is our fair city of Chicago! How grand that New York (the real Gotham) was evidently not good enough for "the Batman" (I noticed for the first time that this is his proper title). Lower Wacker, Navy Pier, the River, La Salle Street canyon, the Christian Scientist Church, Chicago Police bagpipers, Lake Street, the Wrigley Building--Chicagoans who hung out at the peripheries during the filming will get a kick out of seeing how the locations are utilized.

What is the Batman fighting in DK? What he's always fighting: corruption in Gotham. This time his nemesis is The Joker (RIP, the scene-dominating Heath Ledger, rumored to be a shoe-in for a posthumous Oscar). This Joker is a far cry from the Jack Nicholson character. Ledger plays a vicious psychopath who is motivated, not by money like the mob, but by blood sport, the game, torturing and killing to see what makes people tick, inciting anarchy for the sake of chaos. As Alfred says of him: "Some men just want to watch the world burn."**** The Joker wants to show Batman that the rules by which he lives his life don't work. Batman, of course, is also fighting himself. Is he responsible for the people the Joker kills (because Batman won't kill the Joker?) Is it all right for him to do some dirty dealings (so Harry Dent doesn't "have to"?) Will Rachel wait for him or will she marry Harry Dent?

Most of the humor involves The Joker and is sadistic. But it's not exactly cheap laughs, it's some kind of relief in a very bad world that cannot be escaped but only negotiated. A few people laughed very loudly in my theater, the rest of us grimace-smiled to ourselves.

There are incredible car/truck/motorcycle/Batmobile chases, aerial views, cool new techie toys, pyro-technics and my favorite shots: The Batman gliding through gleaming cities at night. (I think I like the Batman best of the superheroes because he has the coolest costume, based directly on one of the coolest critters in Creation.) There are many levels of the good guys' and bad guys' power structures (some reaching to Hong Kong), and The Joker aptly describes his battle as being "for the soul of Gotham." The people of Gotham figure in pretty heavily in DK. Batman has to be "what the people need him to be" (relativism?), and the Joker sets up a fascinating life-and-death choice to be made by ordinary people on two ferries, both set to blow up.

Why is a movie with such a demented character breaking box office records? First--it's a BATMAN movie. Second, at least for the USA, we're in a time of war, and I think people can handle, want to handle, feel obliged to handle darker themes (but only as metaphors, not head on).

DK incorporates some comical, paunchy Batman impostors trying to "help" Batman, which reminded me of Comic-Con (the world's largest comic book/pop arts convention in San Diego—in progress as I write--that is now an industry bellwether and project maker or breaker) attendees who are actually true romantics. They want to save the world, too. But how to translate saving virtual Gothams to saving real Gothams? Virtual nobility to real-world nobility?

The people in my theater clapped at the end of the show.  I hope for all the right reasons.

_____________
*Media Literacy Core Concept #2: "Each medium has its own media language."

**Although Media Literacy Core Concept #3 is: "Different people experience different media differently," reaction to DK will be all over the board in great part due to a wildly spinning story compass.

***Gyllenhaal, known for her quirkier roles, didn't seem to totally commit to the one-dimensional role of Rachel.  I could be wrong, but I seem to sense when brilliant actors hate their part or their lines and subtly sneer and mock their way through them. So don't take the job! Aaron Eckhart treated his--(albeit more fleshed out)—role like he was a figure in a Shakespearean tragedy. A joy to watch.

****Media Literacy Core Concept #5 is: "All media messages are for profit and/or power." The Joker is quite clear what his motive is: "It's not about money, it's about sending a message."

 

LEAVING LOS ANGELES (AGAIN)

(To the tune of "Green Acres" theme song:)

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE SUN!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE NUNS! 

 

  

 

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE BUNS! (imitating bedroom slippers)

 

(Roxie with Jack asleep in the litter box)

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE STARS!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE CARS!

YOU ARE MY WIFE!

GOODBYE, LA LA LAND LIFE!

CHICAGO, HERE I COME!

 

 

 

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

Here we are at Sony / Columbia / Tristar / MGM. (Marilyn Monroe walked up these steps.)

DVDs: "THOU SHALT LAUGH"

 

"Thou Shalt Laugh"? Where does it say that in the Bible? Did you miss a Commandment? No, but if you miss "Thou Shalt Laugh 1 & 2" on DVD, you'll be missing the best comedy of the summer.

"Thou Shalt Laugh" is a collection of some of today's brightest and funniest stand-up comedians. And they're all Christians.  Not only is the humor decent and suitable for the whole family, it's also original, brilliant and hilarious. Lest you're thinking that "Christian comedy" is somehow inferior to what's in the mainstream: it's not—partly because many of these comedians are in the mainstream. Michael Jr. was recently seen on BET, and Victoria Jackson is a Saturday Night Live alum. TSL is actually not "Christian comedy," but "comedy by Christians."

(I put off watching TSL because I was skeptical, having seen all kinds of Christian comedy through the years, from the best [Mark Lowry] to the outright bigoted, unfunny and obnoxious.)

So what do Christians joke about? Pretty much what everyone else does:  everyday incongruities and annoyances, dating, work, family life, with the occasional reference to God, prayer or church as a normal aspect of life. No topic is off limits or avoided, but everything is handled with good taste and respect for human dignity. Some comedians like Thor Ramsey and "The Village Idiot" are more physical, others barely move a muscle. They are male and female; young and old; Black and Latino, white and multiracial (Dan Nainan uses his East Indian and Japanese heritage as fodder). We are treated to their diverse entertainment skill-sets: ukulele, singing, piano, handstands. Special mention must be made of Taylor Mason who wraps up each DVD. He's a razor-sharp ventriloquist/puppeteer who is by far the craziest crouton in the Caesar's salad of TSL. He involves the audience extensively, even to the point of making them the puppeteers while he ad-libs. Both TSL's are worth it just to see Mason do his thing—it has to be seen to be believed.  He's even better than Comedy Central's Jeff Dunham (the ventriloquist with Walter and the dead terrorist), if that's possible.

TSL1 is hosted by Patricia Heaton ("Everybody Loves Raymond") who was raised Catholic and makes the only explicitly Catholic reference (Purgatory).  Tim Conway (yes, THE Tim Conway from "The Carol Burnett Show") is the delightful host of TSL2, along with doing a little schtick of his own in between routines.

Hint: TSL2 is a tad funnier than TSL1, but once you see 2, you're going to want more. Several performers appear in both DVDs.

Will adolescents/teens like TSL? If the teens busting a gut in TSL's live audiences are any indication: affirmative.

TSL is as good as anything on Comedy Central, and there's no need to mentally edit profanity or raunch. TSL is one "commandment" you'll enjoy keeping. Don't transgress: feed your funnybone. See www.thoushaltlaugh.com for a sample!