February 27, 2012
(MOTHER) DOLORES HART ON THE RED CARPET AT THE OSCARS
She is a total rascal. And I've heard this LOUD whistle up close and personal.
I think she was totally in her glory being back in Hollywood. She is a consummate actor.
The short doc on her life was nominated for an Oscar: "God Is the Bigger Elvis." Didn't win.
VIDEO OF MOTHER "MUGGING" BEHIND MAYA RUDOLPH:
Dolores Hart and Elvis (she gave him his first on-screen kiss in "Loving You"
and also starred with him in "King Creole").
and also starred with him in "King Creole").
February 25, 2012
BIOLOGY OF THE THEOLOGY OF BODY--VICKI THORN, RN
For larger type, click on text.
WANT MORE VICKI THORN? ORDER HER DVDs OR CDs:
February 14, 2012
MOVIES: "THE ARTIST"
Why is “The Artist” being showered with so many
international awards (and most likely a few Oscars)? It’s all about BRINGING
BACK THE MOVIE MAGIC. Like “Hugo,” “The Artist” is a film about the craft of
movie-making (it was a good year for such films). Whereas “Hugo” focuses on
special effects, “The Artist” focuses on acting. But more than acting. The
black and white “The Artist” focuses on VISUAL STORYTELLING which is precisely
what film is SUPPOSED to be. Anyone who has gone to film school will appreciate
the forceful message here, summed up by the last word of the film: “ACTION!”
Filmmaking true to its pedigree tells the story VISUALLY.
Lazy filmmaking (think “visual audiobooks”) tells the story through words,
words, words (and plenty of voiceover). “The Artist” MUST tell the story
visually, you see, because it’s a SILENT FILM. Say what? You heard me. And there
are those black backgrounds with some white curly dialogue every so
often (like “The Perils of Pauline” that people of a certain age will remember
seeing on Saturday mornings). But these words were not even needed. We could
have utterly followed everything without them. Brilliant.
George Valentin (looking like the real McCoy, a manly actor’s
actor, Jean Dujardin) is a middle-aged silent film actor. A chance meeting with
aspiring young actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) begins the saga of her
“talkie” career on the rise and George’s “silent” stardom waning—also due to
his resistance to a changing world. In spite of their age difference and
opposite fortunes, a love story develops. For me, this was a hearkening to
those who can’t accept that we now live partially in a
computer/digital/online/virtual world today. Companies like Blockbuster persisted
in deep denial until it was almost too late.
Dujardin, who is up for a “Best Actor” Academy Award, is
alternately melodramatic (as the silent movie star), brooding, forgetful of the
camera, and a camera magnet. He is able to gaze prolongedly into and in front
of the camera, as well as get us to gaze prolongedly at him. He is a total
natural. Totally comfortable in all kinds of limelight. A true creature of the
screen.
Although the story is too light to ever be wrenching
(accompanied by such a delightful, old-timey, bouncy, Depression-era, “silver
lining,” “sunny side of the street,” orchestral soundtrack), its tender moments
are truly that. Since much of “The Artist” depicts films within a film, the
takeaway seems to be that life is a film. Life is a SILENT film that is much more
about our actions than our words. I would say life is a drama, a liturgy, a
dramaturgy with a Paschal pattern. Like a star, we’re born, we grow, we shine,
we fade, we die. And then we rise again.
I left the theater DANCING. You will, too.
OTHER STUFF:
--Alternate title for “The Artist”: “A Man and His Dog.”
--Is the Jack Russell (Ma calls them “those Jack Daniels
dogs”) up for a doggie Oscar? He should be! He was in almost every scene. So
cute when he buries his head….
--Peppy really is peppy. Flapper girl.
--George Valentin. Rudolph Valentino.
 |
| OK, my stink eye is not as good as this little fella's. |
--Three young ladies in my theater did NOT hear the Lorax
telling them to shush it at the commencement of the film. So I told
them to shush it during the Previews because I could tell we were going to have
a problem. I wanted to hear every word of the Previews for my $11.50 (Chicago
Loop cinema going ain’t cheap). And then, wouldntcha know it, it turns out to
be a silent film, so I couldn’t act like I couldn’t hear the words when they
kept up their tittering. But, dang it, movies are an (expensive) EXPERIENCE and
these chicks were ruining the kick-posterior, lilting, music-only soundtrack. I
leaned forward, and, in the glow of the glorious black and white, gave them my
best stink eye. They caught it and put a sock in it for a few scenes. (It’s
amazing the courage and strength one garners from being a consistent female
opt-out at the airport cancer machines, and doing the pat-down in public—in
order to set a good example.) Halfway through the film, the three “talkies”
exited. Philistines. (But I still love them, of course--and all philistines--in
Christ.)
--The Hollywood community understands and portrays well
their particular brand of artistic heartbreak in the Hollywoodland of broken
dreams…. Reminded me of “Mulholland Drive” under this aspect. (NB: I otherwise
have huge problems with “Mulholland Drive.”)
--I am hoping “The Artist” might trigger a 20’s fashion surge
(kinda like we had in the 70’s). I love 20’s fashions (for both guys and gals).
--Seriously? They had a “SCREENWRITER” chair on the sets
back then? Sigh. “How are the mighty fallen.”
--Minor flaws: I felt like the film within a film in the
beginning, to truly look like a silent film, should have been speeded up. The
film hit its stride at the multiple “takes” when George first acts with Peppy.
From there it was smooth going. Some shades of “Singin’ in the Rain” plot
points….
--Dujardin totally nails the dapper peacock primping,
preening and “mugging” of the times.
--“Tree of Life” is up against two FEEL REALLY GOOD MOVIES
for Best Pic: “The Descendants” and “The Artist.”
--So I slept on it. My fears were NOT allayed. This movie is
a pleasurable “in the moment” adventure, but has no sticking power. Zut alors!*
Ultimately forgettable. Except for that balmy, tripping the light
fantastic SOUNDTRACK that I would love
to hear as I walk down the street every day…. :] Even the ominous parts are only quasi-ominous.
____________
Ugh. Even my French is “antiquated.”
Ugh. Even my French is “antiquated.”
February 4, 2012
February 3, 2012
MOVIES: "EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE"
“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is the story of a boy who loses his father in the Twin Towers on 9/11. Oskar Schell (wunderkind Thomas Horn) seems to have Asperger’s syndrome (Oskar comments that tests were “inconclusive”), and his dad (Tom Hanks) was the only one who really understood his brainy but socially awkward and phobia-ridden son. Oskar’s relationship with his mother (Sandra Bullock) is distant and strained.
Oskar, his mother and his paternal grandmother (with whom Oskar is also close because she communicates on his level) live right in Manhattan. “Extremely Loud” reconstructs what Oskar dubs “the worst day.” We are taken through the exquisite pain of what families must have endured during and after their terrible losses. To “make sense” of the pain (Oskar is all about science, facts and logic) and to be able to hold on to and feel close to his father, Oskar sets out on a mission to find the lock that goes with a mysterious key found in his father’s closet.
Oskar’s quest takes him all over New York City to meet many, many people, and in the process he must overcome his many, many fears (exacerbated by the trauma of 9/11). He has a fiercely determined and obsessive will, and his general inability to empathize/sympathize with others makes him sometimes verbally and otherwise abusive, especially toward his mother.
It’s pretty interesting and enlightening to see the world from this geeky kid’s perspective. There are more and more young people like Oskar, and we will be seeing more and more films incorporating these characters. However, the total improbability of a guileless young boy journeying around NYC alone (although the highly improbable reasons for his safety are later explained to us, and the fact that at one point an older gentleman [Max von Sydow] accompanies him on many of these treks) makes the heart of this tale feel exceedingly unreal.
Although there is a delicate, moving soundtrack, and the dialogue and acting is meticulously executed by the finest in the business, there is just so much artifice to the whole project that I never once lost myself in the story or forgot that “these are actors” and “this is a film”—a well-simulated tale, but ultimately contrived. It hits all the right notes, tropes and hackneyed themes, but the only originality here is getting into a boy like Oskar’s mindset when faced with a horrible tragedy (Oskar gives abundant voiceover to the slow-paced 129 minute film, but it fits). The clichés are attacked head on: “Everyone has a story to tell.” “Everyone has suffered something.”
There were many sniffles in my theater, but I just couldn’t. It didn’t feel as though 9/11 was being exploited, and I didn’t feel emotionally manipulated: it was more like the product I was watching was pitch-perfect, Purell-sanitized with very few surprises or light moments although it tried mightily to aim for both. We were taught in film school that you’re allowed one perfect coincidence in a film, usually in Act One, but ELIC has quite a few. I just didn’t buy it.
The value of ELIC? To hear the distinct voice of an Asperger’s kid who moves from headstrong to heartstrong. Life is a bunch of little moments. To re-live 9/11. To examine various archetypal father-son relationships (solid and weak). To look death squarely in the face and know that “love is stronger than death,” even for a little boy who doesn’t believe in miracles.
OTHER STUFF:
--Plot points a bit convoluted.
--Another film with PRECIOUS little media technology shown being used (even though film IS set back in ancient 2001). People talk to each other, write longhand letters, hug, draw, scrapbook, have deep conversations, play old-fashioned games, admire and use artifacts from the past (note old camera, old film projector). Today’s movies are becoming refuges for depicting hyper-tech-free living, no-tech zones.
--The title was never used in the film (that I caught, anyway) but totally appropriate since Oskar does not like loud noises (one of his quirks).
--Like the “Twilight” series, the folks in “ELIC” have lotsa, lotsa time on their hands. They don’t cook, eat, shop, go to the bathroom, do dishes, make coffee, take showers, do homework, clean, etc. Hey, even Lisbeth Salander goes to the grocery store for supplies.
--Thomas Horn (discovered when he won during Kids Week on Jeopardy) is just totally precocious, like so many of the incredible crop of child actors today.
--Oskar has an Oscar moment when he’s explaining in a deluge of a monologue to his grandmother’s mute elderly gentleman “renter” all that he has endured since 9/11…. Also, great scene of his rage at the end, when Mom tries to calm him down.
--Oskar is very hard on himself and demanding of others. He feels things so intensely, not just external stimuli, but emotions, too.
--Mom: “I’ll never fall in love again for the first time.”
--Oskar comes to the conclusion that: “People are not like numbers. They’re like letters and letters make stories and stories want to be told.” Nice.
--“Don’t stop looking.” Great advice, that.
January 29, 2012
BEST THEOLOGY OF THE BODY POETRY SLAM EVER
Not that we have unreasonable expectations or too-high standards, but we gotta do this as men and women of God....
January 21, 2012
MOVIES: "THE DESCENDANTS"
I came to bury Caesar, not to praise him, and wound up
praising him. I had my skewers ready and planned to make shishkabob out of this
film. But I cannot. Why was I all set to hate on this film? I thought it was
Just Another Sad Tale of a Dysfunctional Family Where Dad Is Once Again
Emasculated And For That We’re Going To Give It An Oscar. I thought the title
was super-lame as well. It sounded like: Just Couldn’t Think of Another Word For
“Family,” So Used Thesarus.com And Chose The First One. That’s not true either.
The title is totally appropriate.
Since the trailer already gave away a key revealing
plot-point (bad trailer! bad trailer!)--well, actually it gave away the “inciting
incident” that kicks off the action—so will I. “The Descendants” is about a
cuckolded husband, Matt King (George Clooney). It’s ALL about that. Except his wife
is in a coma when he finds out. My fellow-screenwriting buddy insists that
there is no arc for Matt, but I think there is. (Writer/director Alexander
Payne does not have huge arcs for his characters, much like life. They tend to
budge just a little bit.) Clooney’s character must choose how he will now FEEL
about his wife (he can’t DEAL with her), and how he will DEAL with her lover.
It’s a story of the choices surrounding FORGIVENESS. Who will we forgive? When?
How? Why?
It’s clear that Matt was a neglectful husband and father,
having been married to his work as a real estate lawyer. He seems to have a
closer relationship with his rebellious teenage daughter, Alexandra (the
amazing Shailene Woodley) than his precocious ten-year-old daughter, Scottie
(the ever-so-natural Amara Miller), which seems to indicate that his distancing
was a gradual thing. But his wife’s accident (that induced the coma) woke him
up to his sorry state of affairs (pun intended) and he is doing his darndest to
be a good parent now. However, dear old Dad vacillates between being a wuss AND
sticking up for his affronted manhood (which includes appropriating his
paternal authority), in many different ways.
This movie is incredibly tender (amongst all the brattiness and
foul profanity). It is a real THEOLOGY OF THE BODY movie (with reservations) in
more ways than one. First of all, Matt’s wife, Elizabeth, is in a coma for the
entire movie—lying there in her hospital bed. And everyone TALKS to her because
it’s HER and EVERYONE knows that. Elizabeth IS her body, her body IS Elizabeth—right
till one of the closing shots (don’t wanna spoil).
Marriage is SACRED in “The Descendants.” To be unfaithful is
a terrible, terrible thing. (The teenage daughter gets this in a big way, too.)
However, one might argue that “love” is treated as something more to do with
feelings. For example, it’s very important to the characters if someone REALLY “loves”
someone else (whether or not they’re having a fling with them). But love and
marriage are more than these deep-seated, je
ne sais quoi feelings. What if one REALLY, REALLY “loved” MORE than one person?
Should marriage then be “open”? What about polyamory? Polygamy? And yet, since
we—particularly in the West—have adopted the “romantic love” version of marriage
for centuries now, the question of choosing one person based on attraction/admiration
and how that plays out is a very legitimate concern. Thornton Wilder’s play “Our
Town,” and BJP2G’s “Love and Responsibility” comes in very handy here!
Matt is unselfish enough to want to follow what he believes
Elizabeth “would have wanted.” BUT what if the one you love wants things that
aren’t right?
Smarmy teens that know more than the parents? Check! But Dad
engages richly with his teen daughter who really does love her Dad. Cussing
teens (and kids)? Check! But I’m afraid that’s the reality in many, many
families today.
Not a movie for teens, methinks. The message is: The teens
are in control. You will get what you want (from your parents) in the end. We
are living in post-parental-authority times. And not only that. The CLEAR
message is: You can be as wild as you want as a teenager. You’re SUPPOSED to be
bad. Do anything you want. Drinking, drugs (not too many hints at teen sex--almost avoiding?). Nothing
bad will happen to you. You will “outgrow” it unscathed. (Bad things only
happen to parents and adults!) Once again, Hollywood chants its mantra: NO CONSEQUENCES.
Very interesting scene when family is gathered in a hotel
room and Scottie wants to watch the adult channel. She begins describing how
her same-age girlfriend watches porn all the time in the basement. With boys
over. Before Matt can take charge, Alexandra lays into Scottie and handles the
situation. This scene is horrifying, and in some ways treated lightly, but
there’s also a sharp point being made. No spiritual arguments are made, just an
extremely crude “why porn is bad” diatribe.
I have problems with virtually naked teenage girls in barely-there
string bikinis in films. I know that’s Hawaii (see also “Soul Surfer”), but
there’s a huge diff between walking by (or even ogling) half-naked girls at a
beach setting (still uncomfortable with THAT) and prolonged, voyeuristic gazing
at a larger-than-life screen. True, these gals are RAIL THIN (that’s ANOTHER
issue), but what makes it sooo creepy is how young they are. Like, hey,
filmmaker, what’s your point here? (Would also like guys to weigh in here, please…??)
However, among my various reservations about this film,
everyone is treated as a full-blown PERSON. No one is one-dimensional. No one
is just a problem or an obstacle or a story device or a cheap laugh. Even the
children and teens. Even side characters with one line (e.g., teenage kid who
expresses his heartfelt compassion for Matt at a gathering). Tremendous human dignity
here.
I completely forgot who the director was till the credits,
and I see ALEXANDER PAYNE (UCLA grad, I might add, my screenwriting alma
mater). He did “Election,” “About Schmidt,” “Sideways.” I had been thinking: “Who the heck is doing
all these unblinking-but-not-uncomfortable, exact, exact, precise, precise,
impeccable scenes?” And I just broke out in this big smile because ALEXANDER
PAYNE HAS ARRIVED! He has a much brighter view of humanity now! But he has
retained all his dark humor and distinct style. Maybe he was “practicing” with
all those other films, just like I believe Terrence Malick was “practicing” for
“Tree of Life.”
In conclusion? Give this movie all the Oscars you want.
OTHER STUFF:
--I have so much more to say about this film (and no time to
write it)! Always the sign of a worthwhile film.
--Left theater uplifted.
--Massive, unartful, necessary and droning narration at the
very beginning (Matt) and then he pretty much shuts up.
--“Descendants” takes its time in a very, very good way.
--Super-duper art direction.
--Alexandra’s boyfriend is one of the FUNNIEST characters I’ve
seen in a long time. And the grandfather. I LAUGHED ALOUD. HARD.
--Undertheme: sale of a huge plot of land in Hawaii. But it’s
not a simplistic “those evil developers” situation.
--We always hurt the ones we
love.
--Lovely scene on beach
where Dad is telling stories about Mom.
--NOT a lot of technology,
cellphones, media. Perhaps even unrealistically so?
--Only a family can hate like that.
--Family: the good, the bad, the funny, the heart-wrenching.
--Clooney at his serious/comedic BEST.
--But of course, if Payne wants to show us the dark
underbelly of human nature in those other movies: Go for it. Evil doesn’t just
reside in the Hitlers of this world. Ordinary people can be little Hitlers,
too. And Mother Teresas.
--Pretty much: No. False. Notes.
--Infidelity can be “smelled.” Physically and spiritually.
--We are “entrusted” with land and things and people.
--Real people! Acne, Alzheimers, imperfect teeth.
--GREAT LINE: “What makes the women in my life want to destroy
themselves?”
--GREAT DIALOGUE: Matt: “Nothing ‘just happens.’” Brian:
“Everything ‘just happens.’”
--Some of the close-ups of Matt are reminiscent of “The
Passion of Joan of Arc.” I’m not kidding. Would NOT be surprised if that’s what
Payne was going for.
--Luscious Hawaiian backdrop (that digital just can’t
capture, sorrrrrrry!!!!), BUT the soft Hawaiian guitar and singing is an
elegant accompaniment.
--Every single actor deserves an Oscar.
January 17, 2012
January 13, 2012
January 8, 2012
MOVIES: "MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE--GHOST PROTOCOL"
The premise: The MI team, while trying to prevent rogue terrorists (wait, aren’t they all rogue?)…. Let me rephrase. The MI team, while trying to prevent individual terrorists (as opposed to terrorist States) from sparking nuclear war, is intercepted by said individual terrorists who blow up part of the Kremlin. The upshot is that the Russians think the Americans did it. Ah, yes. We miss those Cold War days, don’t we? We were just so well matched: the Russkies and the Yanks. What a clever way to revive the old enmity--although the film is careful to say several times that there’s been a BIG mistake: “We are NOT enemies.”Are we listening, Mr. Putin?
The MI team consists of Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, whose acting falters a bit: too casual, too flip for the part), Jane Carter (a tough but feminine, convincing, best-actor-of-the-bunch Paula Patton), and Brit Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg, who plays a hilarious, somewhat cowardly geek, glued to his computer). The story is set in Budapest, Moscow, Dubai and Mumbai. The pacing is perfect. Perfect and seamless from the winsome prison bust that springs Ethan and his lovable oaf friend, Bogdan (Frank Sinatra is key to these scenes), to the heart-stopping human fly maneuvers Ethan must perform on the outside of the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, in Dubai.
Nothing seems ridiculous or over the top in MIGP. There is a calm groundedness, humanity and humility pervading the excitement. And when Cruise explains it all to us with his intense, commanding presence, we just go with it. Women will love MIGP because of the LACK of gratuitous, mindless explosions and chases. There ARE explosions and chases (very cool ones, I might add, one involving the device of a sandstorm) but they MAKE SENSE. I wouldn’t doubt that J. J. Abrams’ (Bad Robot Productions) genius may be at work here. Even when things get a little overblown (I’m no spoiler!), you really won’t care because you’ve suspended your disbelief permanently in these expert filmmakers’ hands.
And it’s FUNNY. I mean, really funny. In all the right places. The agents fail a lot in MIGP. Things do NOT go smoothly at any point. Sometimes they lose nerve. They’re humans, not machines. This is such a welcome change in action movies! There’s an earnest, average Joe, underdog aura here.
OTHER STUFF:
--The gadgets are cooler than Bond’s.
--A lot of the fun is in the little details.
--See Tom run. And run and run and run and run and run.
--Um, I did not count ONE swear word. Not even “damn” or “hell.” And swearing would have been mighty appropriate in even one of these sticky situations. AND the name of the Lord was NOT taken in vain! Whoop! (When good men lead—including in Hollywood—good things happen. Thanks, guys. I also think family men are more sensitive about these things—directors like Abrams, Nolan, Spielberg, etc.) Also, very little boobs and gore. Pretty “family-friendly” action film.
--Very creative predicaments.
--Budapest, Moscow, Dubai, Mumbai: beautiful cities!
--Most unnecessary line of dialogue: “I. Need. That. Briefcase.”
--Best use of a car’s air bag in a film. Ever.
--Too bad Oscar doesn’t care about action-thrillers. Sigh.
--Dos Equis! Dos Equis!
--Love the old-time “Mission Impossible” music, graphics and cinematography at beginning….
--MIGP: brains and brawn.
--Catch the long DEAD SILENCE scene. Awesome.
--“Our media is no more truthful than yours.” –Russian to Tom Cruise.
--Good cat fight with unexpected ending.
--Is that how people park their cars in Mumbai?
--Moreau looks like a 14-year-old baby doll assassin.
--MIGP is devoid of snarky one-liners! MIGP is simply devoid of snark all together! Hip, hip hooray!
--The amazing Brad Bird directs (who woulda thunk it?)—yes, Brad Bird of stellar animated films fame: (“The Incredibles,” “Up,” “Ratatouille”). I guess a good story teller is a good story teller is a good story teller.
--Agent Jane Carter actually takes off her high heels to run! What a concept!
--Did anyone else think of Steve Jobs seeing Tom in the dark hoodie?
--The very end is lame and tame, opening the way for a sequel, but after such a sharp film, couldn’t it have been a little more snappy?
January 5, 2012
January 3, 2012
"COURAGEOUS" DVD AVAILABLE JANUARY 17!
What is "Courageous"? Only THE most Theology of the Body movie for guys EVER....
For more information on the movie, please visit
January 1, 2012
December 27, 2011
MOST IMPORTANT INFO YOU COULD EVER GIVE A TEEN
(also available as print magazine)
"For Guys/Girls"
100% pro-life & according to Catholic Church teaching.
Includes latest scientific data.
http://www.humanlife.org/Resources/J4G/J4G%20WEB.pdf
"For Guys/Girls"
100% pro-life & according to Catholic Church teaching.
Includes latest scientific data.
http://www.humanlife.org/Resources/J4G/J4G%20WEB.pdf
December 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)