MOVIES: "BLUE LIKE JAZZ"

The new Christian film “Blue Like Jazz,” opening in theaters April 13, is already stirring up controversy. But I stand behind it. Here’s why. BLJ is about a young Christian man, Don Miller (Marshall Allman), who--for various reasons--is disgusted with his Christian faith, and opts for a wild, radically secular party college far from home where he hides his faith and tries to assimilate.

ALMOST RATED R

The movie is rated PG-13 but was almost rated R by the MPAA because of its "realness" with regard to campus life. I would say mature teens fifteen years old and up. (But of course, many parents are not monitoring--or don't really have control over, or are in denial about--what their teens are really watching, so I would definitely recommend it to these types!) Lots of language and mature themes. Director Steve Taylor won't let his own fifteen-year-old daughter see it yet, just so you know. In other words, there are teens who are already watching films like this—for better or for worse, and teens that are not—for better or for worse. (And let's not forget young people's unfettered access to digital porn 24/7.)

Although BLJ is made by Christians and examines issues of faith, it's extremely edgy and holds its own with any secular campus/coming-of-age film. The Christians portrayed are not perfect and they know it. The main character comes to realize that Jesus is perfect, and that he shouldn't be ashamed of Him just to fit in.

EVEN A DEAD SALMON CAN GO WITH THE FLOW

Which brings us around to the root cause of so many bad choices in life: bad peer pressure. The communal aspect of our lives. Humans are the most social beings on the planet. Yes, even moreso than bugs. There is a psychological term for those people to whom being original and being themselves and self-determination is MORE important than belonging to the crowd. I think they are about 1% of the population. Strangely enough, people’s obsession with being cool is a slavish obsession while they think it is an expression of freedom. As I go around presenting Theology of the Body to young people (and not so young people), I realize that even though they may come to agree with the truth of it and see the beauty of it, there is no Theology of the Body CULTURE to plug into, and so, barring being/joining the 1% (this has nothing to with the Occupy movement), they just slip into whatever culture IS around them. Thus the necessity of impacting CULTURE. I tell them “even a dead salmon can go with the flow,” and they laugh, but what we really need is hoards of salmon swimming upstream TOGETHER.

HONESTY

From a secular standpoint, this is the first truly honest college/campus/coming-of-age film that doesn’t pretend young people are NOT talking about God and religion! Catholics may be offended by the heavy use of Catholic imagery, but they shouldn’t be. It’s actually honoring Catholic symbols and bringing them to life, albeit in a very unorthodox way. To me, it shows the hunger young people (and our world in general) have for God, religion, ritual, etc.! (The pope and confessional are actual happenings on the real Reed College campus.) I’m pretty sure there’s going to be a big Catholic outcry against this film. Unfortunately.


(There's an unfortunate gross misstep right at the beginning where Don's dimwitted friend tries to say that Don's Mom is hot, but really crosses a line doing so. It's a false note, because I've checked with my guy friends and they assure me that guys do not talk about other guys' mothers like this--to the guy's face.)

HOW MIGHT BLJ HELP YOUNG PEOPLE?

At the screening I attended (with screenwriter/director Steve Taylor, actor Marshall Allman who played the main character, cinematographer/screenwriter Ben Pearson) there was a great Q and A session, and two points came up very strongly about why this is an important film that could actually help young people (I added #3).

#1.—PREPARATION. So many young Christians (and non-Christians) and their parents have no idea what these babes in the woods are in for regarding college life. If they watch the myriad silly, depraved, licentious, shallow campus life secular films constantly flooding the market, they will have an idea, but there’s nothing like being there yourself. BLJ takes a young Christian through that experience and raises lots of questions that would be good to get a handle on BEFORE heading off to college. Innocence is not ignorance. Ignorance is not innocence. There is a terrible expression which I’m afraid is all too true: “Too innocent to stay that way.” There is a misunderstanding by many adults that keeping kids in the dark will keep them innocent/good, and that if kids have knowledge it will automatically corrupt them. They also think that just by knowing something, it takes innocence away. What takes innocence away is doing/participating in evil OR thinking good is bad and bad is good (Isaiah 5:20). And kids WILL get muddled without the proper information IN CONTEXT (2 Corinthians 10:5). Young people need to “hear it first” in the Church!

The Catholic Church has officially adopted the Media Literacy Education stance with regard to media (since the document “Aetatis Novae—Dawn of a New Era,” 1992). Ignorance is dangerous. Knowledge is power. We must develop and help young people develop media skills: ACCESS / EVALUATE / DECIDE / ACT. Which aren’t bad life skills, either. We are in a strange paradox today of the proverbial “prolonged adolescence” (and 45 year olds are considered “emerging adults”!) which makes 18 the new 13, but at the same time 18 year olds are suddenly given a kind of absolute freedom when they land on college campuses.

#2.—CHRISTIANS SHOWING THEIR “DARK SIDE.” I’m not sure when Christianity became all about saving face and not about saving grace, but repentance, humility, honesty and spiritual progress require that we be realistic (at least to ourselves) about our individual and communal failings as a Church. If we, as Christians, air these wounds and failings in our self-revealing and self-divulging, therapeutic culture, we may stand a better chance of being useful, relatable, approachable to our fellow sinners than by covering them up. And we Christians are the only ones that have the cure/solution to sin! The atonement, sacrifice, mercy and forgiveness of Christ—most especially in the Sacrament of Confession. And its FREE!

One thing I don't understand, however, is how much people LOVE when public religious holy people types show their ordinariness OR crude-er side. "CARDINAL DOLAN THROWS BACK A COLD ONE!" A Prince of the Church drinks beer! And likes it! "NUN 'FAVORITES' A YOUTUBE WITH THE WORD SH** IN IT!" (I had an immense response to this--I forgot about social media tracking and my one little click was broadcast, like, everywhere. And people told me I was their FAVORITE nun because of it! If only I had known that's all it took....) I just don't get it. Personally, I love when people RAISE the bar for me and challenge me to be/do something that isn't just ordinary or "naughty." Maybe it's just the supposed contrast involved that people get a bang out of. :]   Ahhhhh! And even this is addressed in BLJ come to think of it. Don puts down Penny for doing good things because she makes everyone else feel less! Really?! I will never understand this mentality as long as I live.

#3.—FAITH AND REASON. I grew up in an idyllic little Enlightenment (in the best sense of that word) town in Massachusetts, and had a fantastic education in our public school system K-8 (before public school curriculums became all agenda-ized). The (religious) Jewish parents in particular RAN the school board and we all benefitted. We knew our rights and if our teachers started preaching to us from Mao’s Little Red Book (de rigueur for the Left in the 70’s) or putting down religion (our families were almost all practicing some kind of religion, with only two conspicuous atheist families), we would tell them: “You can’t say that!” and they’d back down, afraid we’d tell our parents. We must encourage our Christian young people to THINK! They must be “allowed” to ask the Big Questions so they can own the answers! My favorite encyclical of our philosopher-pope, BJP2G, is “Fides et Ratio—Faith and Reason.” I always encourage homeschool families to make it part of their high school curriculum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

UNRESOLVED SEX

Contemporary sexual issues are dealt with in a fragmentary way. They are more like a sad, true-to-life backdrop. Do not expect “resolution” on the sexual stuff. There’s also a kind of separation of Jesus from sexual morality. In reality, sexual morality is personal and societal at the same time. As much as today’s pundits want to pooh-pooh it--it all starts there. (Hey, if the recent HHS mandate says the Catholic Church is supposed to pay for birth control, I guess that makes “private sexual activity” a social issue after all!)

COME GO WITH ME

All life and love and beauty and goodness and truth start with the body, sex, love, the male-female relationship, the family. But this film is a kind of fundamental backing up to the “Does God Exist?” question, and so the sexual issues are present, but only dealt with peripherally. And the end of the film is just the very, very beginning for the main character, so I don’t think that raising, but not dealing with the sexual issues is a cop-out. However, as anyone who associates with young people knows, they will not automatically connect the dots (correctly) with regard to the sexual issues. BLJ is a very good/important DISCUSSION STARTER film.

If there’s some place young people know adults won’t go, they’re going to spend a lot of time there. Better we go there with them. Just a note about HOW young people (teens) process films: WAY differently than you and I. Take nothing for granted. Most of the teens I work with see plenty of R-rated films. If not in the theater, then on YouTube, Netflix, etc. A sweet fifteen year old who was tracking with everything I was saying about Theology of the Body sincerely sighed: “I love ‘No Strings Attached,’” as if this was a sweet romance! Eeeeeek! In a way, it’s all they have. It’s what they’ve been given by adults AS a sweet romance.

OTHER STUFF:

--“The most thought-provoking film of 2012! And 2011, and 2010….!” 

--“Laugh-out -loud funny!”

--“Wickedly funny!”

--"Smart AND entertaining!"

--“The first honest college/campus/coming-of-age film!”

--“BLJ asks the hard questions! It goes there!”

--“BLJ makes you think, but first, it makes you laugh!”

--“BLJ makes you laugh AND think! In that order!”

--“Smart, but not intellectual!”

--“Smart, but not cerebral!”

--“Smart, but not a head-trip!”

--“Smart, but won’t make your head hurt!”

--“Quirky, but not too quirky.”

 --“Existential, but not too existential.”

--“The first honest college/campus/coming-of-age film that doesn’t pretend young people are NOT talking about God and religion!”

--“The first hip Christian movie?!”

--"A love-letter to America's Northwest?!"

--“The thinking college student’s film.”

--“The thinking Christian’s film.”

--“The thinking Christian’s coming-of-age film.”

--“The first coming-of-age, coming-of-faith movie?!”

 --“The most quotable film since ‘Napoleon Dynamite’”!

--“So much food for thought--you’ll be chewing for days!”

--“Independent bookstores everywhere love BLJ.”

--Is the crudeness in BLJ “lowering the bar” and capitulating to the corrupt culture? No. I think it’s rather going there to shed some light. If the racy “No Strings Attached,” “Back Up Plan,” “The Switch,” etc., were all rated PG-13, BLJ is there to “match” them. And not only is BLJ matching MOVIES about campus life today, it’s also, sadly, matching ACTUAL life on campuses today. And let’s not forget “Project X”—while rated R, it’s about high school students throwing a college-campus style debauched party (sex, drugs and massive destruction of property), and plenty of high schoolers are flocking to theaters to see it. And imitate it. (Project X parties are being held all over the country. One death so far as of this review.)

--I bemoan the coarseness of our culture and find it distasteful and depressing, but, as Blessed James Alberione said (www.MediaApostle.com) : “We must lead others to heaven. But we must lead those who live today, not those who lived ten or more centuries ago. We have to take the world and mankind as they are today in order to do good today.” “We are not called to save the people of centuries ago who had no radio, television or cinema.”

--Love how BLJ exposes how college life can be a whole new world for a young person.

--Love how BLJ shows that Christianity is thought of as “the enemy.”

--Love how BLJ show young people taking care of each other and trying to figure life out together.

--Love the challenge: “You only believe this stuff because you’re afraid to associate with people who don’t.” Faith is not a fragile thing—or it shouldn’t be. Faith, hope and love are as strong as death.

--Perfectly cast. I read the script before the movie came out and each actor was well-suited to their character.

--Parents everywhere hate speakerphone.

--BLJ ends before it should end. Which, of course, is the perfect ending.

--All this time I thought that the “music of the universe” was classical music (Sr. Helena cannot dig)—but it’s really orchestral jazz (Sr. Helena can totally dig)!

--I believe that BLJ is coming from a very good place. Why?

 ABOUT STEVE TAYLOR (WRITER/DIRECTOR) 

Steve Taylor and moi. Pic taken by cinematographer, Ben Pearson!

I’ve been a fangirl of Steve Taylor’s work for many years. He’s a Christian singer, songwriter, music producer, filmmaker, director. He’s strongly pro-life (his hilarious 80’s music video “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good” came out before crazies actually started killing abortionists and abortion workers, and so the video was immediately suppressed). Steve is Baptist and the son of a Baptist minister (see his first film “Second Chance” starring Michael W. Smith). He lives in Nashville and sends his daughter to the Nashville Dominican’s high school (no anti-Catholicism there)! Actually, Baptists come out looking the worst in BLJ.

Steve has always critiqued the Church (meaning all of Christendom: he’s an equal opportunity critique-er), but he’s the loyal opposition, the court jester. And if what he’s saying is true, why get our noses out of joint? Steve is not at all self-righteous about it, and he critiques “the world” as well.

 Steve has always been too Christian for the world and too worldly for the Christians. Without even trying. This seems to be his vocation. It's a great place to be: in the RADICAL MIDDLE. Extremes just look radical, but they're not.

--Steve is really smart. Jon Stewart smart. We’re lucky to have him. :]

--I have a sneaky feeling this so-called "Evangelical film" just might leak out (word of mouth) to a much wider secular audience. BLJ is distributed by secular “Roadside Attractions,” which is simultaneously releasing the looks-pretty-dang-horrible “Friends With Kids.”

--Reed College is a REAL university in Portland, OR, which—true to its liberal ideals—not only gave permission for BLJ to film on campus, but also to use its real name! Good for them! “Renn Fayre” is a real campus tradition.

--Does BLJ make campus debauchery look like fun? Yes, but only IF campus debauchery—as it is—already appeals to you. Personally, ingesting unknown drugs with unknown effects, public drunkenness, being so out of control I can be taken advantage of or take advantage of others, STDs, getting arrested, vomit, mayhem and destruction, etc., never quite appealed to me. I don’t know why. And the film crew said the film only shows about 10% of what actually takes place. But the rave looked awesome.

--The “sacramental” Confession scene in BLJ beats every other Confession scene ever performed on screen. Better than “Third Miracle,” better than “Amadeus,” better than “Gran Torino,” etc. Why? ‘Cause it starts with JESUS. When my brother came home from his first year of college Psych class and declared to my mother: “My professor says that Catholics go to Confession because they feel guilty,” my simple-but-wise Irish Catholic mother instantly retorted: “I don’t go to Confession because I feel guilty, I go because I’ve hurt Someone I love.”

--The so-called “secular” world has often unknowingly retained more “sacredness” and “sacramentality” than the so-called “sacred,” “religious” world. Let us always remember that the “secular” was carved out of the “sacred,” not vice versa.

--From a filmmaking point of view, BLJ does what so few films today do. It MOVES ALONG, and every scene is MULTI-TASKING, giving you tons of information at many different levels--as it entertains. At film school you are taught that the characters should NOT be standing around talking to each other doing nothing else (unlike real life), and yet so many films do that. Boring! Lazy filmmaking! GIVE THE ACTORS SOMETHING TO DO. Like real life. Woody Allen does this with ad-libbing and improv (everybody talking at the same time), BLJ does it with a masterful , hard-working script.

--Why Does the Church Shoot Its Artists? Because they matter. We can’t preserve our artists from pain or they wouldn’t be able to say anything worth anything to us. I think of how much Larry Norman suffered (father of Christian rock and my favorite Christian rocker), and how that probably informed his art more than anything else.

--Is Penny too much of a serious, perfect do-gooder? Maybe. But she’s also very accepting of others and kinda classy. :]

--BLJ doesn’t present an easy “it’s bad to judge others” message, but rather: “stop thinking you know/understand other people so THAT you can judge them.”

--BLJ takes place in Portland, Oregon, a place very much ideologically like my neck of the woods in Massachusetts. And I recently found out why: the Boston Brahmins (Emerson’s gang) went to Oregon to spread their ideas.

--I just read an article in AMERICA magazine about how young Catholics on campuses feel too ashamed, too sinful to be fully in a relationship with Jesus or come to Him! Yikes! I work with youth/young adults a lot and would never have guessed this because of their supposed, apparent, overabundant confidence. But they have been told all their lives there's no such thing as sin, we're all good people, we're all winners, and yet they feel guilt (much of it perhaps because of choices/actions that they should feel guilty about), but don't know what to do with that guilt. The fake "Confession" in BLJ shows an incredibly deep "examination of conscience" and how we need to name, confess and be sorry for our sins. I wouldn't doubt that this last scene will really touch and convict many young people, and maybe even get them back to Jesus AND Confession!

--I think BLJ speaks to young people's hunger for God/religion. Yes, religion. (What else could explain their need for religion-tainted, revered rituals and traditions on campus?) Young people have put themselves "outside the pale" of religion, and make a lot of bad choices all on their own, which makes them "hypocrites," too. :]

--Don's parents are pretty horrible (as is the trend in so many films/TV), but there were other great adults in the film: his Black professor, the believing author and the minister with his little daughter.

--The Church is seen as a helper to all in need: the Church helped Don and his mother when they were abandoned by Don’s father. The minister helps Don out of his, er, “predicament.” Mother Teresa is held up as a paragon of charity. As a matter of fact, one of Mother Teresa’s “hard sayings” (not her easy “take care of the poor” message that everybody loves) is quoted: “The spiritual poverty of the West is more terrible than the physical poverty of other parts of the world.”

--Is Jesus really the “geek in the cafeteria” that we Christians are ashamed of? Only for those ruled by the tyranny of the cool. If He IS that geek, then we’d better fix our eyes on Him (Hebrews 12:2), because one day He is going to rise up—not on a shooting rampage—but in majesty and glory and love and beauty with His recompense in hand (Isaiah 40:10).

--The whole part about not being ashamed of Jesus, even though we may be ashamed of churches, individual Christians, etc., is good (kind of an answer to the "I Hate Religion-I Love Jesus" YouTube). Of course, BLJ could ALSO seem to be IN FAVOR of said YouTube because of its non-Catholic understanding of Church as a free association of believers (and only spiritually “the Body of Christ”). Separating Jesus out from His Church can make Jesus “the good guy,” and the Church the purely human “bad guy.” But the Church is not just purely human ‘cause its intertwined with and grafted onto Jesus.

“Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.” Hebrews 2:11 


“If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” 2 Timothy 2:13 

 Jesus cannot be separated from his organic Mystical Body. (And the definition of “mystical” is not “spiritual,” but “most real”: including spirit and matter.) However, Don is asked if he believes in “all that stuff” which obviously includes more than just Jesus. :] But, as Tevye (Fiddler on the Roof) would say: “On the other hand…” here’s the problem with separating Jesus from ANYTHING: Most people simply do not have a problem with Jesus. At all. He’s a nice, long-haired guru who preached love, right? What’s not to like? This is not what Jesus said he was. He said He was God. And that makes him (as C. S. Lewis says in “Mere Christianity”) one of three things: a liar, insane, or God. And if He’s God, we gotta worship and obey him. Which kind of changes everything. And we gotta figure out if He told us HOW to worship Him, like, did He found a Church or something while He was here? Oooooooh. Now that REALLY changes everything.

--Steve Taylor has this awesome song called “Jesus Is for Losers” that will mess with your mind. First you’ll say: “Yeah, Jesus came for the losers. He loves losers.” Then you’ll say: “Wait! That makes me a loser! I’m not a loser!” And then you’ll say: “Oh, wait, I guess I should be humble and admit that if I’m a sinner, that makes me kind of a loser.” And then you’ll say: “But we have victory in Christ! I’m forgiven! I’m not a loser! And if Jesus is for losers, doesn’t that make Him a loser?” Perhaps BLJ is made to mess with your mind in a similar way.

--BLJ is extremely “sacramental.” Why? Because filmmaking HAS to be: it’s visual! Protestant filmmaker Craig Detweiler once stood up at an ecumenical Christian film festival and said: “I need to be more Catholic…(he let everyone gasp, for effect, and then continued)…in my filmmaking.” :]

--Some Catholics are going to find BLJ offensive. But they shouldn’t! The pope character wants to "do good" and sees the pope costume as a sign of "hope" for others. It's about “Catholic” (which means “universal”) visuals, signs and symbols that our world is starving for. Note how the object thrown in the holy water becomes an instrument of redemption and reconciliation! Open your eyes, Catholics! Learn how to read/watch films!

--I’m a nun and I’m NOT offended by the nun thing. Again, note how the incident becomes a moment of conversion! I’m way more offended by some real nuns in the media who claim to represent me. :]

--THREE CATHOLIC INACCURACIES (that I counted):

• The “pope” is called “Your Eminence” instead of “Your Holiness.”

• World Youth Day is not really an ecumenical event. (Hey, everyone is welcome, but it seems only Catholic youth show up. :] )

• Catholics do not use them little disposable communion cups. Like, ever.

PALM SUNDAY 5 MIN. FILM

                           

MOVIES: "OCTOBER BABY"

Don't think God or your baby can forgive your abortion? You need to see this film. Opens March 23.

“October Baby” is the story of nineteen-year-old Hannah (Rachel Hendrix), who survived a botched abortion. The film is being released by Provident Films (Sony’s Christian division). Most recently, Provident Films brought you the fine “Soul Surfer” and awesome “Courageous.” “October Baby” is a much smaller, more intimate film, not your typical big screen fare. It’s seems to be loosely based on real-life abortion survivors’ stories (e.g., Gianna Jessen and Susan Smith).



Hannah’s parents never told her about the circumstances of her birth. All she knows is that she has multiple health issues, nightmares and severe low self-esteem. A seizure while she’s acting in a play at her university brings everything to a head. The big reveal(s) to Hannah come early in the film which is a refreshing change from dragged-out movies that arrange the MOST monumental reveals toward the end. Hannah sets out on a journey to resolve her dark issues, with the help of a childhood friend, Jason (Jason Burkey—a Roger Daltry lookalike). The surprises and additions to Hannah’s complete story just keep coming in an organic and believable fashion. “October Baby” is certainly about a hard-hitting, unknown aspect of abortion: some babies DO survive. But “October Baby” is such a soft-sell that it ALMOST feels unsensational. This being said, it’s still a MUST-SEE film. The second half of the film is also WAY better than the first half.


Anyone who has ever been involved in an abortion in any way will find much to explore and relate to in this compassionate film. The abortion nurse (Jasmine Guy) executes a truly Oscar-worthy monologue, and Hannah’s birth mother (Shari Rigby) also turns in a moving performance (be sure to stay for the credits to hear Shari’s story!). Of course, this was a very difficult film to make--because of the intense emotional drama penetrating the story--but at times Hannah’s acting/lines/reactions just do not seem to have enough depth. The film seems to be trying very hard to maintain an extremely sweet tone. (I personally don’t mind enveloping something like abortion in kindness and gentleness. It’s like bringing love and beauty into an ugly situation—and showing people that life doesn’t have to be ugly and brutal--but I wonder how it will effect audiences who aren’t already pro-life. Will they see it as overly sentimental, cloying? I don’t know. But they certainly can’t argue with the “rougher” characters experiences—the abortion nurse and birth mother.)

Does it feel like a “Christian film” (in the pejorative sense that even many Christians regard Christian media: pollyanna, easy biblical answers, saccharine, goody-two-shoes, literal Deus ex machina solutions)? Yes and no. “October Baby” doesn’t have the tone of the relatively grittier “Soul Surfer” or “Courageous,” but it faces head-on extremely unpleasant life circumstances that even Hollywood shies away from. The pace is slow, reflective and Southern (which IS true to life in the South), the parents are typical Evangelical southern Christian parents, which may seem unrealistic to the rest of us, but I assure you is not. The jokes are alternately groaners, corny and contemporary, but almost always delivered a bit ham-handedly.

There are skittish scenes involving Hannah and Jason and sleeping arrangements, with a lot of missed opportunities to talk about the value of virginity, the value of waiting for true love, respect, etc. The dialogue at these points is almost unfollowable. Hannah declares her virginity--Jason says hardly anything.

A shining and unique element to this story is a strong father-daughter relationship (cf. song “Butterfly Kisses”): a true thread pulling all through the story. I questioned the parental control Dad had over a nineteen year old, but, again, this is the South, and today’s younger generation does have that close live-at-home, greater-acceptance-of-authority, prolonged adolescence mentality. AND this is not portrayed as a completely good thing, but as one of the father’s problems. Because of the father-daughter relationship, AND for the honest dealings with abortion, I would definitely call this a THEOLOGY OF THE BODY FILM. Men should definitely see it, but it’s also a WOMAN’S FILM (not to be confused with “chick flick”). And the pickings in this category are very slim. Anorexic. There are way more TOB films for/about men.

The fact that the screenwriters were one male, one female is obvious. The film really has a woman’s touch. YAY for male/female film collaboration!

 “October Baby” joins a filmography that shows us what a “civilization of love (and life)” looks like. Human beings are THE most social beings on the planet, and badness and goodness have huge ripple effects out toward all kinds of “strangers.” Everyone is a link, a part of a huge web touching countless other lives at all different points. This is also a great FORGIVENESS movie. Can you imagine something harder to forgive than what Hannah has to forgive?

OTHER STUFF:

--Much of the story development, subject matter, plot points and dialogue are even better than the execution. This is a compliment. OB could have been much more powerful using much of the same material.

 --Every minor character gets a PERFECT wrap-up at the end. This is sooooo much fun to do as a screenwriter and almost irresistible, but may cause “Really??” moments.

--B-Mac and Evelyn. :]

--The young adults struck me as supersweet and wholesome. Again, this can be the reality in the “Christian culture” parts of our country, but I think “OB” might get slammed for this. Oftentimes, these college students sounded/acted more like high school students.

--As is the custom today, feigningly delicate (but actually big and brassy), heartwrenching, acoustic, truncated pop songs fill the empty spaces (cf. “Twilight” series). I think it works. However, they chose some pretty darn abominable and annoying instrumental synthesizer (yes, synthesizer) Muzak for the most poignant moments. It sounded like mediocre stock music. I kept trying not to be aware of it, but couldn’t help it. If they had only gotten better music for the many important parts of the film where they used it, the PRODUCTION VALUE would instantly have improved IMMENSELY. If anyone told them this earlier on, they should have listened! Eeeeeek! Working on a documentary film as I am now, many have warned me about the importance of stellar AUDIO. I think I’m gonna heed ‘em.

--I would love to have seen “October Baby” directed by the likes of Alexander Payne (“Election,” “Citizen Ruth, “About Schmidt,” “Sideways,” “The Descendants”). Christian filmmakers need to learn to stare directly into the sun like their secular counterparts. Christian filmmaking is coming way up and improving by leaps and bounds all the time, but we are fighting a huge CYNICISM based on people’s real, cynical experiences due to being raised by real cynical parents in real cynical homes, where people do not have an understanding of “the human,” or human dignity--so they conclude (when they see any kind of “Christian” film): “no one acts/thinks that way,” “Christians are afraid of life, to really LIVE,” “that’s not real life.” We are dealing with a real lack of hope and optimism, so the more hardcore we are—when appropriate—the better.

--I find that Christian films ARE going to the issues, but they soft-pedal them (Hannah wrote some pretty heavy stuff in her journal, but it was downplayed in the dramatic treatment of it). I find Hollywood tends to skirt or dismiss a lot of important issues because they know they just have no answers to give, OR they do a brilliant job of portraying the issues, but encased in nihilism, hedonism and despair. Often happy despair (what could be more American?). As Larry Norman said, “No one leads such a charmed life that they don’t have huge sorrows.” We, as Christians, should be “experts at the Cross” so we can meet people in their suffering. And be able to portray this suffering well in film. No one could accuse Hannah of having a charmed life once her past is revealed to her, but the hope is that people will see how much being Christian, having her life open to God, and coming from a loving family helped Hannah face horror.

--It's always such a dilemma for me: Do we SHOW sweetness so people will know what's possible, show 'em what it looks like? OR do we get more gritty to win their credulity?

--On a personal note, because they didn’t even show a kiss, there was some kind of non-voyeuristic, low-emotional-sleaze factor that I appreciated in this film. Not just because I’m a nun (hey, I’m a media nun AND not a prude—I just watched the Swedish-version “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy) but because I’m a woman. So much of the emotion portrayed in film can be (and is rightly called) “women’s porn.” Women are so much more susceptible to damaging emotional fantasies than men.

--I cried at the end.

 

SISTERS OF MARY, QUEEN OF APOSTLES

The Sisters of Mary, Queen of Apostles were founded by BLESSED JAMES ALBERIONE 

to help people discover their vocation in life! They are our "baby sisters" in the Pauline Family, as one of the last of 10 congregations Blessed Alberione founded. 

We pray they will come to the United States soon!

HHS MANDATE IS ANTI-WOMAN

HOW CONTRACEPTION CAN WORK AS AN ABORTIFACIENT

"RACE FOR THE CHASTE" (SAN DIEGO, CA)

Listen to dude at 2:14.... Great explanation of purity, freedom, true love, joy, etc.....

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM & THE HHS MANDATE

Father is also a lawyer.

"BEHOLD" WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, MARCH 10, E. PEORIA, ILLINOIS

Are you a Woman? Are you Catholic? 

Are you Passionate about being a Catholic Woman?

Then why haven't you registered for the "Behold" Women's Conference yet? Huh?

http://www.BeholdConference.com/

MOVIES: "THE VOW"

“The Vow” was a MUCH better movie than I thought it would be. It has the feel of a Nicholas Sparks tale, but even better. 

“The Vow” is based on the true story of a wife who is in a car accident, has some of her memory (namely the time frame of meeting her husband and their subsequent marriage and life together) erased. Will she be able to fall in love all over again with the man she married? The husband (Channing Tatum) is the main character, who narrates.

“The Vow” (there’s also a book by the same name) is based on a true story of a Christian couple to whom this very thing happened. The book keeps all the Christian references while the movie expunges every last one. The actual couple themselves are “at peace” with how the movie turned out because they know it will have wider appeal that way. In one way, without any religion, the film shows that marriage is a natural institution, that human beings know that the vows we make to each other are sacred things.

This extremely unique situation has a further twist to it: Paige (the fine actress, Rachel McAdams) already had a sea change in her life before the accident. She was a wealthy, preppy, “left brain” gal engaged to a wealthy, preppy, left brain guy. But something caused her to reinvent herself. She cut herself off from her family, quit law school, moved downtown, went to the Art Institute and became a successful sculptor. In her new “right brain” life, she met a fellow artistic type, Leo (the fine actor, Channing Tatum) and married him.

After the accident, Paige is willing to give life with Leo a go, mainly because the doctor told her that carrying out her “usual routine” could help her get her memory back (the last thing she remembers is law school and being engaged to Jeremy). Leo, of course, is suffering tremendously because of this strange estrangement. He is madly in love with Paige—Paige knows it and feels bad, but she not only doesn’t remember Leo, she doesn’t remember anything about her re-invented self. She feels much more comfortable back at her parents’ home and with her old friends…including Jeremy.

In “The Vow,” the dialogue is fresh and unexpected. There are many ways to say “I love you” (the sign of a well-told love story), feelings are not equated with love, love is not equated with sex, the whole person is taken into account in a highly civilized manner, nothing is cutesy or trite. The exposition is hidden and well seeded throughout the film, with lots of “little touches,” e.g., when Paige awakens from her coma she thinks her hair is “weird,” which tells us that not only does she not recognize Leo, she doesn’t recognize herself.

The emotional sleaze factor (“women’s porn”) is low because of the non-cloying camerawork. It doesn’t linger on long smooches or even the occasional semi-nude body. And yet the film is totally romantic, mostly because Channing Tatum—in his “manly man” way—expresses profound and tender affection for Paige. (I still can’t decide if Channing Tatum--as in his other movies--is: 1. A genius at pretending to emote the way women wish men would emote, 2. Showing us what men really do feel but don’t like to or can’t seem to reveal, 3. Showing us what only some men feel. I think I need some guys to weigh in on this.)

What would you do in this situation? My first thought when I first heard the plot of this movie was: Um, wouldn’t extenuating circumstances release the wife from her vow? Evidently this woman did not believe so! (And the Christian wife in reality didn’t feel God/the Bible released her from her vow just because of a brain injury!)

There is much voiceover (Leo’s) in the film (Channing Tatum does a superb job with this, too) trying to explain (fallaciously) that we ARE our memories, so what happens to our identity when they go away (somewhat the same argument for Alzheimer’s patients)? Theology of the BODY, baby. Doesn’t matter if we are conscious, self-conscious, unconscious, subconscious, asleep, dreaming, daydreaming, wishing, forgetting, in a coma, catnapping, zoning out, spacing out…we still are who we are.

There is another theme about the “impact of moments” which gets so obfuscated that it sounded like a plot point from “Inception.” But no matter. This is a lovely love story with pretty much healthy, down-to-earth, realistic, playful, mature, reverent male-female relationships, with even an emphasis on needing time alone, unattached, to be ourselves and find ourselves before we can truly make a gift of ourselves to another.

OTHER STUFF:

--Filmed in Chicago. On cloudy days. Which are very typical of Chicago. The Music Box! The “L”! The Bean! The Art Institute! The Chicago River!

--In reality, the wife NEVER got that part of her memory back!

--“The Mneumonic Café” was a bit over the top.

--Very genuine relationship struggles. Good.

--Affairs are a very bad thing. Good.

--“The Vow” has a simple, plain (but not anti-climactic) ending. Like life. Good.

--I think this film says very eloquently in the dialogue what many people feel and live in their love relationships, but don’t have the words for. BJP2G said “not enough is made of ordinary love.”

--One of the screenwriters, Jason Katims, was a writer for “Friday Night Lights” which supposedly had a strong, loving, realistic married couple in the show. Another writer, Abby Kohn, is known for the films “Never Been Kissed” and “He’s Just Not That Into You,” both of which have some great portrayals of true love.

--The director, Michael Sucsy, is a total “got-out-of-the-way-director.” He’s invisible. I LOVE that. The only other thing he seems to be really known for is “Grey Gardens” with Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore.

--A young dude sold me my movie ticket.
Young dude: “Are you a……..?”
Me: “Nun.”
Young dude: “That’s tight.”
Me: “Yeah, I write the movie reviews for the Catholic paper in Chicago.”
Young dude: “That’s tight. You’re gonna see a lot of Christian parallels in this movie.”
Me: “That’s tight.” [No, actually, I told him how the real couple WERE Christians. A fact he didn’t know.]

--People often ask me how they (or I, with my vow of chastity) can keep “pure” while watching romantic movies or steamy scenes in movies.

#1. “Know Thyself.” Know what is an occasion of sin for you in particular, and avoid those kind of movies or look away at the “steamy” parts or parts that are particularly troublesome for you.  Everyone has different sensibilities and thresholds. But we have to have a well-informed, well-formed, delicate (not scrupulous or lax) consciences and be very, very honest with ourselves.

#2. Much of visual media is voyeuristic--it’s just the nature of the beast, and depending on the intentions of the filmmakers and the cinematography, we will be either MORE or LESS put in the position of the voyeur. Even if not sexual in nature, we may be pulled in close to a very realistic portrayal of something else generally personal or private (e.g., suffering, pain, embarrassment, relationships, conversations, failure, etc.) Again, know yourself, but also watch the movements of your mind and heart. Am I gloating over something evil? Siding with the bad guy? Getting some kind of twisted pleasure from another’s misfortune? Enjoying something lewd and crude? Lowering my personal standards and morals with each crass movie I see? Always humanize the characters on the screen in your mind and feel toward them as you should feel toward real people. All media is virtual reality, and virtual reality is real: “real in its appearance and real in its effects.”

#3. Viewing a film is supposed to be an exercise where we put ourselves in the position of the characters (especially the main character) and vicariously go through an experience with them. However, if this experience is going to cause us to sin now or later, we need to shut down physically and emotionally for a time, look away, walk out of the theater, fast forward, shut off the device we’re watching the film on, etc. Therefore: I don’t gaze into Channing Tatum’s eyes for long stints with Rachel McAdams, or ogle his ripped pecs every time he takes his shirt off (which is quite often). It  kinda hasta do with human dignity, too. Channing is getting paid to sell emotions, to tantalize, to provoke reactions, to be looked at. He is very willing to do this. But is it fully in keeping with his human dignity for millions of female strangers to stare at his body and perhaps even lust after him? Just because he’s willing and getting paid and I ostensibly paid to see him, does that mean I get to just glue my eyes to his body? No. Repecting human dignity means affording people their dignity even when they themselves don’t care about it. And this must also be a tough call for actors when it seems appropriate to the part, or just part of the job, or they feel very comfortable in their own skin, etc.

#4. Pray. Media is spiritual, powerful, influential, ubiquitous. Pray for enlightenment, strength, wisdom, discernment and for ill effects not to harm you as you use media. Ask God to let you see only things that will help you or help you help others (even if some might be somewhat unsavory), and to know how to turn them around for your good and the good of others. Ask to be the fragrance of Christ in a media world. Pray to engage the media and other media creators/users with the Gospel. Pray for the honesty to use media in the best way possible, to not waste time, to not sin in your use of media. Go to Confession when you use media improperly: specifically to sin, to waste time, to escape from real duties or people, (and some of the uses mentioned above), etc.

UM, THIS LOOKS REAL GOOD...

...but still won't make up for Eddie not hosting the Oscars.

"For every a idle word a man speaks, he must give an account 

on the day of Judgment." --Jesus (Matthew 12:36-37)

(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:

http://jezebel.com/5888444/inexplicable-nun-photobombs-the-red-carpet

Dolores Hart and Elvis (she gave him his first on-screen kiss in "Loving You"
and also starred with him in "King Creole").

BIOLOGY OF THE THEOLOGY OF BODY--VICKI THORN, RN

For larger type, click on text.

WANT MORE VICKI THORN? ORDER HER DVDs OR CDs: 

http://www.ofwcmedia.com/search.php?orderby=position&orderway=desc&search_query=vicki+thorn&submit_search=Search

http://jmjmediagroup.com/

AH. THE VOICE OF REASON.

Kudos to the New York Times for printing this! And Mr. Jimenez--I couldn't have said it better.

EVANGELICALS+THEOLOGY OF THE BODY=DYNAMITE

 

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.”

"THE WAY" IS ON ITS WAY

Available VOD everywhere: February 9 and  DVD/Blu-ray February 29!!!

GREAT LENTEN "PILGRIMAGE" FILM!

"CATHOLICISM" (FR. BARRON DVDs) IN CHICAGO'S LOOP!

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.

                           

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....