MOVIES: "MAGIC MIKE"

THIS JUST IN! Channing Tatum said he hated his time as a stripper (in real life)--
felt like "a fool": http://movies.uk.msn.com/news/channing-tatum-i-hated-stripping

A NUN REVIEWS "MAGIC MIKE"

“What??! A nun went to see ‘Magic Mike’?” No, she did not. This is a historic review. This is the VERY FIRST TIME I am reviewing a movie that I have not seen. “Well, then, how can you possible review it?” I am reviewing the CONCEPT of the film and the FACT that the film exists (also historical). I have watched the trailer, read quite a few reviews and listened to the online chatter.

I read in "Entertainment Weekly" that when Channing Tatum was teaching a co-star how to do a routine (and trying to get him over his initial [NATURAL!] reluctance/hesitancy), he said: "Grind your junk in her face." Alrighty, then! That's all I need to know. I know the INTENTION of the film, how it's constructed, and what it's going to show me. No thanks. Porn (soft or otherwise) is DESIGNED for one thing and one thing only: illicit titillation (that's 5 i's, 4 l's, 4 t's).

I did not think I would have to write this non-review. I thought someone else was gonna. But the Catholic/Christian BlogoTwitteroFacebookoNewsosphere was silent. And nature abhors a vacuum. Basically the feedback I got on this movie—in general—was light-hearted, giggly positivity, and serious, laudatory reviews.

Although the plot (SPOILER ALERT!) is that "Mike" eventually gets out of stripping--um, is THAT why people are going to see this movie? Is THAT why this film was made? So audiences can learn a lesson about getting out of the stripping industry?

I read some time ago that Channing Tatum had been a male stripper in real life (I guess he couldn’t have been a “female stripper”—but NOTICE HOW WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION: because male strippers are NEW and UNNATURAL.)  I am not saying that female stripping is “natural” (and it’s certainly not “good”), only that the way men and women approach sex (and each other) is DIFFERENT. (Read on.)

MALE STRIPPING IS NEW

Chippendales & admirers

New? Chippendales were established in 1979. Geez, why did it take so long? Because the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s ushered in the fallacy that men and women are EXACTLY THE SAME. Women can objectify men now, too! Wow—what progress!

The Sexual Revolution told women that they can now “have sex like a man.” Because, you see, the male paradigm is the only good paradigm! Feminists, in wanting to be just like men, “have what men have,” unwittingly labeled women’s ways as inferior, and set about obliterating the feminine. But it gets worse. Women imitated BAD MEN. (If we wanted to be men, at least we could have imitated good men.) We imitated men who were cads, tools, players—promiscuously using/abusing women. But we turned the tables and did it to men, doing extreme violence to everything feminine in us, shutting off all our feminine voices and instincts and wisdom. 

MALE STRIPPING IS UNNATURAL

Women are the fairer sex.  Women are the most beautiful thing that God ever created (the “crown of Creation”). In the sexual act, men initiate the gift of love and life, and women receive it and return it in love. This is not inconsequential. The body is not inconsequential. This “fact of the act” carries over into the male/female difference socially, spiritually, psychologically. We now have plenty of science to corroborate this. It's not natural for men to exhibit themselves in a sexual way as the "prize" to be gained.

Men’s temptation is to lust after women, and women’s temptation is to want to/let themselves be lusted after. “The mission of every man is the dignity of every woman. The mission of every woman is the integrity of every man.” Does this mean that women never lust after men and men’s bodies? Nope. Otherwise—from the Judaeo-Christian perspective—Eve would have been the only one to put clothes on after The Fall. Obviously SHE was not looking properly at Adam, either, and thus caused the sense of protective shame in Adam. (Lust is looking/desiring a person not as a person but as a thing for one’s own selfish gratification.)

WOMEN SEE THE WHOLE PERSON

Men’s sexuality is external to their bodies. This means something. Men are all about externality, and learn to “be a man” through various external benchmarks in their lives and through mentoring by 1) a father or father-figure 2) buddies and 3) their beloved (woman). Men’s brains compartmentalize. Men use the two sides of their brains alternately, not at the same time. Men are visually wired to be sexually stimulated first by the physical.

Women’s sexuality is internal to their bodies. This means something. Women are all about internality, and know instinctively what it means to be a woman. Women’s brains are integrated. The two sides of our brains are constantly communicating. Women are born multi-taskers. Women emphasize the emotional in a relationship, and are wired to be sexually stimulated first by the emotional. (Hooking-up is THE most unnatural thing in the world for women, who automatically/naturally evaluate a man’s character over time before they are comfortable enough to let their guard down.)

Women—who are the Keepers of Life—and as John Paul II says are “specially entrusted with the new person [i.e.,babies],” naturally see the whole person, and not just body parts, and are interested in a holistic relationship, not just a physical experience.

It is said that men simply fantasize about beautiful bodies, while women fantasize about men they know.

CAN WOMEN BE SEXUALLY AROUSED VISUALLY?

Caution: Harvey has no problem
with sex before marriage.

Of course. It just doesn’t happen as easily as it does for men. Unless, of course, we train ourselves that way, make a habit of it. I’m always surprised by the surprise men express over the fact that more and more women are using porn (and, of course, becoming addicted to it). Perhaps men are surprised because 1) they know that women are naturally more sexually integrated—because we’re wired that way 2) they are counting on women to give them/lead them in good examples of chastity (NOT double standard stuff, but genuinely “civilizing” them). Highly recommended reading: the very end of Steve Harvey’s book “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man” (about how men might seem to fight it, but they really do want women to “civilize” them—this is not saying that they’re brutes, but…well, just read it.)

I was recently with some extraordinary young adults—men and women--who are in Catholic evangelization ministry. Here’s what the men had to say about the women: “They change us, just by being around them.” WOW. And the way these men looked at these women was unlike anything I had ever seen. Purely. With longing. With admiration. Seeing the whole person. WOW.

THE VIRTUE OF CHASTITY MEANS INTEGRATION OF BODY AND SOUL

“Chastity” does not mean “celibacy.”

Celibacy=abstaining from sexual activity.

Chastity=the integration of body and soul. Chastity=integrity of body and soul. Chastity=purity of body and soul according to our state/vocation in life. So married couples practice chastity also.

Purity=seeing the image/glory of God in the human body and treating it accordingly.

There is such a thing also as “emotional chastity” which women in particular need. Women fantasize in order to get an emotional high, but we often create incredible worlds of drama and unrealistic expectations that dribble into and disrupt our actual lives. And sins can be committed interiorly, as well!

WOMEN’S FANTASY LIVES

“If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” –Jesus (Matthew 5:28). Of course His words apply to women lusting after men, as well. SAY WHAT??? You mean we can sin inside? Interiorly? Without actually carrying out an action? Oh yes. Jesus was verrrrry clear about that. Our inner world is REAL. God sees everything inside of us. Our thoughts are real behaviors, real interior actions. “The things that come out of the mouth proceed from the heart, and it is this that defiles a man.” –Jesus (Matthew 15:18). “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’” –Jesus (Mark 7:21).

People say that “Jesus didn’t say much about sex.” Yeah, but what he said was REVOLUTIONARY: so revolutionary that we’ve chosen to just ignore it!

Trashy romance novels are called “women’s porn.” Why? Because, again, women emphasize/enjoy the narrative, the dialogue, the story, the emotional interplay that goes along with sex. It’s just as damaging and addictive for women as visual porn is for men. Perhaps erotica like “50 Shades of Grey” can help married women “loosen up” to enjoy sex more with their husbands, but what is happening in the very act of reading the book(s)? A friend of mine, a woman involved in S&m (lowercase “m”) for many years, firmly believes that the fascination with S&m today is because women are not living their feminine receptivity, but are behaving like men even in the sexual realm, and so the missing “receptivity” is coming out in this form.

THE SPOUSAL MEANING OF THE BODY

The Bible and the Theology of the Body tell us that we (the bodies that we ARE) are in a spousal relationship with the Lord.

“For your Maker has become your husband” (Isaiah 54:5).

"I will espouse you to me forever; I will espouse you in right and justice, in love and in mercy. I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the Lord" (Hosea 2:19).

“The body is not for immorality, but FOR the Lord; and the Lord is FOR the body” (1 Corinthians 6:13).

“You have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:20).

And our bodies ARE us, they are not something outside of ourselves that we can use as we please. What we do with our bodies we do with our souls, what we do with our souls we do with our bodies. It cannot be otherwise because we are one person, not a soul/body split. I do not HAVE a body (like a disembodied self that “has” a body-possession-thing), I AM a body. The human person=body and soul, together forever.

And this ain’t to scare anyone, it’s just a fact: BECAUSE we are ONE person, body and soul, a unity in duality, our body will share in glory or dishonor in eternity. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.” –Jesus (John 5:28-29)

As Christopher West (“Mr. TOB”) is fond of saying, there is, of course, an obvious horizontal dimension to “the spousal meaning of the body.” A man’s body makes no sense without a woman’s body and vice versa. Therefore, by design, we are made FOR another. We are called to make a “sincere gift of self” (Vatican II’s “Gaudium et Spes,” 24).  Whether or not we are married, men and women must collaborate and harmonize our differences. “The future of civilization depends on what he will be for her and what she will be for him” (John Paul II).

THE FALSE “GIFT” OF “MAGIC MIKE”

The way men and women are FOR each other, the way they GIVE to each other is DIFFERENT. Men, like Jesus, lay down their lives for their bride, as Jesus did for His Church. The masculine becomes a victim for the feminine. “This is my Body, given up for you.” The gift is total, whole-hearted. The Eucharist is true nourishment for body and soul. The “gift” of “Magic Mike” is not a true gift. It is not a “sincere” gift of self. It requires no sacrifice. There is no nourishment given. It is anti-fruitful. It is withholding. It is not real. It is a tease. It doesn’t satisfy, but only torments and frustrates. It is empty calories. It is a chimera. It is toxic. It is poison.

BUT I’M MARRIED. I CAN HANDLE IT.

All the MORE reason you shouldn’t go see “Magic Mike”! You’re not only cheating on God, you’re cheating on your hubby! And, guess what. Nobody can “handle it.” Nobody is so jaded that they can tell their minds and bodies not to be effected by erotic images. It’s NOT mind over matter. We’re not wired that way. And it’s not a sign of “maturity” to go to films like “Magic Mike.” Maturity means responsibility. “Magic Mike” is nothing if not irresponsible. Unless you have a serious medical problem where your libido is incredibly depressed, your body WILL react to the images presented. Not cool. Your body-person belongs to God, and your hubby.

Because we do not understand that our interior lives matter so greatly, and that everything “proceeds” forth from our interior life, I’m afraid we do not cultivate our inner life, we are not careful to protect our inner life, our imaginations, our hearts. Our entitled, narcissistic society tells us to “go for it”! Go for EVERYTHING we “feel.” To deny any impulse would be to warp and repress ourselves. Even as a nun, who has so many helps to “the spiritual life,” I inadvertently had this kind attitude about a lot of things until I read this amazing blog post by a “recovering lesbian.” To sum up, she talks about the impulses she has to cruise lesbian bars when she’s traveling on business. She says, basically that she has decided that she will “SHUT DOWN EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY IF I HAVE TO, because I will not be part of causing Him pain who endured so much for me.”

http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/01/19/confessions-of-a-recovering-lesbian/

Wow. Her post literally changed my life. Eventually, we should become more in control of ourselves, have more self-mastery than to have to revert to emergency “shut-downs.” But still: if that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes. FOR Him. For those we are vowed to. For ourselves.

What else is an “occasion of sin” if not going to a movie like “Magic Mike”? What are our bodies doing, ladies, as we sit there drinking in the gyrating, semi-clothed images of gorgeous, buff male bodies? Is it not a form of masturbation?

BUT I’M CELIBATE. I NEED TO EXPERIENCE THIS STUFF VICARIOUSLY.

If love between a man and a woman is the most natural and basic way to grow as a person, to grow spiritually, to get to heaven, then I need it in my life somehow!

Ah! We have caught Satan in one of his subtlest lies. Gotcha! If the above subtitle is true, than nuns and priests (and singles) even MORE than married couples should run to see “Magic Mike”! Of course, let’s also remember that “Magic Mike” is presenting the body/sex in a totally hedonistic, consumeristic way, so…what constructive lesson would ANYONE learn from it? But let’s just go with this little whisper from the Enemy for now.

We must remember that all human love is modeled on Divine Love (not the other way around). When Jesus showed up looking like us, He was not made in our image: we were made in His image. Yeah. Think about it! Mind-blowing, isn't it?

Us celibates? We go directly to the Source of ALL love. To Love Itself/Himself. Yes, we are “missing out” on the most glorious plan of God for those called to marriage (and John Paul II says that celibates need to really grasp the greatness of what they do NOT have), but—unless marriage is in our future--God alone is more than enough. Celibacy (temporary or permanent) is a great test of our faith, hope and love, and God will not leave us hanging us out to dry.

As one of my seminarian friends says: "My celibacy is for others. I get up in the morning for others." There is great joy in living for others.

"Joyous celibacy with you [the pope], like Christ, for the Church"

“We celibates should be loving more every day! We are not to let our hearts dry up! We are to love more and more!” –Blessed James Alberione (Founder of the Pauline Family) www.MediaApostle.com

Recommended reading: “God Is Love” by Pope Benedict XVI  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

As Christopher West says, we are so hungry for information about the body! REAL information. Theological, mystical information, God’s story about the human body! If human beings have the capacity for God (which we do), and our bodies can receive God’s Body (Eucharist), then we interface with God! We interface with the Infinite! We have the capacity for the Infinite! And now we have the food we want not only in the Eucharist, but in the boundless Theology of the Body! Eat up! John Paul II cracked the physical AND metaphysical code of love and life. He mapped the human/divine love genome. He found the Higgs Boson “God particle” of humanity. OK, enough with the pathetic scientific metaphors.

WHY ARE WOMEN SO DEPRESSED TODAY?

I think it’s because we are so out of touch with our feminine bodies, our feminine souls, and are doing violence to them and trying to imitate men to be happy. Or we’re trying to be men AND women at the same time. It’s exhausting and impossible. I bought into the “be a better man than the men” feminist rhetoric a long time ago and have spent years extricating myself from it and trying to hear my “irrational, illogical, weak, inferior, sentimental” feminine voices/instincts. And you know what? They are none of these things! Just different! And it has been SUCH a relief to hear them and follow their bidding!

And furthermore! Ladies—if you are really honest, really in touch with your deep-down femininity, you will see that you are so needy. And it’s OK to be needy! You need so much love and affirmation and attention because God made us that way. So you MUST go to HIM first and let HIM tell you how much HE loves you and how beautiful you are to HIM because God’s love is the best and HIS love never changes. THEN go to your earthling guy.

RECLAIMING TRUE FEMININITY

How do you get started reclaiming your true femininity? Listen to your body. Listen to yourself. Listen to God and the Mother of God. Trust your body, trust yourself, trust God and Our Lady. Hang out with other women who listen to their bodies, themselves. The feminists were so right to name their groundbreaking book “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” They GOT that they are all one thing!

I know this will sound strange, but read John Paul II’s “On the Dignity and Vocation of Women.” He’s drawing on millennia of theology, biblical studies and common sense. Helped me. And he is ardently defending THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO BE WOMEN. Everywhere in society. AS women.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PORN AND ART

But isn’t the naked human body beautiful? Why can’t we look at it and appreciate it? You're right! The human body is sooooo beautiful that it should only be seen by one other person (in an erotic context) who is  committed to you for life—to love you for life. To reveal one’s body is to “give” it. To look at it is to “receive” it. Or rather to give and receive the WHOLE PERSON. Why do young people commit suicide when their sexting goes viral? Because their very “selves” have been “given” to the whole world against their will!

Works of classical art, instead, “lead the viewer through the body to the whole personal mystery of man. In contact with such works, we do not feel pushed by their content toward ‘looking with lust,’…in some way we learn the spousal meaning of the body, which corresponds to…’purity of heart.’” –John Paul II

For more about the difference between art (nudes) and porn, see John Paul II’s Theology of the Body #60-63 and this awesome article about ceiling of Sistine Chapel (or, as Justin Bieber says, “The Sixteenth Chapel”): http://www.kofc.org/un/en/columbia/detail/2011_11_sistine.html

Also, Fr. Thomas Loya’s excellent: “The Interior Gaze: Remedy for Lust and Porno-vision” http://www.ofwcmedia.com/fr-thomas-loya/1154-the-interior-gaze-a-remedy-for-qpornovisionq-and-lust-dvd-fr-thomas-loya.html

“There is a road from the eye to the heart that does not go through the intellect.” –G.K. Chesterton

BUT THERE ARE SOME GOOD MESSAGES IN “MAGIC MIKE”!

We’ve already established that it’s soft porn, it’s a form of “adultery” (even if you’re single, because you are in a spousal relationship with the Lord), but if that’s not convincing enough, this was a Twitter convo about "Magic Mike":

THE TRAGEDY OF “MAGIC MIKE”

When I first heard this movie was coming out, my heart sank. A new low for the mainstreaming of soft porn. Channing Tatum, besides being an incredibly talented actor (I was totally impressed when I saw him in “She’s the Man,” and just continue to be impressed with all his roles)--has a huge teen/young adult following. And of course, they’ll all be watching “Magic Mike.” “Magic Mike” further legitimizes and normalizes (male) stripping, exhibitionism, public nudity, hypersexuality, depersonalization, anonymity, separating sex and love, separating love and life, everyone belongs to everyone, the body as plaything.

PREPARING FOR THE OPPOSITE OF MARRIAGE

Sleeping around while I’m is young is not: “Getting it out of my system!” “You’re only young once!” “Just having a little fun!” It is training for the opposite of marriage. (Or as one young person said: “Sex before marriage is sleeping with someone else’s future spouse.”) If I want to be a soccer player, why would I go to basketball camp? Even right up to the wedding we have this custom of strippers at bachelor parties and now male strippers at bachelorette parties. Really?? So the wedding day will be a magic wand to suddenly make me faithful to just one person? It will erase my STDs, and the memory of all my other sexual partners, sexual escapades, etc., and I won’t even want them anymore? Marriage in this scenario sounds like the proverbial ball and chain. What a drag! No more fun! Instead of training for true love and true sex, our culture is busy preparing for the “opposite of marriage”: infidelity and divorce. We need to be in training for true love and true sex! “Nothing like the real thing, baby….” Totally worth not just "waiting" for, but "being in training" and "preparing" for.

Sex (of whatever kind) outside marriage is ADDICTIVE. Sex within marriage is BONDING.

OTHER STUFF:

--Why is a nun always talking about sex? 1) Because sex is the “signs of the times” and we had better darn well be talking about it. Our silence is destructive and damaging (especially for our young people) like a grave sin of omission.  2) There is nothing dirty/bad/naughty about sex-as-God-intended-it. 3) Blessed John Paul II the Great led the way with his “Love and Responsibility” and “Theology of the Body.” 4) Theology of the Body IS the New Evangelization AND the New Catechesis. It is method and content.

"Sometimes we feel guilty because we are."

--Why is a nun always* talking about sin? Because sin is real. And it’s bad. And it hurts us. And it’s mean. As “Sister” from Late Nite Catechism sez: “Sometimes we feel guilty because we are.” Guilt is good! It’s an indicator that something is wrong! And then we can do something about it! Yay, guilt! Just like we get aches and pain as symptoms that something is wrong in our bodies. But of course we need a healthy conscience, not a lax or scrupulous one. That’s why we need “formation of conscience.”

--Something that helps me look away immediately when porn pops up on my computer, or when I’m tempted to “use” others’ bodies in whatever way for my own selfish gratification is this: I REFUSE to do that to the dignity of another human being. Or my own.

--When I talk to teens about Theology of the Body, I play devil’s advocate and say: “As long as I WANT my body to be used, as long as we MUTUALLY AGREE to use each other’s bodies, it’s OK, right? Or, if a prostitute or porn star gets PAID and they’re OK with their bodies being used, it’s OK, right? As long as we AGREE, WANT, CONSENT, then everything’s OK, right?” They really, really struggle with trying to answer this because today’s mantra is: “As long as I CHOOSE it, anything goes.” They have no concept that some things are just wrong in themselves and it doesn’t matter how we FEEL about them, or what we CHOOSE in regard to them—they’ll always be wrong.

“If selling yourself is as much fun as this movie makes it look, what could be wrong with it? The answer is that once you’ve sold yourself, losing yourself may not be far behind.” –Owen Gleiberman, movie reviewer for “Entertainment Weekly”

--I tell the teens: “We give other people their dignity even when they don’t want it. Even when they WANT to be used for whatever reason: money, pleasure, or because they don’t know they have dignity.”

--Who are the “sexiest” men alive? Family men. They are hidden deep within families. They are men who love their wives and children fundamentally, freely, fully, faithfully and fruitfully. They are the kind of men that women (who are truly in touch with their femininity) want. Why do you think women bemoan: “All the good ones are taken”?

There’s nothing more beautiful than when I look out the window on a Saturday morning and see a Dad with his little boys all in Cubs’ gear at the bus stop heading to a game. Kind of breathtaking. And what about those Dads who ACTUALLY SET FOOT IN THE AMERICAN GIRL DOLL STORE with their little princesses? Huh, huh?

--“The language of Christianity is the Body.” –@AndreasWidmer (former Swiss Guard who wrote the book “The Pope and the CEO”)

--Bodies R Us

_______________
*Actually, I hardly ever use the word “sin.” Go ahead. Search this blog. You’ll see. :]

Pls, pls, pls! Everyone read. About what porn does to women who use it. "What I wish I knew BEFORE I started using porn" http://huff.to/MAtW0d (from Lauren Nicole Dubinsky @laurendubinsky--Hollywood insider)

MUST READ: "A Virgin Explains Sex" (not me: some 26-year-old chick in Tampa Bay [who have an excellent NHL hockey team, BTW]) http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/why-im-still-a-virgin-at-age-26/1236657

MOVIES: "BRAVE"

WARNING! This  is more of an analysis than a review, so there are LOTS of SPOILERS!

I find “Brave” to be a subversive and kind of shocking movie.

First, what I LIKE about the film: the artistry/special effects are, of course, amazing. I laughed my head off at ALL the Scotsmen fighting scenes (with mandatory bagpipers accompanying each time), BUT, side note: name a man that is NOT a buffoon in this film.

I love that the protagonist is a spunky and talented young woman who doesn’t want to be married off in an arranged, political marriage in order to keep the peace. The three young men in question are certainly not her equal, either.

I love that it’s a mother/daughter film—so rare! We are very aware of the tenor of father/child problems and there are plenty of these stories. Mother/child problems are more subtle and complex, especially between mothers and daughters. Bad Mommy, “Mommy Dearest” type FILMS are anything but subtle, but rather over the top. I just did a Masters project on the history of women in film, and there is a whole tradition of “Evil Woman,” “Momism,” films spawned in part by a popular collection of essays by Philip Wylie in 1942 called “A Generation of Vipers.” Although Queen Elinor (voiced elegantly by Emma Thomas) isn’t portrayed as the epitome of evil, she is very harshly “punished” as though she were.

THE PLOT: Merida’s parents (we see more of her mother training her to be a princess than her father’s influence—the father seems to defer to the mother in what concerns Merida) are trying to arrange her betrothal to one of the sons of three other clans’ chieftans. This must be done to keep peace among the formerly-at-odds clans. The young man will win her hand in marriage through “games” of physical prowess.

I was totally buying into “Brave” until Merida visits a witch and asks her to cast a spell to: “Change my mother.” Not “change my mother’s mind,” but “change my mother.”  I think all of us can relate to some kind of rebellion or at least extreme “wishes” regarding our parents when we were teens, but wouldja go to a witch? If we are going to chock all of Merida’s extreme actions up to her simply being a teen, then maybe we shouldn’t have teens as main characters in stories because they are not capable of mature, responsible actions—something utterly germane to filmic storytelling (Hollywood does not do  Aesop’s Fables, or short, cautionary tales for children). Do other child/teen main characters in films get this pass (“Harry Potter,” “Twilight,” “Hunger Games,” even “Wimpy Kid”)? No, they don’t. And while Merida’s impetuous actions may actually be truer-to-life than our sober young characters in these other films, all she is doing is making a bigger and bigger mess (from which she seems to learn very little except that her Mom always loved her).

I SPENT THE REST OF THE MOVIE HORRIFIED

When the spell goes awry and Queen Elinor becomes a BEAR on the outside (with the threat of turning into a real bear forever on the outside and “inside”—which we see her slipping into once in a while), I spent the rest of the movie HORRIFIED. Queen Elinor, of course, shared my horror. Merida? Meh. With repeated “it’s not my faults,” she barely seems to even care. But even before her mother becomes a bear, Queen Elinor eats a bit of cake with the witch’s potion in it and becomes extremely ill. Merida—that selfish, spoiled brat of a bad daughter*—shows exactly zero concern for her mother’s welfare and asks her insistently: “Do you feel any different about the marriage NOW?” At this point, Merida might as well be a demon-child.

WHAT ABOUT SHAPE-SHIFTERS AS PART OF FAIRYTALES / ETHNIC LEGENDS?

I am NO expert at this type of literature, but from what I’ve read shape-shifters can either be in charge of their OWN shape-shifting or their shape-shifting is “controlled” by others. Speaking of which, didn’t Merida do to her mother EXACTLY (but much WORSE) what she didn’t want done to herself? Someone else controlling her destiny?

I used to read this kind of fairytale when I was a kid. I remember something about a princess turning into a swan or something, but it was only during the day and then at night she was a princess again. These animal-shape-shifting seemed to be of shorter duration (for Mother Bear it was a huge portion of the film).

There is something fundamentally horrifying about humans morphing into animals. I remember being traumatized as a child watching Pinocchio grow donkey ears! Others have shared with me the same take-home terror they felt at this, too! So, parents, if you’re thinking of taking your kids, you may wanna process this with them afterwards AND, certainly, process how Merida treated her mother (D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T). Me? If I was screening it beforehand for my kids? Wouldn’t take ‘em.

Native Americans, who live so close to nature and whose native religions were animist religions, tried to imitate the various gifts and strengths of various animals. This is something quite different.

UTTER, UNJUSTIFIED HUMILIATION

Queen Elinor—you can imagine, even if you haven’t seen the film—is thoroughly HUMILIATED. I felt horribly humiliated FOR her. Of course, she feels like she’s naked and keeps trying to cover herself, but Daughter Dearest tells her in an exasperated voice: “Mother, you’re not naked, you’re covered in fur.” As a matter of fact, Daughter Dearest is exasperated with her mother the whole time. (Her mother can no longer talk, but only make bear noises.) She has to teach her stupid mother how to fish for her meal. We are supposed to feel this is a wonderful bonding section of the movie where the outdoorsy Merida introduces her refined mother to HER world. But it’s gross! It’s hideous! Her mother is wolfing down LIVE fish! Her mother is awkwardly bumbling and stumbling about in her new, huge, bulbous body. But in spite of her utter humiliation, she does not become angry at Merida or even berate her.

“Brave” smacks of revenge fantasy. Merida’s mother “never listened” to her daughter,” and now she is mute. This poised and ladylike royal now has to live quite literally like a wild beast.

Although Merida had to undergo intense princess training from her mother, she wasn’t exactly “tamable” or “containable” as she races off on her horse, Angus, to practice her archery and frolic in the forest. Merida’s parents never actually curtail her athletic pursuits. They are GOOD, NOT UNREASONABLE, loving parents who are simply following the status quo—for very good reasons. And Merida’s father—a wild man himself—is rather indulgent towards his chip-off-the-old-block daughter.

MERIDA IS NOT “BRAVE”

Is Merida really “brave”? How? She’s energetic, she has a zest for life, but she’s self-indulgent, not brave. Is bravery and being strong-willed the same thing? Sure, she undertakes getting her mother changed back to a human. Um, that’s the LEAST she could do! But is she brave in doing it? Not really. She continues her brazen, reckless actions and even blows up the witch’s workshop in the process. She is not the one who kills the ferocious bear who is about to kill her mother.

Young people CAN change things. When they get older. When THEY wear the crown. Don’t we need to earn that right? Don’t we need some life experience? Don’t we need to actually test out what our parents say to see if it isn’t a better, wiser way? I sarcastically tweeted: “BRAVE—We might as well let young people rule the world because they’re always right.” Isn’t this the message in too many films these days?

It’s hard to exactly place a theme for the film, but it seems to be: being in control of one’s own “fate” or “destiny,” no matter what the will-o-the-wisps, witches, legends, traditions, or one’s own family says. (But of course, you can resort to magic when you really, really want something.) Speaking of magic, the quasi-evil witch actually cast a PERFECT spell that worked out PERFECTLY for our main character.

“Brave” is not so much a feminist tale (or even imposing today’s feminism on the past, because I’m sure there were plenty of Meridas who refused marriage in the Middle Ages!) as it is a tradition vs. change tale. Or rather, not being afraid to find a new way of doing things. Merida doesn’t really compromise on anything though. The ending is left vague. Yeah, she’ll probably get married someday and become queen, and her mother helps her articulate this to the chieftans as “letting people decide their own fate,” or rather, the young men will have to try to “win her heart” rather than “winning her hand” via athletic challenges. (Yeah, right—that’s going to happen!) :]

MERIDA DOES NOT CHANGE

A “rule”** of filmmaking is that the main character should change, go through a journey of change. What they WANT should not be exactly what they GET. They should get what they NEED, not what they WANT, or what they WANT should undergo a transformation also. Not so with our heroine: she gets EXACTLY what she asked for: “Change my mother.” Her MOTHER undergoes the major transformation. At the end, Queen Elinor no longer wears her ever-present crown (bye-bye, authority!), literally lets her tightly-bound hair down, and is suddenly the “buddy Mom,” acting like a teenager with her daughter.

True, the witch tells Merida she must “mend the bond broken by [her] pride.” Merida simply sews up a tapestry depicting her family that she slashed in her anger. And finally, finally, at the very end, when it looks like Mom will be a berry and honey gobbling ursus for all eternity, she sheds some tears and says: “I’m sorry.”

Oh yeah, Merida has a set of triplet brothers with her same flaming, curly red hair. They look to be about five years old, max, but they are hardly ever interacting with or anywhere near their mother or father and seem to lead their own little parallel lives. No one even seems to be terribly concerned about their doings, whereabouts, or safety.

CONCLUSION

Despite its pervasive “feel good,” barrel-of-laughs ambience, “Brave” fails to inspire, teach, elevate, etc. It’s the same hackneyed: “Folllow your heart!” inspirational-Facebook-quote-of-the-day-happy-talk. Bend the world to your will. Get what you want. The world is your oyster. Look out for #1. Whatever it takes. And others? Well, I’m sure they can look out for themselves.

Merida’s treatment of her mother is just awful. That’s mostly what I’m left with.

LINKS

Here are some links (haven’t read ‘em!) sent to me by friends, further examining the depiction of Moms in Disney films (“Brave” is Disney/Pixar).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roles_of_mothers_in_Disney_media

http://femamom.com/2012/02/21/knocking-off-mom-the-disney-mother-casualties/

Here’s the WSJ review (don’t know that I agree with everything, but it gives some making-of details):

“For the first time, in "Brave," Pixar has made an animated feature with a female protagonist—a young Scottish princess, Merida, with incendiary red hair, a sweetly independent swagger, a talent for archery and a thirst for adventure. That's a good first, and long overdue, but there's another one that isn't good at all. "Brave" is the first film under Pixar's banner that teaches life lessons through insistent preachments, instead of letting dramatic events speak for themselves. The most obvious lesson for Merida is to be careful what you wish for, since one of her wishes goes horribly wrong and turns her kingdom upside down, forcing her to find the bravery that will put things right. The most important lesson for the audience is to be clear about what you expect. This is less a film in the lustrous Pixar tradition than a Disney fairy tale told with Pixar's virtuosity. As such, it's enjoyable, consistently beautiful, fairly conventional, occasionally surprising and ultimately disappointing.
The issue of expectations is unavoidable since the film's marketing campaign, like the early passages of the film itself, suggests a feminist fable of a young warrior going off to fight her own battles—thus the iconic poster image of the heroine alone in a forest, bow and arrow at the ready. For a while Merida (voiced superbly by Kelly Macdonald) does indeed struggle against constraints that threaten her freedom: tight dresses, boobish suitors, arbitrary dictates of etiquette and, worst of all, a strict mother who insists that a princess should always strive for perfection. And Merida does make a break for it, on an escape route that takes her through spectacular settings—one memorable shot finds her standing tall atop a towering rock pedestal—then plunges her into a shady green glade, where blue will o' the wisps shimmer seductively.

Suddenly, however, the saga takes a sharp turn into witchery, wishes and a magical spell—a notably confusing spell prompted by vague plotting—and "Brave" becomes a story not of a rebellious daughter but of the bonds between daughter and mother in magical circumstances. The only thing I'll note of those circumstances is that they lead to encounters of genuine tenderness, humor and complexity, as well as affecting role-reversals in which the child takes care of the parent. So what's to be said against the familiar theme of a mother and daughter establishing a new relationship on the basis of new understandings? First off, the theme is at odds with what precedes it. And the familiarity breeds dismay, for the last thing we've come to expect from a Pixar film is tried-and-true, family-friendly formulations. (The voice cast includes Emma Thompson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane.)

"Brave" was a notoriously troubled production, with a change of directors that clearly led to a change of narrative direction. (The complexity of the final credits reflects the tortuous history: directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman and co-directed by Steve Purcell, from a script written by Messrs. Andrews and Purcell, Ms. Chapman and Irene Mecchi.) That raises the question of how much this Disney-esque fable was influenced by Disney, which used to be Pixar's distributor and is now the studio's owner. There's no way to know, and it's certainly premature to panic about Pixar's fate. The studio that has given us such animated masterpieces as the "Toy Story" trilogy, "Finding Nemo" and "WALL•E" may well have a host of untold wonders in its pipeline. At the same time, though, there is reason to be concerned—not because of the failings of "Brave," which is a pleasant entertainment on its own terms, but because of the singular promise that Pixar represents in a dimming firmament of entertainment conglomerates.

______________
*Maybe this could be classified as an “Evil Daughter” movie!

**But who needs rules? Merida doesn’t, so why should the filmmakers?

ACT ONE SCREENWRITING PROGRAM 2002

10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY! This was our fun little class project vid. Shot when video phones were brand new and they only did a few seconds of video! (Lots of private jokes in the vid, of course.)

In film, there's something called the "10 year rule": 10 years from getting into film, you will actually be working in film. http://alberionefilm.com/ !

I also studied screenwriting at UCLA and Act One is every bit as awesome. http://www.actoneprogram.com/ 

REAL SEMINARIANS DOING BOY BAND DANCE MOVES

MOVIES: "SNOW WHITE & THE HUNTSMAN"

Yes! This is a delicious, delightful, old-timey, coat-of-mail-clanking, halberd-swinging, plucky princess story. That we’re already familiar with! (Actually, 2012 is the 75th anniversary of Disney’s release of the animated “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” so it’s kind of cool that this version is coming out now. The original German fairytale was collected in 1812 by the Brothers Grimm as “Snow White” [tale #161], not to be confused with another German fairytale: “Snow White, Rose Red,” which is completely different.) The 21st century special effects make the film all the more nifty.

Dark-haired Kristen Stewart (“Bella” in the Twilight series) plays Snow White with her trademark Kristen Stewart stillness and seriousness. Blonde-haired, Oscar-winning Charlize Theron plays the evil Queen Ravenna with her model’s training and trademark Charlize Theron fierce seizing of her role. They are worthy nemeses.

Queen Ravenna had a deprived childhood (along with her now-accomplice brother), and her one all-consuming desire is to stay young and beautiful. Everywoman’s quest. What woman can’t relate? A spell was cast on her as a girl that assured her of her wish. The only thing that could reverse the spell was if someone was found to be fairer and purer. But Queen Ravenna maintains her drop-dead gorgeous looks by “eating youth”: stealing youth and beauty from everything around her (especially young women) whenever she starts to fade.

When Ravenna marries the widowed good king (Snow White’s father) she immediately kills him and imprisons Snow White (not knowing that she will one day be her downfall). But one day, when Snow White “comes of age,” the magic mirror (vanity of vanities!) tells her that Snow White is now fairer than she. The only way Ravenna can stay young and beautiful is to eat Snow White’s heart. Ravenna realizes that Snow White is either her earthly ruination or her earthly salvation.

Snow White manages to flee into the magical, menacing Dark Forest, and the rough but good-hearted Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is sent after her by the Queen. Instead of capturing her, the Huntsman and Snow White make a wary alliance with one another and have continued adventures involving vengeful dwarfs, a troll, fairies, and a village of women who marred their own beauty so the Queen wouldn’t harm them. Prince William (Sam Claflin)—Snow White’s childhood friend from whom she was separated when Ravenna took over the kingdom—is also on the scene with forces fighting the Queen’s brother, her army, and trying to protect and restore Snow White to the throne of her father.

There are lengthy lulls and pauses in the action in the Dark Forest and the fairies’ Sanctuary which could have been used better, but it was nice to have the quietude in the midst of the fleeing and battling and screeching of Ravenna. (The audience in my cinema was totally into it.)

Some of the blocking, stage-like theatrics and actors’ mugging into the camera felt very old-fashioned, but maybe that was on purpose. There are story loopholes and non sequiturs and episodic jumps in the action. But you probably won’t care.

There are deep Theology of the Body themes and imagery: Eve and Mary, men being able to see women’s true beauty and meaning, men respecting the God-given influence women are intended to have over them and over themselves (revealing God in a different way, revealing true goodness and true beauty), just as men have a God-given influence over women. It’s like a cycle of interaction and help and love. Theology of the Body: men and women CATECHIZE each other. But what’s happening today, because men don’t know who they are (as men, and especially as men in Christ), and women don’t know who they are (as women, and especially as women in Christ)—there are role reversals and role confusions and this cycle of the “otherness” flowing back and forth is halting at best, and arrested at worst.

This is not a feminist film. The way the royal blood lines worked out, the men will need to follow a woman here. They understand that and are completely OK with that. But there are certain things only women can work out for/among themselves: purity; beauty; womanly desires; feminine power, strength and authority; the giving life or taking life; goodness or evil; with men SUPPORTING them--just as men have to work out their own issues for among/themselves with women SUPPORTING them. But only Snow White could take out Ravenna. I saw this also as a woman struggling within herself. The good woman has to kill the bad woman inside.

As Ravenna enhances her beauty through evil means, the whole kingdom, the whole world/nature around her dies and decays. Good men become bad men.

Ravenna: “I will never stop! I will give this WRETCHED world the Queen it DESERVES!” (All sin is personal sin! All sin is social sin!) At this point, Ravenna forces Snow White to watch the men who were there to help/protect Snow White (like Joan of Arc’s men) die. It made me think of what “The Pill” is doing to men: the estrogen in the water supply feminizing men, destroying their manhood…. Do we women really want to do that to our men??

Wow. Women can change men for better or for worse. For the change to be for the better, the Immaculate Heart of Mary must reign in this world, and women must become other Marys.

This film should be OK even for younger children, if they can handle Disney's "Snow White." Not scary or gory. Mostly  fantastical.

OTHER STUFF:

--Check out how the original tale varies from this film (AND Disney’s version) and all the many folk tale variations!     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White

--Snow White recites the Our Father in prison!

--Lord of the Rings didn’t have enough chicks in it. Maybe that’s why I was so bored by it.

--Characters are given good, solid motivations for their choices/actions. Bravo.

--My mother leans over in theater: “This is not your mother’s Snow White." :]

--Two wonderful “beauty and the beast” moments! “Fight or flight” is mostly a male response. Women also “befriend.”

--Joan of Arc imagery: the mysterious “maid,” riding into battle in full armor….

--The fairies looked like little Gollums. Icky. I like Tinkerbell fairies.

--There’s a total Team Edward/Team Jacob thing going on here, except now it’s Team William/Team Huntsman.

--I could totally relate to Ravenna’s deep sorrow at growing old. (Every time she started to “fade,” she would have to “consume youth.”) She even says: “Men use women up while they are young and beautiful and then discard us. But that will never happen to me.” She is not even interested in men (any more?) and does not seek a lover/consort.

--I would certainly go to great lengths to preserve myself. But I wouldn’t kill Kristen Stewart.

--“Hell hath no fury like…the will of an evil woman.” Like “Mad Men’s” Don Draper, Ravenna doesn’t even believe in love: “Love always betrays us.” Maybe this had been her only experience of love. How sad. Human love is great if you can find it, but we all need an experience of God’s love first. God’s love never changes. And we can always GIVE love.

--I like Kristen Stewart. She brings such a gravitas for one so young (22 years old). She refuses to rely on her loveliness. There’s a steelness and realness in her acting which I think is her real persona coming through. She’s very dark and postmodern in her interviews, lacing them with lots of profanity, but it feels like a kind of overcompensating for her gentle looks, and it’s as though she’s trying to tell us that she’s NOT just a pretty face. Evidently, the filming of “Snow White” was very physical, and she wound up doing things she really didn’t want to do like riding a horse. Is Kristen Stewart the new Kim Novak? Stewart is almost awkward in her bodily motions (in all her films), in a kind of modest, self-effacing way.

--Kristen Stewart: "It's such a rush when good overcomes evil."

--The Mirror to Queen Ravenna: "Her innocence and purity will destroy you."

--Dwarf: "She [Snow White] will heal our land."

--Snow White: “I CAN kill her [Queen Ravenna]! I would rather die now than live one more day of this death!”

--Ravenna wants IMMORTALITY. It’s our first vocation! We are all CALLED to eternal life. We aren’t there yet. As exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth says: “Tell your children they have a choice. They have a choice in life as to where they want to spend eternity.”

--I want to BE Snow White. This is one heroine I can really get into!

--Interesting factoid: The farmhouse in Topeka, KS, where the Pentecostal Movement started is now a Catholic church: “MOST PURE HEART OF MARY Church.”

--NICE costume design. COLLEEN ATWOOD!

--Ian McShane. (Is there any cooler name?)

--MUST READ: Mark Twain’s “Joan of Arc.” Ignatius Press. Must, must, must. Took him 12 years to write. It was his favorite work. (Ken Burns doesn’t even mention it in his Twain documentary. Bad Burns.) At Joan of Arc’s trial, they tried to convict her on her belief in fairies (as a child there was a fairy tree in her village where she used to go).

--Snow White: “Who will ride with me?! Who will be my brother?!”

--Dudes and dudettes should both like this film because it’s a romantic ADVENTURE (for the guys) and an adventurous ROMANCE (for the gals).

--Actors need Theology of the Body! Christopher West needs to go to Hollywood and do his “Head and Heart Immersion” week for ACTORS!

--Snow White is only love. Snow White forgives.

--Snow White: “But how will I lead men?” William: “Like you did when we were kids. I followed you everywhere. I would have done anything for you.”

--Chris Hemsworth kept reminding me of fellow Aussie, Heath Ledger (RIP).

--What’s in a kiss? Life or death. Men can LEAD women to life or to death.
Is vice versa true? Sure. But it’s different. There are some things we can say about men without saying the exact same thing about women. It’s OK.)

--Women can CHANGE men for better or for worse.
(Is vice versa true? Sure. But it’s different. There are some things we can say about women without saying the exact same thing about men. It’s OK.)

--The mission of every man is the dignity of every woman. The mission of every woman is the integrity of every man.

--There is no greater work of art than a good man.

--There is nothing more ugly to a woman of God than a man who will not acknowledge the source of his power.

MEET THE POSTULANTS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL!

Soundtrack available on iTunes! "Daughters of St. Paul Choir"

GOD IS DEAD

Here are the stats for the millions killed under atheistic-Communist regimes:

--65 million in the People's Republic of China
--20 million in the Soviet Union
--2 million in Cambodia
--2 million in North Korea
--1.7 million in Africa
--1.5 million in Afghanistan
--1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
--1 million in Vietnam
--150,000 in Latin America
--10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

To learn more about the millions and millions killed under atheistic-Communist regimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism


(This, of course, does not even include Hitler's godless regime.)

WHY WE URGENTLY NEED THEOLOGY OF THE BODY (JUST IN CASE SOMEONE IS UNCONVINCED)

JUST TODAY'S HEADLINES FROM "THE HUFFINGTON POST"

(Thanks, Ariana!)

Please excuse the explicitness, but if you have AOL (as I do)--
this is the "news" you are treated to every day.
And of course, there are VERY racy photos/vids accompanying.

--GOP CHILD PORN ABUSE  

--MICHIGAN FAST-TRACKS ANTI-ABORTION SUPER-BILL

--10 LGBT VIDEO GAME HEROES

--SARAH J. PARKER GAY MARRIAGE CONTROVERSY

--JC PENNEY GAY DADS

--EMMA'S RACY SHOOT

--BIKINI'D COCO

--TEEN MOM'S TROUBLE

--CAN WOMEN REALLY BE HAPPY SINGLE?

--MORE SEXY ADS

--BREAKUP FLICKS

--NO VIBRATORS?

--KIM KARDASHIAN WARDROBE MALFUNCTION

--CONTRACEPTION IS MORAL FOR MAJORITY OF CATHOLICS

--DANISH GAY CHURCH WEDDING

--18 LGBT ACTIVISTS

--SEX TRAFFICKING ROUTE FOUND

--10 WORST BABY SHOWER CAKES EVER  [NOW EVEN CAKES ARE "EXPLICIT" & ULTIMATELY MOCKING OF THE FEMALE BODY]

--CANNIBALISM CAN BE ADDICTIVE

--JAIL VIDEO: 100'S OF PILLS SPILL FROM WOMAN'S CROTCH

--LOWEST RANKED SCHOOLS FOR SEXUAL HEALTH  [WITH CLOSE-UP OF MULTI-COLORED CONDOMS]

--ADULTERY SITE POSTER BOY

--ANNA KOURNIKOVA'S SKIMPIEST OUTFITS

--ESCORT AT HEART OF SECRET SERVICE SCANDAL HAS NEW BIZ PLAN

VOCATION RETREAT 18-30 YR OLD WOMEN

SPREAD THE WORD!

THE REAL WAR ON WOMEN--"40 FILM"

MOVIES: "MEN IN BLACK 3"

Sequels are hard to do. “Men in Black 3” is no exception. After an attention-grabbing, keeping-in-the-MIB-mode (and a once-only-ultra-risqué scene) opening, "MIB3" strives in a ho-hum way to maintain the MIB quirky vibe and “odd couple” relationship between Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (a wan-looking Tommy Lee Jones). Each actor does their best with mediocre, drawn-out, contrivedly intricate situations and dialogue. The beginning of the film goes on and on with a one-note joke about Agent K’s sour countenance and disposition.

The plot? Agent J must go back in time (to the 1969 Moon Launch) to save Agent K so that he can save the world. Along the way, he learns a few secrets of the past. (Therefore, most of the movie is without Tommy Lee Jones. Josh Brolin plays the younger Agent K.)

The villain is “Boris” (NOT “Boris the Animal”)—from an almost-extinct race of aliens—who is pretty ticked about Agent K having blown his arm off. He’s determined to go back to the past and retrieve his arm.

A tedious but sweet, altruistic alien named “Griffin” helps our heroes with his clairvoyance and ability to see ALL future possibilities.

The premise is still fun: The world isn’t what you think it is—there are undercover good guys keeping the world going, saving us from danger. Even Andy Warhol (a truly funny gag). There are lots of squishy, gooey, gross, evil life forms to be subdued. But sentient beings (albeit CGI) are also treated rather brutally—even a “human” head used as a bowling ball.

"MIB3" is colorful; well-lit; chock-a-block with special effects, goofy and exotic aliens; Josh Brolin does a fantastic job as a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones, but the film doesn’t MOVE. Even though we are told how urgent everything is, it doesn’t translate into heart-pumping, mind-tickling action. Much of the clever, interspecies shoot ‘em up gyrations take place in a Chinese restaurant, but it seems like the movie’s budget was primarily expended here (and in Act 3 at Cape Canaveral) and the rest of the film simply strolls along.

As much as I love Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, "MIB3" is only mildly funny, mildly amusing, mildly interesting. Even with the bright addition of Emma Thompson as “O”--J’s and K’s British boss--and a truly BIG SURPRISE ending, nothing serves to light the story/screen on fire.

If you want my humble opinion, I would say that MIB3 is just not worth the price of admission or your precious time.

OTHER STUFF:

--One sequel (not adapted from a ready-made trilogy or series of books) that I think was BETTER than the original: “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.”

--Reading through my notes taken during the movie: “I’m not laughing yet.”

--The old, avocado push-button phone! My family had one just like that.

--The old, clunky, Zenith TV remote.

--I think after viewing the sharp, smart “What To Expect When You’re Expecting”—“MIB3” is just so draggy in contrast.

--Undercover agent at Warhol’s “The Factory”: “Get me out of here. I can’t listen to any more sitar music and I can’t tell the men from the women.” :]

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTOPHER WEST

In the face of the continuing criticism of Christopher West and the way he understands and teaches Theology of the Body, I am writing this little defense.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CW'S "CRITIQUERS" WHO SERIOUSLY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN POINTS OF HIS TEACHING (THOSE WHO HAVE GOOD WILL TOWARD CW, CW'S WORK, TOB AND OUR HURTING WORLD) AND CW'S "DETRACTORS" (THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE GOOD WILL TOWARD CW, CW'S WORK, TOB AND OUR HURTING WORLD). I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW EXACTLY WHO'S WHO, BUT I ASSURE YOU, THERE ARE BOTH TYPES.


IMHO, I WOULD SAY CW GETS IT 95% RIGHT. THAT'S NOT BAD. AND HE IS COMMITTED (AS I AM AND MOST STUDENTS OF TOB ARE) TO GETTING IT 100% RIGHT. I HAVE DISABLED COMMENTS ON THIS POST BECAUSE IT WAS GETTING UNWIELDY AND I FEEL SOME COMMENTS WERE OBFUSCATING THE ISSUES.

"Remind people of these things
and charge them before God to stop disputing about words.
This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen." --2 Timothy 2:14

First of all, I have done three weeks with Christopher at the Theology of the Body Institute in PA, have read some of his books and watched some of his DVD series and YouTubes. Part of the reason I first went to see him is because I was hearing so many criticisms of him and I wanted to see/hear for myself. Not only did I NOT hear anything unorthodox, I was totally blown away by the content of everything he said, and had no problem with the way he said it. In fact, I LOVED the way he said it.



One personal criticism I have of CW would be this: He may be overstating for effect, but I think he has a LITTLE too much sympathy for Hugh Hefner (just because your mother didn't hug you when you were little doesn't give you license to found a worldwide soft-porn empire). :]

Here are some of the criticisms of Christopher West:

“HE’S TOO GRAPHIC.”
I understand that in the beginning, CW WAS too graphic/explicit. He was mostly talking this way on college campuses (and many of the young people loved it). He has since ceased this kind of talk and has suppressed his early recordings. If/when he gets some finer points of his teachings incorrect, he allows himself to be corrected by priests and others.

I tell my male TOB speaker friends to be careful of explicit language in mixed groups. I tell them, if it’s all guys—use your locker room vocabulary, say whatever you need to to get your point across (TOB always respects women and sex, of course), but not in front of women. Why not? Even though our culture is super-crude and treats women like “one of the guys” (I hear young men and women using the “F” word continuously to each other in conversation like it’s nothing and AS IF THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES)—TOB women are not down with that. If—according to TOB--men “initiate the gift of love and women receive it and give it back in love,” then sex talk coming from a man can feel like an unwanted initiation. It sounds aggressive, assaulting and even violating to women (or it should). Why is there such a thing as “phone sex”? I rest my case.

“HE’S ARROGANT.”
I’d say maybe a little “cocky.” But not in an obnoxious way. He has a kind of rockstar/artistic personality (he writes/plays/sings music VERY well). He’s a showman, and this showmanship is what makes him such a great speaker/presenter. God can use any kind of personality. CW is also tenacious, which keeps him at what he’s doing in the FACE of all the criticism. He also will never give a talk without prayer teams backing him up and soaking the talk/event in prayer.

“HE’S NOT QUALIFIED.”
CW has a B.A. in Anthropology and got his graduate degree from the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, D.C. He taught theology for the Archdiocese of Denver under Archbishop Chaput, teaches at the Institute of Priestly Formation in Omaha, and at the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, Australia. His flagship book: “Good News About Sex and Marriage” (St. Anthony Messenger Press) has been in print since at least 2000 (and revised at least once). He authored an entire commentary of John Paul II’s text: “Male and Female He Created Them—A Theology of the Body” (Pauline Books & Media—Daughters of St. Paul) and “Theology of the Body for Beginners,” (Ascension Press) among others.



“HE PRESENTS JOHN PAUL II’S THOUGHT AS HIS OWN THOUGHT.”
Christopher is very clear about what is his and what is John Paul II’s. He quotes TOB verbatim extensively in his talks and in his books.

“HE PRESENTS HIS OWN THOUGHTS AS JOHN PAUL II’S THOUGHT.”
If CW has crafted some principles of TOB in his own language, it’s a tool to understanding John Paul II’s words. Also, what CW says faithfully reflects the Church’s perennial teaching on human sexuality. Kudos to him on whatever IS original!

"HE'S SEXUALIZING GOD AND HEAVEN, AND SACRALIZING SEX."
No. He's saying that sex is from God, reveals God and is meant to lead us back to God. The marital embrace is a very particular participation of the married couple in God's love and life. The Bible itself tells us that heaven is a Wedding Feast (the Marriage of the Lamb, the Bridegroom, to His bride, the Church). The Bible uses marriage as the primordial image of God's love for us. The Bible begins and ends with marriage.

Sex IS sacred. (That's why sex outside marriage is a sacrilegious-type sin.) Christopher is not sexualizing God, he's God-izing sex. As it is and should be.

“SOME VERY SMART, PROMINENT CATHOLICS DISAGREE WITH HIS PRESENTATION.”
Some very smart, prominent Catholics AGREE with his presentation. After CW appeared on “Nightline” (and Nightline twisted some of his words, but actually got it about 90% right)—all hell broke loose, and his “behind closed doors” critiquers came out in the open and the "battle of the PhDs" began.


Some of the people who DISAGREE with CW’s understanding and presentation of TOB are:

--Some of his past professors at JP2 Institute for Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C.

--Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

--Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger, Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, who runs the website www.MaryVictrix.com.

--Fr. Gregory Gresko (whose article was recently published online by Catholic News Agency)

--Both Catholic News Agency and the magazine "Inside the Vatican" consistently give a platform to CW's detractors

--Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein (author and convert from secular Judaism to Evangelical to Catholic). She published her thesis publicly online criticizing CW’s approach. She wrote the fine, fine books “The Thrill of the Chaste” and “My Peace I Give You—Healing Sexual Wounds with the Help of the Saints.” I question if, as a new convert, she may have come under the sway of CW detractors who may have even used her for their own ends.

After the Nightline flap, some who came out in DEFENSE of CW:

Dr. Michael Waldstein & Assorted Nuns

--Dr. Michael Waldstein (teaches at Ave Maria University, FL)--found the original Polish text of JP2’s TOB, and wrote the lengthy introduction to it.

--Dr. Janet Smith (teaches at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit)

--CW’s bishop at the time: Bishop Rhoades of Harrisburg, PA, and Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia

--CW also continues to be invited by dioceses around the world to speak/teach.

Unfortunately, if you look at the criticisms (I have not mentioned all of them, of course), you will see that some of these criticisms actually are of John Paul II and his Theology of the Body itself, rather than CW. Others feel Christopher is not giving a complete enough foundation/overview of Catholic theology or TOB itself. Other criticisms take issue with specific points.


Sometimes CW is a smoke screen for a deeper rejection of TOB. Such as:

“SEX IS DANGEROUS.”
It is? John Paul II certainly doesn't say that. God gave us something dangerous with which to hurt ourselves and others with? I would say it’s “powerful.” A powerful gift. This attitude belies a deep fear and suspicion of the body, the body as lesser/tainted/not-quite-good—precisely the attitude John Paul II was trying to correct with his TOB.

“SEX SHOULD NEVER BE SPOKEN OF IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR IN THE MEDIA.”

It shouldn’t? Alfred Kinsey, Sigmund Freud, Helen Gurley Brown, Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Howard Stern, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Katie Perry, “Family Guy,” Planned Parenthood and internet porn have all been telling their story of sex. Who will tell God’s story of sex? The beautiful thing about Theology of the Body is that it’s THEOLOGY, not anatomy, biology or sex ed. So it speaks of sex in an indirect, symbolic, almost metaphorical way (BTW, our brains do not apprehend ANYTHING directly, but always work metaphorically)—but in a way that’s very clear what we’re talking about. TOB--when done right--can be done in a mixed group, even of varying ages, and no one needs feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.

The Church’s silence and parents’ SILENCE about sex has HARMED young people beyond belief. ALL young people hear is the false, twisted story of sex that leads to emptiness and sadness, damage and destruction, alienation from self, God and others.

“CW DOESN’T TALK ENOUGH ABOUT GUILT AND SHAME AS A GOOD THING THAT WARNS US THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG.”
Yes, he does.

“CW ACTS LIKE WE CAN OVERCOME LUST IN THIS LIFE.”
CW says that we should be making progress in chastity and purity as we continually fight lust. He says that, with the grace of God, a sacramental life, understanding, believing, seeing, living correctly, we SHOULD be making progress in this area. He says that God didn’t die on a Cross so that we could do “sin management,” “lust management” in our lives and remain stuck in the same sinful place for our entire life, never overcoming. CW says that if we say that certain sinful behavior, like victory over lust, are impossible, we empty the Cross of its power.

“CW SAYS THAT WE SHOULD GET TO POINT WHERE MEN CAN LOOK AT PORN AND NOT LUST.”
No, he doesn’t. And neither does Fr. Thomas Loya (Byzantine Catholic priest & TOB speaker) who is also accused of that. They both say instead that porn is always wrong—in all its forms--and should never be looked at. It is using human beings as things for selfish gratification (never OK). Porn’s very intent and construction is to titillate and cause us to lust and sin. Oh yeah, and it’s addictive.

“OVEREMPHASIS ON THE SEXUAL ACT CAN ECLIPSE HUMANITY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, WHICH IS FIRST AND FOREMOST THAT OF FATHER AND CHILD.”
Hmmmm. I know this cautionary objection is well-intentioned, but I think there are few believers on the face of the Earth who don’t have some sense that we’re all “children of God” because God is our Source and our loving Father. BUT the whole point of John Paul II emphasizing our SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP to God is because that is what has been lost and therefore the HORIZONTAL-ONLY, HUMAN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP has come to replace it as the be-all end-all.

Our post-Christian world has jettisoned a lot of Christian values, but it has not given up on body-sex-love-relationships-beauty (even though it often makes a mess of them because it doesn’t know what they truly are). BJP2G says: We’re all about these things, too! And we can start there and get to the transcendent, to God from there because the physical reveals the spiritual and divine.

To state that the Father/child relationship is “foremost” is to take into account our relationship with only one Person of the Trinity. What of our (spousal=Church as Bride of Christ, Marian) relationship with the Son? What about our relationship with the Holy Spirit? What about our being in the “image of God” likeness of the Trinity in the communion of persons that marriage/family is? THIS is what has been MISSING! These are the “signs of the times” that need to be emphasized! While we always remain Father/child, we must also reach maturity, “full stature” (Ephesians 4:13), which would also imply adult faith/behavior/relationships.

“IN ORDER TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE ‘THEOLOGY OF THE BODY,’ THE MAGISTERIUM SHOULD ENSURE THAT ST. JOHN PAUL II'S TEACHINGS ARE ‘NEVER USED TO CONDONE SEARCHING FOR SEXUAL SATISFACTION’ BY WAYS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY ‘NOT CONJUGAL’ OR THAT OBJECTIFY THE OTHER SPOUSE.” (Said in critiquing CW.)

Good grief! This is EXACTLY what CW is trying to do.

PARTING THOUGHTS:

Could CW go astray? Start being explicit again? Apostasize? Get confused? Make a mistake? Yes, to all of the above. He’s only human. But—how many marriages have his critiquers (the ones who don't support his work in general) prepared couples for, enhanced, saved? How many priests and religious (myself one of them) have his critiquers given a whole new perspective to and helped to deepen dimensions of their living of their vocation? (Did that last sentence even work grammatically?)

Unfortunately, many Catholics are uneducated in important aspects of their Faith (and prefer to remain that way), and as soon as doubt is cast on someone/something, their first reaction is to go with the critiquers/detractors: “just in case,” “just to be safe,” or to “err on the side of caution.” This is a very sad way to live one’s life, and leaves one open to Jansenism, gloom-and-doom thinking, cloaking of one's own sins, lack of hope, lack of trust in God and His grace, retreating into darkness/silence, letting others do one’s thinking, and simply an unjustifiable ignorance.

Eve and Mary

If one has taken the time to listen to critiquers/detractors, why not read what JP2G wrote? Why not read what CW wrote? Why just immediately go with CW’s critiquers/
detractors and not his defenders? It may NOT make you a better Catholic to be suspicious.


It may make you a worse one, and the devil may be laughing up his sleeve because he has neutralized you in a murky cloud of doubt. And--in these crazy times we're living in--we and our families cannot afford to be neutralized in a murky cloud of doubt! Christopher West preaches not the repression OR indulgence of sex, but its redemption (as does JP2G)—all according to the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

                    And you can quote me on that.

MY BOOK: "HE SPEAKS TO YOU" IS OUT!

Daily book for young women seeking God's will in their lives!


--Jesus Speaks
--Scripture
--Advice
--To Do
--To Journal
--Prayer

Order here: 

https://store.pauline.org/English/Books/tabid/126/ProductID/3847/List/0/Default.aspx?SortField=ProductName%2CProductNameH

MOVIES: "WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING"

I thought I was gonna hafta hate on this film, but lo and behold I am pretty much lovin’ on it!

First of all, this is a very well-constructed film. Excellence in filmmaking. Excellence in COMEDIC filmmaking which is NOT easy. Excellence in ENSEMBLE filmmaking which is even harder. THIS is how it’s done, people! Hollywood never ceases to amaze when they get it right.

Second of all, this is slightly more a guy/Dad’s film than a gal/Mom’s film, so I assumed the writer was male. Nope. Two chicks. I wonder if they asked guy friends “what they would say or do” in a given situation, because the guy parts are the funniest.

Why was I all set to hate on this film? Because I thought it was going to be another one of those: “Babies actually emasculate men” films. “Being married is a drag, and being a Dad is even worse” films. But, it’s not! This is a laugh-a-minute, fun ride of a film that follows several couples through pregnancies (some quite unplanned ) and births (with one adoption). Each character is more unique and well-developed than in most single-couple romantic films! Each scene is working overtime to give us lots of information and delight us with all kinds of hilarious “touches.” The acting is superb, the transitions are superb, the directing and editing, the dialogue and plot points are superb. Did I mention that the acting is superb? The cast simply out-acts each other scene after scene.

Is it crude? Oh yeah, but mostly in the beginning, and then it becomes much sweeter and realer (and stays just as funny BECAUSE it’s being so honest). I’m still surprised that women wrote this because the writing is so tough-minded—but kudos to Shauna Cross (“Whip It”) and Heather Hach (“Freaky Friday”) for a smart, tight, fine job. British director, Kirk Jones ("Waking Ned Devine," "Nanny McPhee") is scrumtrulescent.

Remember, the whole movie is about sex because it's about pregnancy and babies.

As is the custom today, things are mostly done backwards: jump in the sack immediately, have the baby, get married.

Is this a “Theology of the Body” film? Indirectly, yes. It shows the best of what’s possible in male/female relationships and the joy of being parents when both partners are “in it” no matter what. It shows taking life on the chin, the sorrows with the joys, turning lemons into lemonade, and having a healthy sense of humor about it all. Babies are called “miracles” many times, only once or twice with a hint of sarcasm.

The best part of the movie is the REAL issues, problems, and seemingly irreconcilable differences between the couples. Dilemmas that in other films (and perhaps real life) would be deal-breakers. But the “What To Expect” couples stay the course, and the big blowout arguments and all-too-typical fights are either resolved or semi-resolved in extremely healthy ways. We are served up that genuine relationships are an ongoing process of give and take. We just do NOT see this. Anywhere. And we need it so badly. Children of divorce do not know how to deal with marital conflict and they’re terrified of it. “What To Expect” handles it fabulously. Bravo.

“What To Expect” totally prepares one for the grossness and pain and “imperfectness” and uncontrollability of the whole process. It even shows how both men and women need to overcome all their false notions of being parents, but also false “expectations” of male/female relationships.

Not to be missed is the hysterical Daddy Dude Group that meets Saturday mornings in the park. Let’s just say it’s male-adaptive parenting. Emphasis definitely NOT on hovering, helicopter-parenting. Much more laid back. Guys just do parenting differently. MUCH differently.

There is warmth in this film, and it seems to be coming from a good place. The marital arrangements may be heterodox, but the “spirit of the law” is observed. Moral of the story: “When it comes to babies, there’s no such thing as ‘ready.’”

DISCLAIMER: Some feedback I got on this review said I wasn't clear enough about the wrongness of sex outside marriage. I do not believe in sex outside marriage in any form. Sex speaks the language of "you alone forever." Sex outside marriage is a kind of a lie spoken with the body. It is damaging and destructive. Sexual love is FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FAITHFUL (marriage), FULL AND FRUITFUL.


OTHER STUFF:

--E-N-T-E-R-T-A-I-N-I-N-G.

--This movie reminded me of a time recently when I was with a bunch of home-school Moms who were trying to outdo each other in “small child ickiness” stories. They talked about having barf buckets around the house and at the kids’ bedsides (what is it with the peewees’ digestive tracts?) The Mom who won the Groddy-to-the-Max Award was the Mom who told of holding her baby over her head and the kid puked into HER mouth.

--I have friends who’ve been married 15 years. Their younger college-age friends greatly admire their marriage. But when the college students see them argue, they get scared and disillusioned: “But I thought you loved each other! But you’re fighting!” My married couple friends take this opportunity to tell them: “Yes—we’d better be fighting or our marriage isn’t real! Lovers’ quarrels!” Young people can tend to think that any kind of discord means “road to divorce.”

--“What To Expect When You’re Expecting” might be good “required viewing” for marriage prep courses!

--There are quite a few great side characters, too. All fleshed out. Well inserted, well used. Great, great filmmaking.

--Interesting how today everyone talks like a scientist: IVF, genetics, DNA, etc.

--Abortion is simply not an option. Not on the table.

--Some great affirmations of the need to man-up to fatherhood. And loving fatherhood.

--“What to Expect” gets so real. Says what people are really thinking and feeling. And it’s not the “awful truth.” It’s a pretty beautiful truth.

--It’s OK to fight and feel crappy and sick and be scared and make mistakes in this whole new world of parenting!

--Dennis Quaid!

--The golfcarts!

--Margaritaville!

--Trophy wife as heroine!

--The ovulation app.

--“Babies can smell fear.”

--I would actually watch this film again (partly to catch ALL the jokes). And I hardly ever watch films twice.

ZOMBIES VS JESUS TRAILER

MOVIES: "FOR GREATER GLORY"

(stars Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Peter O'Toole, Eduardo Verastegui, Oscar Israel)

“For Greater Glory” (“Cristiada” in Mexico) is the untold story of Mexico’s Cristeros War (or “Cristiada”): 1926-1929, between the government and Catholics (the actual involvement of the Mexican clergy/hierarchy and Rome is a little murkier). The events are historically accurate, and certain characters are real personalities from the struggle.

Most Americans have never heard of the Cristeros War, and, it seems, just as many Mexicans are ignorant of it as well! Why? Understandably, it makes 33rd degree Mason President Calles and the Mexican establishment look bad, so it’s not in the history textbooks. His brutal enforcement of anti-clerical laws, expelling of foreign clergy, forbidding of Catholic Masses and sacraments, as well as the outright slaughter of many priests, nuns and laity was extreme repression and a complete denial of religious freedom. Calles thought the Catholics would bow to such pressure. No such thing. The “Cristeros” took up arms and fought back--clergy among them.

“Viva Cristo Rey!” was the rallying cry of the resisters, fighters, and all faithful Catholics. Calles set up a schismatic “patriotic Church” much like the Communists in China today. (Incidentally, Cubans echoed the same allegiance before being put to death by Fidel Castro’s firing squads—see the excellent book “Against All Hope” by Armando Valladares.)

If anyone DOES know about the Cristeros War, it’s usually because they know the story of the daring young Jesuit, Blessed Fr. Miguel Pro, who used to travel around Mexico in disguise to administer the sacraments. In a huge PR blunder, Calles had the executions of priests photographed. He thought this would terrorize and deter Catholics. It had the exact opposite effect. Martyrs were created, AND there was government-issue proof! The photos of Fr. Miguel’s execution by firing squad can easily be found on Google. Fr. Pro is not mentioned in “For Greater Glory,” but no need, there are other amazing stories of heroes and heroines to be told.

The film starts off with a light, “It can’t happen here,” “It won’t be that bad,” blasé attitude and quickly deteriorates into something much more serious. This early progression of events is well-done: swift and devastating, but then the 137-minute film drags on and on. The film begins as a kind of ensemble piece: but gradually becomes Cristero General Velarde‘s (Andy Garcia) story.

This epic’s set direction and costuming is pitch-perfect, but the cinematography—although lush—is distracting and halting with far too much hand-held: in all the wrong places. Poor direction and editing make the fine cast look bad at times—all except for my guy: Oscar Israel* (who plays Victoriano Ramirez) who, for the most part, spun gold out of dross. However, I really have to give the benefit of the doubt to the possible fact that an over-the-top-Mexican-style-melodrama-western (which Americans often find laughable) was what the filmmakers were going for.

The dialogue is extremely simplistic and on-the-nose: “We will need guns! Yes, and ammunition!” “Be careful! You could get killed! Yes! I know I could get killed, but it will be for God and country!” Characters talk mostly in cliches. Several times I almost burst out laughing at very unfunny moments: “War is chess.” (Oh! I thought it was hell!) And Andy Garcia chomping on a cigar with one foot up on a rock in the background waiting for his tough guy line was just too much to bear silently.

We are automatically supposed to feel sympathy for the Catholics and identify with them, which I don’t think was achieved except on an intellectual level. I think many non-Catholics (and even some Catholics!) will bring their “Gripes Against the Catholic Church Baggage” into the cinema with them. But I guess that’s not the filmmakers’ problem. As long as the gripers don’t root for Calles. :]

It’s very important to read the text on the screen at the beginning and end of the film or you will not understand what’s going on OR the impact the Cristiada has had on modern-day Mexico.
What “For Greater Glory” lacks in cinematic prowess, it makes up in ambitiousness to tackle a crucial and uncannily timely subject. Like “October Baby,” which had its own filmmaking issues, “For Greater Glory,” too, succeeds on certain levels and is firmly in the must-see category.

Viva Cristo Rey!
________________
*Oscar Isaac played St. Joseph in “The Nativity Story.” Remember? The guy who stole Mary’s movie? Well I didn’t recognize him in “FGG,” but I just said to myself: “Put this guy in a Western and I will be glued.” (And I don’t even care too much for Westerns.) The way he moved made me believe he was a horseman and gunman, and he’s just totally otherwise riveting.

OTHER STUFF:

--Many Mexicans say that many of the stories of the Cristeros War were handed down to them in their families. Um, nuns fared very, very badly—worse than many laywomen. If you know what I mean.

--The Catholics were called “fanatics” by their enemies.

--Auxiliary Bishop Rojas of Chicago grew up in a region of Mexico where the Cristeros War was particularly intense. He recommends a 3-volume set of books on this era by _______, whom he says gives a good, unbiased account. Yeah, sorry, missed the author’s name.

--The film is doing VERY well at the box office in Mexico (#1 against “Titanic 3D”), but there are rumors that the government wants it shut down.

--Calles pretends to be doing everything for the “dignity of Mexico.”

--Eva Longoria is really pretty here. Much prettier than in “Desperate Housewives.”

--This movie was NOT timed to come out during the religious-freedom-reducing HHS mandate stand-off with the Obama administration. It was made several years ago and got held up with typical movie-delay issues.

--Acting problems or directorial problems? Sometimes the fine actors looked like they were not in good hands and didn’t know what was expected of them. This could also be an editing problem. Cut! Cut! Switch cameras! I couldn’t stop thinking of “Meet Joe Black” (Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins). Although FGG is MUCH better than “Meet Joe Black.” Bad directing/editing can make ANY ACTOR look bad. I actually felt that by the end, Andy Garcia looked like a buffoon. Sorry, but that’s my honest opinion.

--The grandiose soundtrack did not match the action. Sweeping-landscape-type musical segments were used for intimate close-ups between characters. The same strains just ground on and on to the point of monotony, and there’s hardly any silence. Just music, music, music at high-drama setting at all moments. It’s wearisome.

--The director or editor did not seem to know how to get into a scene late and leave it early. A rule of filmmaking. Every scene was grandly set up with pauses, longshots, grand entrances, etc. A very old style of filmmaking. The transitions from one scene to another were random and disjointed which made the whole thing feel episodic, like a bunch of vignettes strung together. There is much mugging, posing and general standing around.

--There is no impetus, no feeling of urgency, no through-line in every scene, no suspense that keeps us watching (only some mild suspense within scenes). It needed DOGEWA (from film school): “What is the character DOing to GEt what he/she WAnts at every single minute?”

--United States government involvement in the war (on Calles’ side) is explicit!

--Knights of Columbus figure in big here! (“Good guys”—in case you were wondering.)

--I got bored several times.

--The intricacies of the war are handled pretty deftly by the screenwriter. Pretty easy to follow.

--Kind of twisted theology/logic at the end when General Velarde talks to warrior priest.

--Lots of gunfights and small battles, but very little gore. The “R” rating is probably for the unusual, not-in-keeping-with-the-rest-of-the-film, violent ending. Hint: Worse than “Hunger Games,” but don’t wanna spoil.

--Absolute must-read about the fierce hatred against the Catholics and the beautiful stories of the faith and sacrifice of the Cristeros, BUT this article insinuates that Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI were part of, favorable to or at least pawns of the Freemasons: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/history/cristero.htm

DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL--VOCATION LIVE-IN: AGES 14-18