MOVIES: "RISEN"

"Risen," the new Bible movie about a Roman soldier and Jesus, is excellent and "Ben Hur" imaginative. This is not Bible schlock, this is Joseph Fiennes as the Roman soldier. And since you can't have a decent Scripture movie without a healthy dose of Brits in the cast, this extremely well-cast international troupe of actors boasts quite a few British actors, including the actor who plays Pontius Pilate.

One of the best things about "Risen" is that its unpredictable. If it was simply the Bible itself with a few fictitious subplots, we'd know what's coming. But this is the fictitious story of a hardened Roman tribute ("Clavius") commissioned with not only overseeing the Crucifixion of the Nazarene, but also tamping down his whole movement, starting with his inner circle, the Twelve--or rather now Eleven--Apostles.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY

The whole point of the movie is very "Theology of the Body": "Where is THE BODY?" Because the body matters. A great deal. At one point, the tribute interviews various followers and disciples about Jesus and His "dead" body's whereabouts: a device that could have been trite and boring, but is nothing of the sort. Clavius is torn between carrying out his mission of destruction and his attraction to the Jesus these witnesses describe. We sense a man at the end of his rope, a man who has seen much violence and is wondering what the point of it all is and what Roman violence really accomplishes. He's full of skepticism about what he has devoted his life to and is realizing there must be a better way than the "pax romanum": order imposed through a conquering brutality. He has a heart for people and is a stern, but not ruthless man. Clavius is also a religious man--as most Romans were. He prays to Mars, the god of war.

IT'S OK TO LAUGH

"Risen" is subtly funny throughout. You don't even have to be religious to get the jokes. They're human jokes. In fact, the whole film is very "human." The three criticisms I can just feel coming are this: 1) Too gritty in the beginning (the Crucifixion is "The Passion of the Christ"-style realistic), 2) the Apostles come across as too human and flawed, and 3) Jesus isn't handsome. To which I reply: Crucifixions are horrific, the Apostles were a motley crew (especially pre-Pentecost--as this film is), and what if Jesus wasn't Brad Pitt? (I would like to go on record as disagreeing with all these criticisms.)

"Risen" explores parts of the New Testament rarely seen on film, and it's glorious. Glorious in a bumbling sort of way (it's meant to be bumbling). The Apostles don't have all the answers. Nathaniel (the man Jesus described as being "without guile") is young, hippie-go-lucky and part of the comic relief. His display of childlike optimism and hope is the sole time we see Clavius crack a faint smile.

This is not a child's Bible picture book come to life. This is a carefully and cleverly imagined, fairly airtight "what if" film that keeps faithfully within the bounds of the sacred text. Much of the dialogue is outstanding. We begin to see the logic of all the parties involved at this "fullness of time" into which the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity chose to enter human history.

JESUS

Jesus. I don't know if folks are going to like Jesus. He's not a pretty Jesus, but He is Jesus-y. He will not go down in my film reviewing annals as my favorite screen Jesus, but I have been thinking a lot of late about our obsession with appearances and how the New Testament describes no one's appearance. There are no descriptions of people's faces, features, etc., (except perhaps stature: Zacchaeus was a little man). Isaiah describes the Suffering Servant thus: "For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him." The passage goes on to talk about the mysterious Suffering Servant's appearance after being battered:

^"He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem." (Isaiah 52:3, KJV)

Some Bible footnotes will just lump the first part of Isaiah (v. 2) in with the account of the Passion, but I've always wondered if they should be separated.  Was Jesus was just plain looking? On purpose? Even though artistic renderings of the face of the Man of the Shroud make Jesus look like a babe, and my personal  favorite Jesus is the guyliner Sacred Heart from Hales Corner, Wisconsin--I wonder. What would be a better antidote to our looks-obsessed, Insta-famous, photoshopping culture than a dull-faced Jesus? (Have you seen the Veil of Manoppello???)

But hopefully no one will argue when they see some of  the other Bible characters brought to life. The centurion! Joseph of Arimathea! A jolly and fiesty Peter! An old woman loved by Jesus!

Sony is behind "Risen," and it looks like they put a fair amount of money into it (which must be done for any period piece), but it looks like could have put even more. (The same hillside set doubles for two different locations and Peter flashes metal fillings when he smiles. There were a few other glitches like a teeny weeny battle scene that could have been made to look much bigger with simulated FX "extras," or just not shooting the peripheries of the battle.)

ABOUT THOSE BOOKENDS...

My one and only complaint about this well-done, thought-prodding, heart-provoking film is the simply wretched, unnecessary, and thankfully brief "bookends" at the beginning and end of the film wherein the wayfaring tribune is lodging at a stranger's house. ("Oh! You must be a Roman tribune because I see your tribune's ring! Pray tell, what brings you to my humble abode?" The whole movie then becomes flashback.) The first little lead-in to the film is so bad that I distrusted this film was going to be any good--and it took all of the marvelous Act One to win me back. The few minutes of the opening is that bad. This film did not need bookends. I repeat: this film did not need bookends. So, do NOT be put off by the opening scene. Just ignore it. Fiennes' face also has a "Snoopy vulture" look for the first few scenes, but he quickly recovers.

Mary Magdalene is portrayed as a former--*heaves a tremendous sigh*--prostitute. The Bible never says she was a prostitute, and we can thank Pope St. Gregory the Great for mistakenly conflating her with one. I thought we were over this in 2016. But maybe the continued mistake is willful because it just makes for a juicier story?

At a certain point, Clavius becomes a man in front of his God. Whoa. Powerful. Clavius is all of us.

Sony should keep making fine Bible films. And try even harder.

OTHER STUFF:

--Best line: "Sometimes Jesus is hard to recognize."

--Several years ago there was a low-budget, straight-to-VHS, Max Lucado film similar to this that I really liked.

--"Risen" is also a novel (adapted from the screenplay).

--@RisenMovie #RisenMovie on social media everywhere

--All during my free pre-screening of this film, a film studio security dude was standing right next to me (I was on the aisle) facing the audience and  shooting some infrared lens into the crowd to make sure no one was recording film. #TresDisconcerting

--Just as when I saw "The Passion of the Christ" in the theater, folks were LOUDLY MUNCHING POPCORN DURING THE CRUCIFIXION. Really???

--One of our Sisters, on hearing that Jesus wasn't good looking, immediately countered with: "Oh, no. Jesus was perfect. He was perfect in all things." :)

--The biblical soundtrack is standard. But just standard. Nothing creative about it.

--Clavius wanted the TRUTH.

--Nathaniel reminded me of "Godspell." Which I love. And was a background dancer for in our high school production thereof. And I got to meet Stephen Schwartz later in my life. Who's a great guy.

--Don't forget to watch "Full of Grace"! A film about Mary and the Apostles, post-Resurrection, that would be great a great companion film to see after "Risen." (See my recent review of "Full of Grace" on this blog).  http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2016/01/movies-full-of-grace-story-of-mary.html#.VsTKRvIrKM8       www.FullOfGraceFilm.com

--I am just TICKLED PINK that so many wonderful new Jesus, Mary &  Bible movies are coming out.

--"Our only weapon is love."

--"We are followers. We follow to find out."

--The Apostles defer to Peter.

--Clavius is a man in front of his God. It would be different for a "woman in front of her God." It just would be. (The film captures this a bit with Mary Magdalene.) One main difference? Her utter certainty.

--Jesus is a "strange case," says Pilate. Yes He is.

MOVIES: "THE YOUNG MESSIAH"

"The Young Messiah" is my new favorite Jesus movie. Based on Anne Rice's historical novel (but with adjusted theology), "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," it combines the latest and best in filmmaking, the dramatic arts, mature biblical scholarship, theology and imagination. It is biblically and theologically sound (always a tricky task when speaking about Jesus, but even more so the Child Jesus and his "human knowledge"--what did he/didn't he allow himself to know in his humanity at that young age? See Luke 2:52) There has been some talk that "apocryphal writings" inspired some scenes. "Apocryphal" does not mean "Gnostic." The apocryphal Proto-Evangelium of James was used by early Christians as devotional reading. But it's not the Word of God.

FILMMAKERS DID THEIR HOMEWORK

"The Young Messiah" shows lots of homework was done. No trendy twenty-first-century ideas plopped in. No outlandish "what if" musings (beyond Jesus bringing a bird back to life). The dialogue is so carefully crafted that every word effortlessly rings true in these fully fleshed-out and delightful characters. The text of the Scriptures is faithfully adhered to (without really taking liberties) and then sundry plausible plot points--that totally work--are skillfully woven in to bring life to the text. Every scene is to support the text, not draw away from it. All exposition is invisible and clever. The British-accented cast slays it.

This story of one year in the life of the Child Jesus begins with Jesus in Egypt being bullied by another boy from the Jewish community, and escalates into some gripping action which it maintains to one degree or another throughout the film. Never boring. Never trite. There are no hackneyed turns of phrases. The theology is precise. This film has everything in it but the sensational.

THE BEST HOLY FAMILY EVER

Wunderkind, Adam Greaves-Neal (it's his first film role and he was chosen from among 2000 child actors all over the world), plays Jesus with childlike openness, earnestness and chutzpah, and avoids gooey sentimentality (as does the whole film). His facial expressions and reactions are just completely natural. You will fall in love with this little Jesus and just want to hug him. Mary and Joseph are the consistently best Mary and Joseph the screen has seen (Sara Lazzaro [Italian & American] and Vincent Walsh [Irish: raised in Dublin & Toronto]).

There aren't just a few good scenes or lines for these two. The whole film exposes what it might be like to be the world's most unique couple, with their utter devotion to Jesus and to each other. Mary and Joseph don't have all the answers, but they know this precious and precocious kid is God's Son, and their own profound faith and love encompass him. Mary and Joseph wrangle a bit with each other over what is best for Jesus, and both, especially Mary, are hyper-vigilant and appropriately worried for most of the film. Mary and Joseph also know that only they--out of the whole world-can truly understand each other. A wonderful, mutual, egalitarian marriage is portrayed.

The entire cast shows us how people of faith (specifically first century Jews) wrangle with God and the mysteries of God. Stunning. The Satan character (Rory Keenan, also Irish) lends yet another layer.

A YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY

Jesus must slowly grasp who he is and learn to keep his powers under wraps for now. He's moved by human misery, pain, suffering and sickness, and realizes that when he prays over people or asks God for something: healing occurs, miracles happen. And others are watching, too. Herod Jr.--as despicable as his father--begins to get wind of a little healer boy and realizes that he is just the right age to be the Messiah, "Wonder-Counselor, Prince of Peace." Maybe this child escaped the Bethlehem bloodbath. He sends his centurion (Sean Bean)--who was also present at Bethlehem and carried out the slaughter--to find and kill the boy Jesus. This constant believable danger, with its attending intrigue and narrow escapes make for an urgency to the whole film.

THE HUMANITY AND DIVINITY OF JESUS

Mary and Joseph keep Jesus' origins and early life a secret from him, but this is not proving to be helpful. Without doing a spoiler here, Mary eventually tells Jesus about the Annunciation in a wonderfully tender scene, as Jesus tries to comprehend: "So is the angel my father?"

This story, this film believes. (Not everyone who worked on/in the film necessarily believes, of course, but the film itself does.) This is the beauty of virsimilitude and acting: putting oneself "in the place of" with every fiber of one's being. Anne Rice is Catholic, and the Catholicity of this film is palpable.

Big money must have been thrown at this production--just from the looks of the sets and extras. The music starts off as standard Bible movie music, but then gets a bit more diverse and disappears into the film, adding to the overall excellence of the experience.

COOL TO BE GENTLE

This film manages to make the gentleness of Jesus tough, hip and cool--even in the face of the savage might of Rome. (Great for boys/men to see!) My favorite quick image to illustrate this is the final "home" of the little wooden camel (I assure you that will make sense when you see the movie).

Only the best writers, filmmakers and thespians could pull off such an engrossing marvel as "The Young Messiah." I am in awe. It would be grand if this same set of creative geniuses would do the adult Jesus, but YM is gift enough.

Ever since the wild runaway success of "The Passion of the Christ," Hollywood has been trying to make a Jesus movie that will move and WOW crowds once again. They just did.

Appropriate for children? Yes! (What better role model for the kiddos? If they can handle seeing some men hanging on crosses and the repeated [non-graphic] murder of the Holy Innocents.)

I never watch movies twice, but I could run out to the theater and watch "The Young Messiah" over and over and over.
_____________________________________


OTHER STUFF:

As soon as I saw the boy Jesus on screen, he instantly reminded me of this famous picture.

--DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. GIVES A BIT TOO MUCH AWAY!

--After writing this review, quite a bit of controversy came up over the film being "heretical" and portraying an erroneous Christology (even after Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal Sean O'Malley gave it the thumbs up). The argument mostly being stated this way: "Jesus always knew He was divine." Yes. In His divinity. But in His humanity? It gets way trickier. The most important thing I think we need to keep in mind (and I'm no theologian, but I am a consulter of theologians) is that Jesus was truly God (Christians usually don't have a problem with this) AND truly man (Christians often have a problem with this), who grew in "age, wisdom and grace" as a child. It's a bit mysterious as to when and how Jesus THE CHILD (not Jesus the full grown man) came to full knowledge of His identity.

Jesus' divinity did not just override and overwhelm His humanity. (This is another kind of heresy!) Then He would not be truly human.  

Catholic World Report has one of the best explanations of the Church's teaching on the hypostatic union (the union of Jesus' divine nature and human nature) and "human knowledge" of Christ: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4652/The_Magisterium_and_the_Human_Knowledge_of_Christ.aspx …

Even as an adult, didn't Jesus have to operate in the world as man? Jesus said: "Who touched me?" when a woman in the crowd touched his robe from behind and Jesus felt healing power go out of Him. Did He really not know (in his humanity) because His back was turned? Or did He just want the woman to come forth? When Jesus said He didn't know the time of His own Second Coming (Mt. 24:36), was He referring to not knowing in his humanity? (CCC 474 says that certain things He was also not sent to reveal.....)

A priest friend of mine who teaches Christology in a seminary said that we don't really know when the Child Jesus in His humanity came into a full realization of His identity, but it seems it must have been before the 12-year-old Jesus' Finding in the Temple. "The Young Messiah" is the 7-year-old Jesus.

--In the late 80's, the made-for-TV "A Child Called Jesus" was a similar attempt. I don't remember watching it, but I can't imagine anything comparing to "The Young Messiah."

--OF COURSE Jesus would have brought His little birdies back to life.

--The name of the actor who plays Jesus is "Adam." (Get it? The new Adam? You can't make this stuff up.)

--Jesus asks A LOT of questions.

--Lots of foreshadowing: Satan, crucifixion, moneychangers in Temple, rabbis, boy Jesus in Temple, centurion

--One of the best scenes: Jesus talking to some rabbis and blowing their minds (even before he goes to the Temple).

--They got it correct that the Magi were from Persia! Perhaps because the director/writer is Iranian? ;) Well done! (Twitter: @Cyrus Nowrasteh)

--I would like to tell you so much more about this film, but I would be recounting the whole thing!

--There is one touch I would liked to have seen/heard at the very end: a connection of Jesus being on earth for the people, for us. But that's just me.

--Thankfully, no flash-forwards to Jesus' adult life.

--Jesus pipes up at the most inopportune moment: "I was born in Bethlehem!" No "Messianic Secret" here! (Bible scholar's joke)

--Joseph to Mary: "How do I talk about God to His own Son?"

--Joseph (trying to hide Jesus' true identity): "He's just a child." Caleb, Jesus' uncle: "No, he's not. I was a child. You were a child. He's more."

--"Joseph & Mary in #YoungMessiahMovie are the ultimate power couple." --@AWalkenstein

--I love how the film shows the fact that people knew about the visit of the Magi to Herod. The New Testament says that people TALKED about things like Elizabeth giving birth in her old age, etc. Jesus was surrounded by signs and chatter. He didn't just appear out of nowhere and no context in a vacuum....

--Jesus ended animal sacrifice! Coo! Bah! Moo! Bleat!

--Jesus is THE good guy here. The good guy with THE destiny.

--WHY is this the best Jesus movie ever? The spirit of God and the spirit of the Child combine. Palpably.  #AlwaysDivineAlwaysHuman

--And to think: I didn't even want to see this film. (I thought it was going to be a Flower Power Indigo Child frolicking in a puff of autumn mist working magic.)

HOW TO SCREENWRITE THE HOLLYWOOD-STYLE FEATURE FILM

How To Screenwrite the Hollywood-Style Feature Film from Sr. Helena Burns

HOLY WEEK VOCATION RETREAT--DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL MOTHERHOUSE, BOSTON

MOVIES: "THE REVENANT"

The 2016 Golden Globe Award for Best Picture was "The Revenant"--from a novel based on a true incident--starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a hunter-trapper who, mauled by a bear, is left to die by his companions. There's a little more to it than that, but that's the basic premise. I can't really compare this visceral (in more ways than one), lushly-filmed, gruelling-to-make film to anything else I've seen. It's part Western, part journey film, part revenge flick, part mercy flick, part historical rectification, but always a film-experience you will be totally immersed and lost in. "The Revenant" feels 4-D and makes us feel alive, not hypnotized or numb. We can almost smell the fresh air and taste the snow on our tongue. The film never blinks. The film never flinches. The film never looks away. The film never relents. Is it "all that"? Yes. Does it deserve accolades? Yes, fling lots of Oscars at it, please.

NEVER A DULL MOMENT

Although it's 156 minutes, the film does not feel long, and there are no dead spots in its masterful pacing. Lest you're afraid there'll be too much "Castaway"-style DiCaprio mumbling to himself in isolation's ennui? There's none of that. The entire film is interspersed with the doings and progress of several different groups, which all weave into the story without it ever feeling busy or like an ensemble piece: a band of Natives, a band of French, Fitzgerald and Bridger, the Captain and the rest of the hunters, the soldiers and settlers at the Fort.

What does "revenant" mean? A "revenant" is one who comes back from the dead to terrorize the living. Many are calling "The Revenant" purely a revenge film, but it's more than that. It's also about justice and the will to live. The will to live was biggest for me. Hugh Glass (Leo DiCaprio) had a son with a First Nations woman (presumably deceased because she whispers encouragement and appears when Glass needs hope--but not in a "nick of time, cue the ghost" kind of way--simply in a way that our loved ones stay with us). This son is a teenager and travels with the hunting party--but he is despised as a half-breed. Glass speaks harshly to his son in his native language in order to protect him from harm by the other men.

A WORTHY NEMESIS

We know there's going to be big trouble right away. Fitzgerald (the incomparable and completely unrecognizable Tom Hardy) is a self-serving, weasely whiner who contradicts and rejects everything the well-respected Glass suggests they do (that always turns out to be the best thing)--after an ambush by a Pawnee chief and his braves, looking for the chief's abducted daughter. Hardy, affecting an unwavering Texas drawl, never shuts up as he alternately complains and taunts. Like Tom Sizemore in "Saving Private Ryan," you feel like he walked right out of the era he's portraying. 

Fitzgerald/Hardy is old-world and blood-chilling and dangerous and untrustworthy and doesn't have a decent bone in his body or one iota of conscience.

IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS

Is it violent and gory? Let's just say there's lots of blood and guts, but it's never gross, over-the-top or gratuitous. This is a wild and disciplined film at the same time. Nothing out of place. If you just keep telling yourself "this is a film about raw survival," you'll get it. The scenery is all harsh beauty, much of it panoramic. You will be plunged into freezing waters and feel it, your lips will parch and crack. 

DiCaprio's breath is amplified throughout the film as a clever ambient noise, to the point where it's almost a character or part of the soundtrack. That sounds in print like it would be annoying, but it's not. Every pain-drenched gasp and grunt and growl and groan is rhythmic and becomes our own. The camera is everywhere: extreme close-up, close-up, mid-range, long-range, just everywhere, almost like virtual reality, but without gimmicks. The camera is a participant deep inside the film which takes us with it and makes us the same. Glass' breath often fogs up the camera (purposely), as we enter into his travails.

HOW ABOUT THAT SCORE?!

The dialogue is meted out, rich without being poetic--and never superfluous. There is naturalistic background chatter that we're not meant to decipher, and what we can hear is not rarified and highly stylized. Life is not cheap in "The Revenant." Oh, and this is also a profoundly religious film. The soundtrack is original music by Ryūichi Sakamoto. It's mostly a sewn-in, atmospheric hum with something akin to drums, but not exactly (hints at First Nations drums, but also, perhaps, Japanese drums?) A cello is used sparingly--as cellos should be. The film was shot all over the world and made by an international cast of thousands. Financing from Hong Kong. I stayed through every last credit (and highly recommend doing so) just to continue being swept along by the thought-provoking, parts-of-your-soul-you-didn't-know-you-had-stirring, never-maudlin score that continues like an undercurrent till the bittersweet end.

Alejandro González Iñárritu is a very unique director ("Babel," "Birdman") but doesn't act like an auteur or indie-guru. His films are deeply entrenched in the best of Hollywood, the Hollywood that can enliven our imaginations and hold up a mirror to our humanity. It's meaty and earthy, but always polished. Not too much grit here: the Hollywood showmanship, glitz and glamour we love are never too far away.

OTHER STUFF:

--The novel: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Revenant-A-Novel-Revenge/dp/125006662X

--The author's predicament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revenant_(novel)

--Although rated "R," I would guess that mostly for f-bombs. This is a great movie for younger mature teens (13+).

--Horses die.

--"Revenant" is slightly reminiscent of "Noah," and the frequent wide-angle vistas are similar (but without the FX). The only detectable FX in "Revenant" are the animals.

--Two unintentionally comical moments involving animals: a bear and a horse.

--Leo is good, but he's too studied. As usual.

--The instrument, ondes martenot (an early electronic instrument invented in 1928) is used wondrously in the soundtrack.
Here's a sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBUMZ7aNBQ, and here's a sample from the actual wondrous "Revenant" soundtrack (don't think martenot is in here):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfCbM0wNPY

--Discovered a new filmmaking term in the credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensman

--It's not white people bad, native people good. It's a little bit of a mix, but we definitely see the cruel oppression and injustice done to First Nations peoples.

--Is this a man's film? Very, very, very much so. And there is no BS in the wilderness, so we see Glass pondering what is real, what is real about God, what is real about religion. His manly heart tells him what is true.

--"I ain't afraid to die any more. I done that already."

--"In a storm when you look at the branches of the tree, you're certain it will fall. But if you look at the trunk, you'll see the stability."

--"If you can take just grab another breath, you can live."

--This film could also have been called "Breath."

--LOTS of women and First Nations people worked on this film. (Women always excel at: casting, costumes, makeup, but this film has women in many other key positions as well.)

--Please see the COMMENTS section regarding the improbability factors. :)

--"The Revenant" is a real film.

MOVIES: "FULL OF GRACE: THE STORY OF MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS"

"Full of Grace" is an art-house, indie film about the last days of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Bahia Haifi) on earth. The story is interwoven with the plight of Peter (Noam Jenkins) who--although the Church is growing--is faced with heresy upon heresy, distortions of the Faith in thought and practice ("they are picking apart the Living Word of God") and the malaise of his own indecision. He is reminded by other Church leaders that Jesus gave him the authority to lead, and that if he doesn't, impostors will fill the gap. Mercifully, Our Lady (whom all call "Mother") summons Peter--because she knows she is getting ready to go to the Father's house. Mary is able to strengthen Peter's faith (and ours as we listen to her!), not only by recounting details of the Annunciation and Jesus' life and ministry, but through her own reflection and wisdom about what it all means and "where to go from here," when the Apostles and first Christians had no Church history to fall back on. (It seems the difficulties the early Church faced are not that different from today's difficulties.)

Imaginatively faithful, "Full of Grace" bases itself in part on the Didache and what we know of the early Church. At the end, we do not see Mary's Assumption, but rather her body wrapped in a shroud and placed in a tomb (presumably the Assumption happening much like Jesus' Resurrection).

UNIQUE FORMAT

For starters, this is more of a filmed play than a film. It is a series of longish dialogues and monologues. There is precious little action. Perhaps the writer-director's background in horror films (Andrew Hyatt, a revert to Catholicism) informs the moribund pace and mournful string music throughout. I just discovered that Hyatt directed an amazing 2012 pro-life horror film called "The Frozen" which I recently watched. (I never watch horror because I am perfectly capable of scaring myself silly in broad daylight thankyouverymuch, but something drew me to this little film and I highly recommend it. I'm sure true horror fans will find it tame, but the story line really "haunts." In a good way.)

Do not expect anything like "Mary of Nazareth" or "The Passion of the Christ" when you watch "Full of Grace." Don't expect anything like Roma Downey's "Bible" series or Ridley's Scott's "Exodus" or Daniel Aronofsky's "Noah." Think scaled down. Way down. This film could actually work as a one or two person play. Handheld and extreme close-ups dominate the camera work. "Full of Grace" joins the ranks of "Into Great Silence" for a film you have to be in the mood for, a contemplative mood.

MARY IS ALL ABOUT JESUS

The acting is very fine and the dialogue is often brilliant and completely applicable to today without sounding anachronistic. Mary and Peter are not primarily focused on Church structures, rules and internal strife. They know that's not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the Risen Lord (not the Lord who lived on earth in the past) who has not left them, who offers a risen life to all through the spread of the Good News.

The film is a snapshot of the early Church at a low point: Peter is discouraged and Mary is dying. But Mary, "the Church at the source," saves the day. Toward the end, when Mary has the Apostles gathered 'round her, she begins to "preach" in a womanly way to the men--as a raconteuse--and instructs them as to how they, too, can have her faith. Very, very Theology of the Body at this point.

FILM COULD HAVE BEEN SHORTER

The most disappointing parts of the film for me are the flashbacks to the Annunciation. Mary strolls about in a white dress that looks like a twenty-first century sun dress with capped sleeves. And, like virtually every Bible film before it, no angel is shown. The beginning of the film could also have had more tension and dialogue, rather than waxing meditative so immediately. We needed more exposition and more investment in the characters, even though we know them outside the film. Every film has to make us know these characters anew. The film owns these characters now. Who are they? Every scene and beat of the film could have been trimmed to shore it up, and the film would have worked better if it was shorter.

The sets are sparse, tightly contained, and filmed either outdoors in the remote hills where Mary is staying--mostly likely due to the ongoing persecution--in a cave, or inside Mary's house. There are repetitive establishing shots.

Personally, I would love to have an audio of Our Lady's final soliloquy to bolster my faith on a daily basis! The well-cast actress has a strong, elegant and persuasive cadence. At the very end of the film it is Peter, however, who has the payoff lines regarding the solution to the multiple impasses facing the Church. God's ways are always simpler than we think. Never easy, but always sure and true. And the Truth--who never leaves us all alone--also sets us free.

Available at: www.fullofgracefilm.com and Walmart.

OTHER STUFF:

--Full disclosure: I personally know quite a few of the people in the credits.

--Some of the music is Hildegard's!

--Lest you think Peter was all hunky dory from Pentecost on, remember how he dissembled (in his actions, not teaching) with regard to the Gentiles, and Paul had to set him straight.

--Interview with the filmmakers: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2015/1227/6.aspx

MOVIES: "GUADALUPE: THE MIRACLE AND THE MESSAGE / EL MILAGRO Y EL MENSAJE"

A beautiful new 60-minute documentary, "Guadalupe: The Miracle and the Message" (in English or Spanish), put out by the Knights of Columbus, lays out the story, history and significance of the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe from the last days of the Aztec empire to the present. It's really not to be missed, even if you're very familiar with the story and have watched other documentaries and films on Guadalupe (as I have). What more is there to say about this incredible event, testament and relic--beyond its occurrence in Mexico City in 1531? A lot. Our Lady, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, Reina de las Américas, was just getting started in the sixteenth century. Her influence has only grown and reached out to all the corners of the world.

DESPERATE NEED FOR DIVINE INTERVENTION

The Aztec religion was caught up in the frenzy of prolific human sacrifice, particularly human blood and hearts which--as the seat of life--they believed their gods demanded. Not only that, they believed that  Tenochtitlán, the location soon to become Mexico City, was the center of the universe and that the world would end without these sacrifices. (Mel Gibson's fine movie, "Apocalypto," depicts these sacrifices in all their horrific magnitude.) Catholic missionaries were not successful in gaining converts. The cruel Spanish conquistadors were wiping out the native population with diseases and slaughter--a kind of human sacrifice of their own making. The treatment of the Indians was so egregious that missionary Franciscan Bishop Juan de Zumarraga, called "Protector of the Indians," was ready to withdraw the very presence of the Church from the land ("strip the altars!" he had commanded his priests). The Aztecs were beyond demoralized. Robbed of their gods, culture, land and lives, they no longer saw a purpose in living. Something had to give. Divine intervention could not have come at a better time.

APPEARING TO THE ELDERS

Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, a middle-aged Indian convert to Christianity, and not to little children as she subsequently seems to do. Why? Because she was honoring the elders, according to native tradition. Not only did she appear to St. Juan Diego, but also to his elderly uncle who was dying. (She cured him and revealed her name to him: "The Ever Virgin Holy Mary of Guadalupe," which some also translate not as "Guadalupe" but as: "the one who crushes the serpent.")

"I AM YOUR MOTHER"

Unlike other apparitions, Our Lady of Guadalupe had no urgent message. She didn't ask for prayer or fasting, only that a shrine be built. Her message was simply: "I am your mother." At the shrine she promises to the bishop that, regarding the Aztec people: "Here I will hear their weeping, their sorrow and will remedy and alleviate all their multiple sufferings, necessities and misfortunes." Her miraculous image appeared on Juan Diego's tilma (cloak) as a sign for the Bishop of the validity of her appearance and message. (The roses that had suddenly appeared on the barren Tepeyac Hill that Our Lady commanded Juan Diego to pick and bring to the bishop, were Castilian roses from the bishop's native Spain.)

OUR INDIGENOUS WINTER VIRGIN QUEEN MOTHER DANCING ON THE MOON

Our Lady of Guadalupe is probably the most fascinating of all Marian apparitions, and with the profoundest of meanings. It is the most visited Marian shrine in the world. Science is still not able to explain many, many things about the image, or why the tilma itself hasn't been utterly corrupted (as are all other contemporary samples of the same cheap fabric) after five hundred years of stressful conditions. The image is not only of an indigenous Madonna--much to the joy of indigenous peoples the world over, it is saturated with symbolism that spoke to the visually-literate Aztecs. She used all of their own signs and symbols to communicate a perfectly clear message: I am the Virgin-Mother of the True God. I am one of you. My Son and I are greater than your gods. I am your Mother who cares for you. She is depicted as dancing (dancing meant prayer to the Aztecs) on an eclipse of the moon (one of their deities). The stunningly specific communications just go on and on. They were so clearly understood that in seven short years--due to Our Lady's direct invitation--nine million Indians converted to the Faith. The words of Psalm 147:20 are engraved at the shrine today: "He has not dealt thus with any other nation."

CRY IF YOU WANT TO

This documentary is in the style of any History Channel piece. It begins with too-fast, old-MTV-style cuts, but simmers down quickly. Jim Caviezel's mystical-yet-definitive sounding voiceover lends drama (Placido Domingo narrates the Spanish version). The soundtrack is inspiring, and although we are not given all the voluminous details surrounding the apparition, the focus is on Our Lady's effect on believers through the ages. The brief re-enactment of Juan Diego and the beautiful lady are very pleasing. Many contemporary Church luminaries are interviewed, and I caught myself bawling a few times at Our Lady's solicitude for all peoples.

GUADALUPE FILMOGRAPHY

I would like to recommend a few other films on Guadalupe that I consider helpful to rounding out "the basics" of the significance of "Our Lady of the Americas." (To be watched in this order.)

1.  "Guadalupe" http://www.doscorazonesfilms.com/EN/guadalupe-movie.html  (English subtitles) Do NOT watch the hideous trailer. Starts with a hokey fake story about two rocky marriages in Spain, but once the couples travel to Mexico it gets good. Real good. Lengthy re-enactment of the Guadalupe event in Nahuatl with English subtitles (magical!)--and scientific explanation of image.
2. New Knights of Columbus documentary: "Guadalupe: the Miracle and the Message/El Milagro y el Mensaje" www.GuadalupeTheFilm.com
3. Our Lady of Guadalupe's significance for the pro-life movement. A must-see video by Dan Lynch: http://www.jkmi.com/our-lady-of-guadalupe-store/cd-dvd/our-lady-of-guadalupe-mother-of-hope-dvd-1
4. St. Juan Diego animated movie for da kids: http://www.jkmi.com/our-lady-of-guadalupe-store/cd-dvd/juan-diego-messenger-of-guadalupe-dvd … (by former Disney animators)

MOVIES: "THE LETTERS" (MOTHER TERESA)

"The Letters" is another film about the life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (acted with aplomb by Juliet Stevenson)--specifically that part of her life where, posthumously, personal letters that revealed her prolonged dark night of the soul surfaced. The stunning revelation is chronicled in the book "Come Be My Light--The Private Writings of the Saint of Calcutta." She had wanted these letters burned at her death, but, thankfully, her spiritual advisors did nothing of the sort. To know that the woman whose name is synonymous with acts of charity ("Who do you think you are, Mother Teresa?") struggled with not just intermittent spiritual dryness but full-blown, persistent desolation, can give courage to even the most skeptical of believers and non-believers alike.

A BIT OFF THE MARK

The question is: Does the film succeed in covering this omnipresent yet hidden aspect of Mother Teresa's life? Is it actually the focus of the film? Not exactly. Granted, it's very difficult to externalize such a state of soul in film, especially when it's also necessary to show her intense, concurrent missionary work and tell the story of her life...but could it have been done? Yes, and here's how.
1) I would say that most people are familiar with the notable events of Mother Teresa's life, so many details--although fascinating, and many never seen before in film--could have been left out.  2) It is not necessary to retell almost the entire life story of someone in a biopic. It's better to focus on one part of their life and go deep. 3) The pace really needed to be stepped up. I felt that "The Letters" needed a lot of editing instead of the feel of everything unfolding in real time. Had the pace been snappier and the film unflinchingly edited, it could have accomplished much more and we would have a much better insight into who the private Mother Teresa was (perhaps even more quotes from her letters, more prayer times/work times where we could see/hear the devastation of her spirit manifested). Otherwise? This is a well-made film, capturing the spirit and spirituality of Mother Teresa (not turning her into a secular social worker).

ON TARGET

All that being said: 1) We can't have too many movies about Mother Teresa. 2) A new generation wants new films and doesn't want to have to watch old films. 3) The film succeeds as a lovely depiction of a call from God in the life of one of the 20th century's greatest luminaries. (Mother Teresa's vocation was a "call within a call" since she was already a professed Sister with the teaching order of Loretto.)

The film's slow, reflective pace and truly lovely soundtrack makes it suitable as a retreat film or for viewing when one is in a contemplative mood.  The start of the film is especially laid back as the priest-postulator of her cause for canonization (Rutger Hauer!) speaks with her spiritual director (Max von Sydow!) about the secret that Mother Teresa hid from the world: her trial of darkness. Both priests are clearly used as devices to give us information in the baldest of ways (postulator calmly and blandly questioning spiritual director). But it gets interesting once we jump to the heart of the story, and whenever Mother Teresa (the adroit and utterly believable Stevenson nails Mother's Albanian accent) is onscreen, it's good.

A POSTMODERN SAINT

Mother's dark night of the soul lasted for approximately fifty years--beginning when her work with the poorest of the poor began. No wonder she famously said: "Sometimes it's hard for me to smile at Jesus." Yet she was ever faithful to her prayer time, her religious life, her apostolic duties, and grew her congregation, the "Missionaries of Charity" to about three thousand while she was still alive.

I remember when Mother Teresa's spiritual struggle was made public, atheists rejoiced. Yes. Let me say that again. Atheists rejoiced that she understood them, that she was almost one of them. In fact, there was even some confusion (quickly cleared up, however) that Mother was an atheist herself! Mother's objective belief in God never wavered, she simply didn't feel Him at all, and she even felt a persistent negativity that she was unacceptable to God, that He didn't love her somehow, even though she acknowledged intellectually that God loves everyone. She experienced only God's absence--the "via negativa"--which makes her a very postmodern saint, doesn't it?

“If I ever become a Saint–I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven–to light the light of those in darkness on earth.”  –Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Mother Teresa had a succinct way with words, similar to Pope Francis. Her manner of speaking is well-portrayed in the film: Young nun: "I'm afraid this man is dying, Mother!" "Yes, well, we can just give him a little bit of God's love. That's all." "The greatest suffering is to feel alone, unwanted, unloved."

A CONTROVERSIAL SAINT

The film captures well her simplicity, her clever and unconquerable spirit, her seeing the face of God in the poor, and her delight in loving and serving Christ in the poor, her poor. The film strongly brings out the moments of opposition to this "white Christian woman teacher" who lived among and almost exclusively cared for Hindus. She did not hide Jesus from them, and yet she had no ulterior motives of wanting to ultimately convert them (something Christians criticized her for!). But there's a difference between NOT wanting people to come to Christ (or being indifferent about it) and NOT being called to be the one to make that happen. Certainly, she would have been delighted if she sparked mass conversions to Christianity, but she was simply obeying Christ in taking care of these people. She stressed: "I am here to help."

The work of "development" is often seen as pre-evangelization by the Catholic Church. And what greater actual evangelization could there be than putting faith, hope and love into action in the name of Christ?  These utterly destitute "untouchables" had no one but her to help them. Little by little, she won over everyone, including the Vatican (for permission to begin her new congregation) and the government of India, locally and nationally--to the point that she was given a State burial.

THE COMEBACK QUEEN

It may be hard for us to imagine now, but in her day, Mother Teresa was a controversial figure to some people. Catholic social justice aficionados accused her of not attacking systemic problems of poverty, not getting to the root cause of it all (thereby presuming to tell her what her vocation was/should be). A particular "progressive" Catholic periodical even calumniated her by saying she zipped around the world in a "Lear jet" with a "dishrag wrapped around her head" (referring to a few public speeches she gave: at the UN, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, etc.). Mother, of course, always had the perfect answer for her detractors: "While we are discussing systemic causes of poverty, this man is going to die in the gutter. May I take care of him first?" She often refused large sums of money as "checkbook charity," and instead would invite the prospective donor to "come, experience the joy of loving." She loved and cared about the rich as much as the poor.

OTHER STUFF:

--Max von Sydow (Swedish) played Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told," The Apostle Peter in "Quo Vadis," and the priest in "Exorcist 1 & 2." Check out his extremely long and illustrious career on www.imdb.com  His first credit was in 1949!

--Rutger Hauer (Dutch) has an outlandish personal history--perfect for an actor (check it out www.imdb.com). Sr. Helena's favorite roles of his: "Blade Runner" (the 1982 director's cut WITHOUT the cheesy voiceover) and "Escape from Sobibor." (Both are must-see's.)

MOVIES: "HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY--PART 2"

If you already know how the "Hunger Games" saga ends, you may want to skip this third installment--unless you are fond of tedium. The beginning gets off the ground well enough with lots of dialogue and ominous music that is just setting the stage for future action scenes. However, said action scenes drag on and on, do little to advance the story, and one infuriatingly long sequence involves scores of fantastical creatures that just keep coming and coming and coming at our characters. It became almost comical and all I could do was envision those police cars piling up and up and up in "The Blues Brothers," or myriad clowns piling out of a VW.

TO EDIT OR NOT TO EDIT? EDIT

At times toward the middle and end of the film, the movie felt almost unedited, like the filmmakers just let the camera run, or they just got tired of editing, but I suspect they were running out of ideas at this point in the film and also just wanted to make the ending of the whole series feel epic (by its completely unnecessary length of 137 minutes). This lack of editing gives the story an uninteresting, amateurish feel, like first-time filmmakers who are so attached to their every shot that they can't decide which "gems" to get rid of. This desperate need for editing was felt not only in the action scenes, but also when the camera constantly plays on Katniss' (Jennifer Lawrence) face for prolonged periods of time. Granted, Jennifer Lawrence may prove to be the Meryl Streep of her generation, and she masterfully holds the camera's (and our) attention with every slight shift in mood, every small twitch or squint, but...enough already.

Another consistent flaw with The Hunger Games, IMHO, is the fact that Katniss' love interest is all wrong. The characters and/or actors of Peeta and Gale should have been switched.  I find no chemistry between Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Katniss, but lots between Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and Katniss. Am I wrong?

WAR AND PEACE

Let's recall at this point, Suzanne Collins' intention for writing "The Hunger Games" in the first place. She came from a military family and wanted to get young people thinking about the seriousness and horror of war before they might blithely or naively consider enlisting at the tender age of 18. Although--as I stated in my reviews of the previous films in the series--I have big problems with the milieu of children killing children (even granted Collins' noble cause), this film has some excellent ethical discussions that unfold organically as the characters are forced to make decisions, react, retaliate and plan their course of action.

The strongest point of the film is Katniss' moral compass that just won't quit. She gets the complexity of the situation, but she never wants to lose her humanity. She is not afraid of the hard thing, of the hardest thing if it's the right thing. The questions the film raises are worth looking at carefully: If we are willing to use the same ruthless tactics as our "enemy," what makes us so different from our enemy? Does it matter if we're any different from our enemy? And how different are we from our enemy, really, as fellow human beings? Can we win if we use ethical tactics and our enemy doesn't? What if we begin to commit the same atrocities that kicked off a war in the first place--then what are we fighting for? Where does it all end? What happens when authority breaks down in the ranks? Is there one mutual enemy of us all? Clarity is needed more than ever in times of armed conflict.

SAVING LIVES IN THE MIDST OF WARFARE

There are some good shockers at the end--but getting there was fatiguing to say the least (I can't tell you how many times I looked at my watch), and the relentlessly heroic soundtrack was draining. Katniss is still looking a lot like Joan of Arc (and a bit like Cupid in the promo pic above), even literally "catching on fire" in a bad way (Joan died by being burned at the stake at 19 years old). Joan prided herself on never having killed anyone personally and even reached out to the enemy, begging them to save their lives, even as she was in the thick of battle with her men. (Katniss, also, is always concerned about saving as many lives on both sides as possible.) When President Coin (Julianne Moore) sees that a French Revolution-style bloodbath is imminent, she finds a creative way to lessen the bloodshed.

In some ways, the whole "Hunger Games" experience is summed up toward the end of the film in a letter from Plutarch (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, RIP) to Katniss. He tells her that they have now entered that sweet period of peace that happens after a bloody conflict while the horrors are still fresh in people's minds. The question to all of us is: how quickly will we forget and return to our all-too-easy bloodlust? To violence as one of the first and best solutions?

OTHER STUFF:

--Caesar Flickerman's (Stanley Tucci) purple eyebrows

--Like "Twilight," two men love one woman (the ultimate female fantasy)

--People are more scary than fantastical creatures. Fantastical creatures are non-sadistic and, well, dumb.

--This movie could have been named "Sewer Games."

--So  many plot points of the advance on the Capitol were unrealistic: they were in broad daylight and didn't get killed? Didn't the Capitol have face-recognition software and surveillance technology everywhere?

--Irish music is always the go-to music for weddings, happy times and happy dances

--MY REVIEW OF PRECEDING "HUNGER GAMES" FILMS:

"Hunger Games" (2012) http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2012/04/movies-hunger-games.html#.VlUd9fmrSM8
"Hunger Games: Catching Fire" (2012) http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2013/11/movies-hunger-games-catching-fire.html#.VlUeKfmrSM8
"Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" (2014) http://hellburns.blogspot.ca/2014/11/movies-hunger-games-mockingjay-part-i.html#.VlUeXvmrSM8

NOVENA TO BLESSED JAMES ALBERIONE--FEASTDAY NOVEMBER 26

Today begins the Novena to Blessed Father James Alberione! 
Film: http://www.MediaApostle.com
Prayer: http://sabahapc-prayer.blogspot.ca/…/prayer-through-interce… …
Feastday: November 26

Blessed Fr. James Alberione, SSP -- Founder of the Pauline Family -- 1884-1971

"GOD'S NOT GOING TO ASK US WHAT WE WERE AGAINST...BUT IF WE LOVED HIM"

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY IS THE ANSWER--TORONTO

BOOK: "LOVING MY (LGBT) NEIGHBOR: BEING FRIENDS IN TRUTH AND GRACE"

Excellent book!

This excellent book is what we really need today. Stanton walks the walk himself (with many true and deep friendships with people in the LGBT community--without compromising a Biblical, sacramental worldview). I am a Roman Catholic nun who teaches Theology of the Body and I have been desperately looking for a rational, even-handed, truly loving (the truth in charity, the charity of the truth) book like this to give us insight into our rapidly changing culture and what our response as followers of Christ needs to be.

This is not a book about activism, but about individuals' sincere relationships with other individuals--who just might disagree with each other (and our world no longer knows how to civilly disagree, but only to sling loaded, incendiary, accusative slogans at each other). Stanton breaks down the myths on both "sides." I follow the pastoral practices of www.CourageRC.net wholeheartedly (Courage Int'l, the Catholic Church's spiritual support and pastoral outreach to the same-sex attracted: recommended on the U.S. Bishops website), and have many friends in this organization. I find "Loving My (LGBT) Neighbor"'s in-depth explorations and advice to be in accord with these guidelines. This is not a theoretical book but one of sound, practical advice and real-life examples.

MOVIES: "SPOTLIGHT"

"Spotlight" is the recounting of the "Spotlight" team of intrepid investigative reporters at the Boston Globe who broke the Catholic Church's clergy sex abuse story in January 2002--mainly concerning the Archdiocese of Boston. For starters, this is not a Church-bashing film even though it easily and rightfully could have been. It's an accurate, stark, almost understated presentation. It's rated "R" simply and appropriately for subject matter. Just enough of the horrific details of cases are disclosed in the film, the rest is hinted at discreetly.

This is a story that had to be told, and the filmmakers have done a capable and responsible job.

NOT ENTERTAINMENT

"Spotlight"--as a feature film--is not a pseudo-documentary, nor is it juicy, sensational, exploitative entertainment. (And it feels wrong to critique it as such.) "Spotlight" is what I would call an "information film." The acting, too, is muted: none of the big name actors shine. The excellent cast seem to be humbly striving only to serve the story. Is it hard to watch? Yes, of course. The tone is somber, dreary and somewhat suffocating--as it should be. The tone is painstakingly consistent. The monolithic power of the Catholic Church (till 2002) over civic, religious and spiritual affairs in the city of Boston is chilling. It extended even into the Globe where employees (many of whom were Catholic) simply knew you don't take on the Catholic Church. They are even trained to believe that when the Catholic Church dismisses claims, they can't possibly be true. It took an outside editor from New York (the New York Times purchased the Boston Globe in 1993) to press the issue.

MAGNITUDE

The timeline unfolds without much fanfare. Little by little, the magnitude of the number of priests, victims, and the span of years and cover-ups becomes clearer and clearer. Since we, the audience, presumably know the sordid story and outcome, there are few surprises and no real highs, lows or even serious crisis points. The kicker is that everything, all the evidence was hiding in plain sight. All the reporters needed was a few names of priest-abusers, the secret code words "sick leave," "unassigned," and "leave of absence," and the cooperation of a few victims, lawyers and judges. Much is made of the fact that B.C. High (a Catholic Jesuit boys high school that some of the reporters themselves attended, maintained an infamous priest-coach molester on staff) is directly across the street from the Boston Globe building.

Ironically, both the Catholic Church in Boston and the Boston Globe were at the height of their influence at the beginning of the new millennium, while a third character--the internet--is just becoming a serious player (a billboard for big, bad AOL is subtly placed in the film).

WHO'S TO BLAME?

Very self-effacingly--and I would say unnecessarily and misplacedly--the film blames The Globe itself in a big way for not reporting the story years earlier when lawyers and victims provided plenty of damning information that went ignored. Whatever culpability The Globe bears, they more than made up for it by compiling overwhelming, carefully-researched evidence that wouldn't be just another isolated story that would get buried. "The Church" and Cardinal Law are distant, cold, uncaring shadows. The abusing priests are sick and distorted men--almost excused. The names Geoghan, Shanley and Talbot (among others) will conjure up ugly memories for all who lived at the heart of this nightmare or on its peripheries.

FOCUS ON THE VICTIMS

The faces and voices of the victims are given three-dimensional reality and the major focus. Even the heroic, crusading lawyer, Mitchell Garabedian--who insisted on bringing victims' cases to the courts to expose the Church's wrongdoing--is modestly underplayed. 

DENIAL

Part of the initial incredulity of sectors of the public and the average Catholic in the pew to the Globe's scoop was due to the Globe's notorious anti-Catholicism since its very inception in 1872 (not unlike most of the old Boston WASP establishment). And many just didn't believe that so many heinous crimes of this nature could have been so well hidden for so long. If it were true, surely we would have known? Surely we would have heard some rumors and gossip? Whoever did know something was silenced with hush money, or gave up when crushed by the power of the Church's legal and "moral authority" arsenal and sway. But it didn't take long for the undeniable, verifiable veracity of the charges to grip the city and the world.

NO AFTERMATH

There is precious little aftermath in the film, as it wraps up on the day the first big story is released (there were a total of 600 stories run relentlessly about the scandal for at least a year afterward in the Globe). A few words of Epilogue are given, and then we are left with a gaping wound of sadness.

NO HOPE

There does not seem to be any hope put forth in this film. Not about healing for victims or reform for the Church. But maybe that was not a part of the film's scope. Maybe there is no way to find the silver lining here. There is also hardly any insight into the root causes of this terrible state of affairs. It's just raw evil on display. Perhaps this is the best way for this particular film to handle this grave matter. Sexual abuse destroys hope. No soothing, reassuring sugar-coating or "Hollywood ending" in this film.

NO GOD

There is hardly any mention of God in this film. No angry questioning of "Why did God allow this?!" or "Where was God?!" or  "How could purported men of God do this?" or "This has destroyed my faith in God!" There is only mention of "devout Catholics" and those who "go to church" or "don't go to church." There didn't even need to be a distinction made between a good God and bad men who represent God (and are doing a terrible job at it) because God is pretty much absent from the film. The one tragically poignant mention of God is from a male victim, now an adult, who says: "You don't say no to God" (meaning when a priest propositioned him at twelve years old, the only right answer was "yes"). Again, perhaps this was the best way to handle "God" in this story that had nothing to do with a good God, and everything to do with bad men. (The Church, although divinely instituted by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, is still human and sinful because of the free will of her members--even those who hold the authority. Thankfully, the sacraments and everything we need still operates through these men, regardless of their personal holiness.)

THREE FLAWS

As I see it, three minor drawbacks to the film are:

1) They got Cardinal Law a bit wrong. They made him a much older man (he was only 68 in 2001) with a hint of an Irish accent (Wha?). They made him a rather flat--although bold--stereotypical bureaucratic figure, when in reality he was a magnetic, charismatic personality who had actually been a media favorite when he first came to Boston.

2) The feeble, brief explanations given for the (unfettered) abuse were screaming to be explored and were even contradictory.

--"Celibacy is the issue. It creates a culture of secrecy." Really?? So if one attempts to practice (priestly) celibacy they have a good chance of being/becoming a depraved, predatory pedophile? And how are celibacy and secrecy related? This makes no sense. And sadly, most sex abusers of children? Married men.

--Another reason given  is that some of the priests were "psycho-sexually stunted at the level of a 12-year-old"--which may be very true, but that does not make one an automatic repeat child molester. The one priest molester we see being interviewed begins to say that he was raped, but the thought was not continued. (The rest of that statistic is that it was discovered that some priests who molested children were molested by priests themselves when they were children. They grew up, became priests and continued the incestuous cycle.)

3) I would like to have seen some rage in the film. Some of the rage that I felt and still feel in the pit of my stomach. Perhaps the filmmakers are leaving that up to us, the audience.

THERE IS HOPE

But of course, there is hope. Although sexual abuse (and spiritual-sexual abuse) takes a deep, deep toll, and a certain proportion of the victims tragically committed suicide, emotional healing is always a possibility.

SEE THIS IMPORTANT FILM

"Spotlight" is an important film to see, even if you kept up and delved into these darkling waters--as I did--when they first hit the shore. The restrained even-handedness of the story-telling is remarkable and will prevent it from being a "controversial" film. It's truly a "talkie" film--as you would expect the milieu of a newspaper to be--but never tedious. The narrative and the horror is in the information itself each time more is unearthed. Why should you see this film? To honor the victims, first of all, and second of all to understand how corruption--of any sort--works, in order to be vigilant and oppose it. NEVER AGAIN.

Has ANY good come of all this sorrow? The suffering of the children, teens and their families has not been totally in vain. There is now a much greater awareness of the sexual abuse of minors all over the world, and new laws have been created to protect young people where there were none.

IMPORTANT ARTICLE ABOUT CSA SURVIVORS & HOW PRIESTS AND THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE CAN HELP: http://www.catholicsentinel.org/Content/News/Local/Article/Faith-reclaimed-How-survivors-of-clergy-abuse-return-to-the-church/2/35/34046

OTHER STUFF:      

  

WHAT ARE THE REAL ROOTS / REASONS / CAUSES FOR THIS TRAVESTY?

--this problem is centuries old
--it's not celibacy that is the problem, but a culture of secrecy brought about by a culture of absolute power and lack of accountability
--absolute power corrupts absolutely
--abuse of power is not an inevitability, it's a choice
--unbridled male chauvinistic power is insensitive to women, children and the vulnerable
--pedophiles automatically gravitate to wherever they have trusted access to children (seminaries, schools, sports teams, law enforcement, etc.)
--seminaries did not do good screening of candidates
--anyone who reported behavior was threatened (get kicked out of seminary themselves, lose a job/position)
--silence=loyalty
--silence/playing the game=perks, advancement
--it was a numbers game (to have lots of priests)
--it was keeping up appearances (bishops knew they could quash "problems," abusers knew they would never get in trouble and would always be shielded: the perfect set-up)
--it was keeping up appearances ("not on my watch")
--toward the middle of the 20th century, psychiatrists and psychologists got involved (assessments, "treatment") and kept giving the green light to put the priest back in ministry (bishops blindly "obeyed")
--it wasn't known that pedophilia is not "curable" (but it's also not rocket science to see that a man abusing over and over and over and over again needs to be stopped, removed permanently)
--gross blindness and ignorant cluelessness as to what sexual abuse does to a child/teen
--careerism, clericalism, wrong priorities
--evil and sin

SOLUTIONS?
--the clergy sex abuse problems will continue unless there is courageous breaking with mentalities, cultures, habits, patterns and cycles
--the presence of women in all (non-ordained) positions at all levels and places of Church life will help mitigate undisciplined male power (and male lack of empathy and sympathy)
--following preventative and protective protocols for child safety immediately and unilaterally
--child safety is everyone's job, not just those in positions of authority
--stringent screening/dismissals at seminary level
--thorough training in human sexuality for seminarians (including THEOLOGY OF THE BODY)
--a deep prayer life, spiritual direction in seminary
--priestly spirituality
--normal, healthy relationships with laypeople, families, women of God
--priestly fraternity, camaraderie, seminary follow-up, oversight by and relationship with bishop
--bishop accountability (Pope Francis is putting this in place)
--availability: doing ministry where needed (while maintaining healthful lifestyle, self-care and avoiding burnout)
--pouring oneself out as a spiritual father (love and zeal for the Bride [the Church] and the world) conquers loneliness

When the shocking news broke, it was the only time in my life--since my conversion at 15--that I wanted to leave the Catholic Church and run screaming to the hills. A close friend even accused me: "You're a nun--you knew!" But I didn't. Nobody knew. Or very, very few people knew. I agonized for months over it. I couldn't understand. I thought priests and bishops were the good guys! I thought they wanted to protect and help people! I just couldn't figure it out. And then--through my study of Theology of the Body--I got a powerful insight: Men do NOT want to be Superman or the Lone Ranger. They do NOT want to break ranks. Men are HORRIBLE at whistle-blowing. They are all about BAND OF BROTHERS. And this is a good thing! Men are stronger together. They have each other's backs. They can provide for and protect hearth and home better TOGETHER. The problem lies when they BAND TOGETHER FOR EVIL. To hide each other's sins. To give each other a pass for their sins. Look the other way. Code of silence. Complete corruption. Whole cities run on this notion. But it doesn't have to be this way. 

MEN NEED TO BAND TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD. Positive peer pressure. And call each other out when they need calling out. So, guys? Join some good guy thing to do charitable works together, pray together or just hang out together. Live by the "10 Commandments of Chivalry" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry (except the showing no mercy to the infidel part). And always, always BAND TOGETHER FOR GOOD, NOT EVIL.

"The Long Lent of Sex Abuse Survivors and the Road to Recovery": (excellent article from a Boston woman) http://aleteia.org/2015/11/05/the-long-lent-of-sex-abuse-survivors-and-the-road-to-recovery/

A man (whose son is already a priest) who was abused by a priest as a teen and is now a candidate for the permanent diaconate has this to say:

"I would not have entered the diaconate program if I had a question about my faith at all.... My faith in the Catholic Church has never wavered one bit and never will. So I don't want this at all, ever, to be talked about as against the Catholic Church. This is to purify the men in the church by their sinful actions and their unlawful actions. It has nothing to do with the Catholic faith." --Ronald Vasek

https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/minnesota-bishop-sued-coercion-blackmail-over-sex-abuse-accusation