MOVIES: "THE DARK KNIGHT"

YYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

LEAVING LOS ANGELES (AGAIN)

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

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE SUN!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE NUNS! 

 

  

 

 

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

 

(Roxie with Jack asleep in the litter box)

 

DA DA DA DA DA, THE STARS!

DA DA DA DA DA, THE CARS!

YOU ARE MY WIFE!

GOODBYE, LA LA LAND LIFE!

CHICAGO, HERE I COME!

 

 

 

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

MEDIA LITERACY CERTIFICATION IN LOS ANGELES!

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

DVDs: "THOU SHALT LAUGH"

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOVIES: "WALL-E"

 

YYYY

 "WALL=E" (Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth-Class) is the name of a darling little trash-compacting robot of the future, and Disney/Pixar's latest computer-animated treasure. The humans have evacuated Earth to a spaceship while robots clean up the mountains of trash left behind. There doesn't seem to be any other functioning robots around (we see a robot graveyard of sorts). His only friend is an almost-cute roach. After a hard day's work, WALL=E goes home to his neatly-categorized  human artifacts (everything from cigarette lighters to garden gnomes) strung about with Christmas lights, and plays an old video of the 1969 musical, "Hello, Dolly." His favorite part is when the man and woman hold hands. He keeps looking at and clasping his own claw-like appendages. Enter "EVE." EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) is a "probe" robot sent from the spaceship. She's pristine white and blue with expressive eyes. WALL=E is smitten. There's only one problem—EVE is a bit of a femme fatale. She shoots first and asks questions later. And when she shoots, it's more of an incinerating atomic firestorm. (The roach, of course, is immune.)

As EVE collects data, she finds the holy grail among all the synthetic debris: a living, breathing, plant seedling, which means that Earth can once again support life and the humans can return home. However, certain robots aboard the spaceship have taken over, and don't want Earth re-colonized. A fierce and amusing struggle ensues.

At first I was bothered, but later delighted by the paucity of dialogue. WALL=E and EVE hum, giggle and make electronic exclamations, but their words are very few. And this is as it should be. Movies are a visual medium. It's "Lights, camera, ACTION!" not "Lights, camera, TALK!" In film school, budding filmmakers are often required to make their first short film without dialogue. The words WALL=E and EVE use most are each other's names, over and over. And I do mean over and over. At a certain point, the little munchkins in my cinema were calling out their names as well. The lack of chatter also makes us focus on all the loving detail in each scene.

The soundtrack is a surprisingly fitting jukebox of warm jazz ballads from yesteryear--humanity's finest emotive music, the story seems to say. WALL=E is a romantic at heart (or shall we say "at solar battery pack"), and longs for companionship with one who is "bone of his bone," "flesh of his flesh," so to speak.

Although any story primarily about non-human, non-sentient characters can feel a little cold, the whole enterprise is ultimately for the humans. Humans are not demonized over against the environment. Rather we're seen as a bit ignorant, foolish and sheep-like for not choosing what is actually best for ourselves. It's good to see that even though we are gently chided and caricatured for a) creating so much waste b) behaving like unthinking (robotic?) consumers c) preferring virtual reality to reality--the message is one of hope. We can turn things around, we can make better choices, and—apologies to Thomas Wolfe—we can go home again.

Definitely take the kids to this one and have a good discussion afterwards!

FURTHER REFLECTIONS:
The movie reminded me of other movies,
--"A.I." for its non-human, futuristic main characters (a robot boy an a teddy bear)
--"Blade Runner" for its consumeristic/advertising-everywhere vision of the future
--"Citizen Kane" for all the "stuff"
--"Veggie Tales--Madame Blueberry" for all the "stuff" ("Stuff-Mart"!!!)
--"Star Trek" because the spaceship, "The Axiom," looks very much like, and may be a nod to, the U.S.S. Enterprise
--"2001--A Space Odyssey" for the HAL-like mutiny (and hilarious use of the theme song)
--"Bella" and "Juno" for their "here's a way back from where humanity is headed" stories

I got into the cinema late in the middle of, not "Coming Attractions," but an animated short! It was a magician and his rabbit--pure slapstick, almost vaudevillian. The rabbit never got his reward during practice (a carrot), and now refuses to cooperate with the magician during the performance. You had to hear the audience, especially the grown men, laughing uproariously at every gag. Some (good) things never change. The kids laughed hardest (during "Wall-E") at the bra joke and when an avalanche of shopping carts pin "Wall-E" up against a wall.

Things to note:
--Hell hath no fury like a female robot.
--Wall-E's special reverence for living things--the plant.
--Wall-E not knowing what all his "stuff" was for until EVE looked through them and made them work (the lightbulb, the cigarette lighter).
--The bubblewrap. :]
--As futurists predict, there is only "one company": "Buy-n-Large." Which, by the way, makes people large.
--Google 5.0 on the spaceship. All voice-activated: "Define ____." "Define ____." Absolutely no need to retain anything in our brains.
--The poor reading skills of the captain of "The Axiom."
--Wall-E disrupts virtual reality and gets the humans more in touch with reality: talking to each other face to face instead of by screen, touching each other (holding hands, of course), splashing around in the pool. ("I Wanna Hold Your Hand" could've been "Wall-E's" theme song.)
--This is a film about the environment, but in its right order: The environment as the home of humans.
--"I don't want to survive--I want to live!" (The battle cry of the new human revolution? Cf. Chief Seattle)
--Were the human babies all conceived and gestated in a lab?
--The "rogue robots"--who's really crazy?
--The personification of the various robots and their personalities!
--"Wall-E" is an example of media critiquing itself.
--Check out the quick little history of art during closing credits: cave drawing, hieroglyphics, mosaic, Renaissance sketches, pastels, stippling, Impressionists, pixels.

SCARIEST MOMENT:
--"Seeing" ourselves in the future: Obese, infantile, demanding, unable to walk in our Laz-Y Boy hovercrafts, eating/drinking everything out of a supersize cup/straw, living vicariously through a SCREEN PERPETUALLY IN FRONT OF OUR FACES (kind of like the one I'm at right now)....

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY MOMENTS:
--primordial relationship without which life doesn't make sense: male / female
--bodily contact absolutely essential
--when Wall-E first SEES EVE
--hands "go together"
--the kiss and "dance" in outer space

The sound effects are a whole world in themselves, and include a distorting of "real sounds" from the "real world"--everything from Niagara Falls to raccoons. All one can wonder is--how do the creators THINK of these things (and execute them)? I'm just glad they do.

MOVIES: "YOUNG @ HEART"

YYY1/2

The Gene Siskel Theater in Chicago's Loop has been showing "The Singing Revolution," a documentary about Estonia. The people of Estonia--a former USSR country--would take to the streets in the thousands and sing to both protest what was being done to their national identity and to preserve it. The documentary, "Young @ Heart," about a rock n' roll chorus of septuagenarians, octogenarians and one nonagenarian, is a different kind of "singing revolution."

 

What are these utterly inspiring senior citizens "revolting" against? Stagnation, hopelessness, and, ultimately, death. The "Young @ Heart" chorus is from Northampton, Massachusetts, and tours all over the world. Their demanding director, Bob Cilman, 53, is not graced with patience, and becomes exasperated at their memory lapses during rehearsals.* He doesn't baby them at all, and they love him for it. The live band also sports some venerable musicians. Are they any good? There is obvious talent among the multi-ethnic group, including an Italian tenor, a resonant bass, a bluesy female singer, but others are just average. Aside from some touching solos, the bunch tends to generally oversing and blast every syllable out at top-volume, but who cares? If you've got the lungs and singing chops in your sunset years--be my guest.

 

So, why rock n' roll? Why not show tunes? Cilman actually began in 1982 having seniors sing vaudeville, but when a rock song was once covered, it brought the house down, so he switched. Cilman chooses all the eclectic rock songs, and for some reason, the group seems to excel at punk rock. (Check out their rendition of Sonic Youth's "Schizophrenia.") He picks ironic songs also, like David Bowie's "Golden Years," and the Ramones' "I Wanna Be Sedated." Do these folks even like rock n' roll? No. They are classical and opera aficionados, but they want to open themselves to new forms of expression. It's fascinating to watch these elders--with so much life-experience--interpreting lyrics written by artists fifty years younger than they. Many of the songs, like Coldplay's already-rich "Fix You," are given added layers of profundity by those who have lived these universal human sentiments over and over, for years and years. You can literally watch them meditate on the lyrics, their eyes far away.

 

Music is the universal language. Arthur Fiedler caused a stir when he began covering Beatles' songs with the Boston Pops. Now it's just commonplace that Metallica would record with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, or that Northwestern University's student musicians would cover Radiohead at the Pritzker Pavillion in Millennium Park.

 

The tone of the documentary, by British filmmaker/narrator, Stephen Walker, is low-key (no pun intended), and at first rather airy and humorous, and we wonder if we're ever going to really get to know these performers. The answer is yes, gradually. "Young @ Heart" skillfully avoids nostalgia and dwelling on the past. We get to know the singers in the now. Their aches and pains, spouses and children, medical prognoses. Much is made of their exact physical conditions, which become all-consuming for some (three members of the chorus pass away before the documentary is finished). Suddenly, we are looking in a time-mirror. We are looking at ourselves. We're all dying. That's what makes "Young @ Heart" so poignant. As we watch Fred--oxygen tubes up his nose, body filling with fluid from congestive heart failure, only able to sing while sitting--we ask ourselves: Will I be that enthusiastic, caring, brave in my old age? (There's also a hilarious rehearsal where Stan stiffly belts out James Brown's "I Feel Good." He's suffering from a painful spinal problem and feels anything but good.)

 

Are they afraid to die? No more than the rest of us. Many calmly refer to the Lord knowing when their time is up. There's a feeling of right order, that everything is as it should be somehow, and they're grateful. Starry-eyed, 92-year-old Eileen speaks blissfully of the rainbow she'll be sitting on in the next life. Their "revolution" is not so much against the "dying of the light," but dying before you're dead. And it's wonderful to see how this cohort, more or less my mother's age, widows and widowers, who lived through the Depression and World War II, have such solicitude for each other. The solicitude expands to their audiences. One of the most moving scenes in the film is a concert at a prison. The chorus sings seemingly incongruous songs of joy, hope and good wishes that seemed to say to the prisoners: Hey, you made a mistake, so what? Life is still beautiful.

 

There is something healing about being in the presence of thoughtful older people. When I was very sick several years ago, I made it a point to hang out only with our older sisters because they were softer around the edges, had learned to let a lot go, didn't need to understand everything, had no great and busy projects and plans, and lived simply in the present moment.

 

For many, the chorus has become central to their immediate purpose in life. Some are literally living for the next rehearsal, pushing themselves beyond doctor's orders. They feel a commitment to each other, the audiences, Bob Cilman. Rock n' roll is full of life, and so are the aged.

 

I vote for "Young @ Heart" as the "feel good" movie of the year.

 

_________
*So get them a teleprompter for Pete's sake!

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--FR. THOMAS LOYA

Notes from page 177 to chapter 2.

Father saw "Sex and the City" movie. As the characters began to live TOB, they became happier. (Even though they didn't know it was TOB.)

This dense TOB text is immediately applicable. It is looking at old things (principles, Scriptures, Creation, the Church, God's relationship with us) anew. John Paul II wanted to go through these age-old principles thoroughly so that there is nothing left to be said. Our conclusion is irrefutable. The text is like the melody, and Father is going to add harmony!

Who are we as persons, gendered persons?

FTNOTE 23, P 178: We need an "adequate anthropology." The key is: "What is human"? What is different about us from the animals? (Not just scientifically: "What is a living organism?")

GIFT—one of JPII's favorite words. What does he mean by it? Everything God does is GIFT. In Creation, only man can give a GIFT. Man is the one whom it is for. Only man can understand the meaning of GIFT: the call from nothing to existence. One can also say that the world has received man as a gift. The nature of GIFT is that it is freely given and freely received. We need to go through life with open hands: giving and receiving.

GIFT is the language of liturgy.

If Father could say anything to us, he would say: return to the sacramental world view. If we return to this, it's the key to happiness, especially in our relationship with others…. We need to live FOR others.

"It is not good for the man to be alone," means man is not complete alone, he needs to exist in relationship.  The way to have our legitimate needs met (emphasis on legitimate), is to live the spirituality of gift—to move out toward the others. Personal fulfillment is reflexive, reciprocal. We only are fulfilled by reaching out to others. We need to be aware that WE are gift and that others are GIFT to us. This is why contraception is so wrong. It is living in the opposite direction of reciprocity. It is holding back, not going in the direction of the other. And our bodies tell us so. A celibate priest lives FOR the Church.

Q: Is a married priest like a double symbol?
A: Yes. Celibacy also subsists in marriage. The married priest is living two mysteries: the ESCHATALOGICAL marriage and the SACRAMENTAL marriage. The priest relates to his parishioners as spouse, father, brother—like we all have various levels of relationships.

Often the married priest marries a daughter of priest. She is like a spiritual mother of the community also. Being a married priest is not about a priest who happens to be married to a woman. It's about a woman helping in the ministry. All of this can be summed up: we all have to live spousally, which means GIFT. Our bodies are made FOR the other sex. Male for female. It doesn't matter what you feel/think, the body doesn't lie. It is very insensitive to call someone a "homosexual"—we define people in TOB as "gift," as "person." You may have SSA (same-sex attraction), but that's a whole 'nother issue that you have to deal with.

When we're unhappy, it's always because we're not living the spousal gift of ourselves/our bodies adequately.

You first have to be able to possess yourself to be able to give yourself away. You can't give what you don't have. You have to have a self to give. Our culture hates discipline! (Or thinks it does.) If you play an instrument, you have to be disciplined and practice, and you have the FREEDOM to play music and make a gift of that.

What does it mean to be gendered? Someone from Mars would say—Oh! They're meant to give themselves to each other.

Q: What about hermaphrodites (intersex)?
A: It is out of the order of things. A disorder. This is not a bad word or thing, or insensitive, it's just what it is. The exception doesn't change the norm. Hermaphrodites are usually more male or female, however. But no matter what you are,

Gender means: FOR the other, and they for me. Everybody has to be "married," to be happy. Even celibates. Life won't make sense without marriage. Our society isn't sexual enough!!
[VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!] Be more genuinely human! Be more and more in the image of God!

Q: How does the single person live spousally?
A: The Church doesn't say that singleness is a vocation! There isn't permanency about it. They will be married one day to God! But even now, they have to live by making a gift of themselves. A person doesn't really live singly for any "good reason."

Q: Can't you stay single in the world to serve God?
A: You may be called to do work for God/world AS a single person, but your VOCATION is to "marriage." The single state can always be changed. It's not permanent. Once you're a consecrated layperson, you're not "single," you're in a covenant relationship, it's explicit, it's permanent.

We must be FRUITFUL.

We need to be disciplined fully, in our totality as persons, not just mind, for example. Our desires should not CONTROL us. We need to be able to look at each other, male and female, with the "peace of the interior gaze." Like Adam and Eve did.

Father was an art student, and because he was an artist, he was free to look at the human body properly, as beautiful. If you can master the human body as an artist, you can do anything, because it's the most beautiful thing in creation. It's a difficult discipline. Without that discipline, you'll be overcome with lust. If you are looking with lust, you're not free. JPII doesn't say: "custody of the eyes, look away," because that is imperfect.

Non-TOB, non-sacramental worldview sends us into individualism, narcissism, relativism. The Catholic worldview sends us into community. Laypeople for centuries lived in a more monastic style: a rhythm, prayer, sacraments, nearby church, God as the reference.

Catholic is not a religion, institution—it means to be human. The truth about being human. [Reality. Living in accord with reality.] What is being human about? The invisible being made visible through the physical. We humans have a fundamental desire to make the invisible visible also! Birthday cakes, flags, fireworks!

Everyone is called to marriage. Everyone is called to celibacy. Heaven is perpetual virginity: that is, total openness to God, total union with God. That's why we say: "Till death do us part," because we belong to God ultimately. To be Catholic is to keep these two things together: marriage and celibacy. We think: celibacy/virginity—loneliness, gross, don't want that. We think: marriage—love, intimacy, sex, yes! we want that. But that's wrong to think that way.

The Eastern Church says: "Till you are united forever." (But meaning in Christ in heaven, and not exclusively any more.)

The best celibates make the best married people and vice versa!!! Don't separate them! Catholic is integrated, Catholic is good, Catholic is the best!

We find our IDENTITY only in relation to the other sex. The only way something comes back to us is if it first moves out of us.

[Check out top of p. 202! Woman is not an object!]

If we keep pushing towards each other (two hands pushing against each other) everything stands. If one pulls back and only receives and doesn't give, then it all collapses.

Biologically, intercourse makes people bond to each other (bond to one person). There are actual specific male and female hormones secreted. One of the causes of teenage suicide is sleeping around. It's just so biologically painful to keep breaking up.

Scientists study animals to learn about humans. JPII says study humans to learn about humans. ("Adequate anthropology.")

Assignment over the summer: up to page 364. Next meeting: 2^nd Wednesday of September.

 

 

BOOKS: 10 BOOKS THAT CHANGED MY LIFE

In order of when I stumbled across them.

1. The Bible (specifically the New Testament) St. Anthony's Guild version. Acquired from "Friends of the Library" discard sale, Belmont. 10 cents.

The New Testament is truly new. It is the antithesis of what we would normally think/do, and yet it is the true fulfillment of our desires.

2. The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis (found in basement of my house)

devotional, instructional, challenging and comforting

3. In Garments All Red: The Life of St. Maria Goretti
As a teen, I also found this book in our basement. It changed my entire understanding of life, death, and what it meant to be a woman. 

4. Man and Woman He Created Them--A Theology of the Body by John Paul II the Great (& Love and Responsibility and anything by JP2G)

The most revolutionary book after the New Testament, because it arranges all of salvation history according to the body. It arranges the Bible according to the body. It arranges philosophy according to the body. It arranges life according to the body.

5. The Practice of Humility by Pope Leo XIII

6. Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) by John Paul II the Great

7. The Humility and Suffering of God by Francois Varillon (translated from French)

References only things French. You must like French things to read this book.

8. Power in Praise by Merlin Carruthers    

I read this after joining the charismatic renewal. It teaches you very simply to praise God for everything. It teaches you to praise God for the bad things in your life in particular, because you believe He is working in them RIGHT NOW to bring them to a good end for you. All Carruthers' books have the word "Praise" in the title, and I can vouch for "Prison to Praise" (his life story), and another marvelous book called "Bringing Heaven into Hell," the reading of which partially cured a friend of mine from mental illness. Enough to get ot of an institution.

9. I Believe in Love by Fr. D'Elbee

Unpacks St. Therese's "little way." Will scour the last vestiges of Jansenism and Manichaeism out of you. If you ever have wavered or ever do still waver in your belief in God's love for you, this book is for you.

10. The Wet Engine by Brian Doyle (A book that haunted and pursued me--just by its title, until I bought it and read it. Now its contents haunt and pursue me.)

One of the most beautifully written books ever, about our hearts, our bodiliness. Poetically scientific, scientifically poetic. Funny. Small, hardcover, gorgeous cover design. Great for anyone who ever had heart trouble. Very Irish. Very Catholic. Very Irish Catholic. Lends itself to repeated readings aloud.

Anything by Dave Barry can be pretty life-changing, too. Also, the poems of Hafiz and Kabir (Islamic poets/mystics who are often more direct, intimate and funnier than Christian mystics--except, as a Christian interested in Islam told me--they don't know what do to with the cross/suffering in life).

BONUS IMPORTANT BOOK: The Caged Virgin--An Emancipation Proclamation for Women in Islam by Ayaan Ali Hirsi

Born into an Islamic family, Hirsi fled the Sudan and became a member of the Dutch Parliament. While doing a movie about women in Islam, her collaborator, Theo Van Gogh (a relative of Vincent Van Gogh) was assassinated in broad daylight (stabbed with a machete). The machete pinned a note to his body explaining that he was killed for working on this film. Hirsi was given asylum in the USA where she wrote her life story: "Infidel." She racked up a $2M bill for 24-hr security, and the US informed her that we could no longer provide security, so her fellow atheist/author, Sam Harris is working with Rick Warren ("The Purpose-Driven Life") to find a way to continue to protect her life.

MOVIES: "MONGOL"

YYYY

 

Yes, the Mongol is none other than Genghis Khan (called "Temujin" throughout the film). This is an epic, almost mythical portrayal of the famous uniter of the Mongol tribes and world conquerer. However, the scenes of rugged sweeping landscapes; incredibly skilled, full-tilt horseback riding; and bloody battle scenes (reminiscent of "300") never dwarf the simple relationships and iron-clad customs that rule the day. First among Temujin's bonds is with the wife of his youth, Borte. One word to describe her? Moxie. She's as tough as the wife-queen in "300." Mongols pick their own wives when they are boys, but Borte kind of picked Temujin. She is a shrewd tribeswoman, negotiator and counselor to Temujin, who comes and goes in her life because Mongol leaders are constantly out and about settling old scores, challenging and maintaining shifting balances of power by alliances and by the sword.

 

It's a brutal world, but there is genuine affection among men who are related or consider themselves related. Temujin seems to need Borte more than any of the men in his life, however, and even causes a small war to get her back when she is abducted. And Mongols "never go to war over a woman." The curious thing here is that even though Mongol life seems to be ruled by customs (Temujin's father even drinks from a cup he knows is poisoned because the customs--in this case, accepting a cup offered you by another tribe--are sacrosanct, and if he were to change them "the world would turn upside down"), but they are often reinterpreted in the light of another custom, or higher custom. The customs are few, but tricky. For example: "Mongols don't kill children." So you wait till the kid grows up, and then you kill him. "Never let your enemy live." But Temujin lets his enemy live by calling him "brother." One shouldn't show weakness, yet by being kind at the right time, you can win people's loyalty. "Never betray your Khan (tribal leader)," but when some men kill their Khan who was a sworn enemy of Temujin, Temujin kills them for this deed. Loyalty seems to be fickle, but the custom is: "Mongols have the right to choose new a new master." Some customs trump other customs, and without any Mongol lawyers, you could wind up on the wrong end of a spear by blindly keeping every custom. Temujin later turns the Mongol customs into laws which he enforces: "I will make them obey, even if I have to kill half of them." Forgiveness is often mentioned, but is hardly ever practiced.

 

This kind of tribal mentality is probably what we are seeing in Afghanistan today. Compared to our monolithic legal system, it seems arbitrary and fluid, but it probably works well--utilitarianly speaking--in an undeveloped, non-industrial society with a harsh climate and inhospitable terrain where survival is always in the balance.

 

More than once, Temujin is shown praying to the Mongol god Tegri of the Blue Sky. Thunder means he is angry, and the Mongols fear thunder. The dramatic use of thunderstorms in the movie almost makes thunder a character. It made me think of three distinct approaches to thunder: religious/awful-fearful, scientific, religious/awful-glorious!

 

Temujin gains a friend, Jamukha, while still an adolescent. Again, it is very curious how the terms of their friendship play out. Jamukha saves Temujin more often than the reverse, but Temujin shows him very little gratitude or loyalty. Yet Jamukha is not insulted by this, nor is he a sap. These are power games. Both Temujin and Jamukha know they are born leaders, and as Borte puts it: "you can't boil two rams' heads in one pot." "Mongolia" isn't big enough for both of them. Although friends and "blood brothers," they each instinctively know and accept that only one can gain the ascendency--neither can play second fiddle. This ascendency is won just as often through keen psychological insight into the other, as with force. (It is said that Kissinger wouldn't play chess with Brezhnev because chess reveals too much how another thinks.)

When Temujin asks a shaman to prophesy his future, the shaman simply tells him: "You know your future." So, are leaders truly born? Are they rare, gifted individuals who truly care for the common good? People who "do what they have to do" to make their world a better place? Or are they ambitious, ruthless tyrants who gain fear and respect because they dare to do what no one else has the stomach or conscience for? Do their admirers all suffer from Stockholm Syndrome or a vicarious desire to be as heartless as they? What kind of leader was Temujin?

 

Mongol culture is simple and rich--their carpets, jewelry, long hair and exotic, flowing coats are more beautiful than our contrived fashions, and you know that their meaning is directly connected with something less mediated than ours. When you see the ruddy faces of the children, the sleeping under the stars, the cooking on fires, everything looks so darn healthy, so darn hardy, so right--as though this is the way human beings were made to live, in a seamless unity of an engaged, kinetic body driven by a sage, brave soul.

 

The Theology of the Body moment? I think it is primarily the undercurrent of what John Paul II calls "the fundmental essence of human existence: the male/female difference/relationship," that permeates Temujin's life. He needs Borte and she him. Perhaps she represents the best of the Mongols, what he is fighting for, what he knows the Mongols can be. She saves his life more than once, advises him. They are equals in every way. He says a whole universe when he tells her: "You are a good wife." Of course in reality, Genghis Khan had many, many wives, but the Mongols are presented here as valuing "one man, one woman." And why is this man-woman bond so ultimate? Because it is in this bond that we are most in the image of God. It seems, according to historians, that Genghis Khan had a favorite wife in one "Kulan," even though no one was higher than Borte as the first Grand Empress.

 

I looked away from the battle scenes.They're so awful. I'm so tired of them. I classify ancient warfare movies as "slasher" films. And yet, the mano a mano fighting is so different from today's "incinerate your enemy through a remote device" stuff. Would we still have as great a thirst for war today if we had to do it the old-fashioned way? Perhaps. As teacher-guru, Robert McKee, says with chagrin in his screenwriting Bible, "Story": "Men love war." And I would add: "Men love to film war."

 

At one point, when Temujin is enslaved in a cage in the Tangut Kingdom, an old Buddhist monk, like Rahab in the Old Testament, has a premonition that Temujin will one day wipe them out. He asks for mercy for his monastery because of the many sacred books to be preserved. Temujin asks him to kill the guard for the key. The monk replies that his faith forbids him from killing. Temujin says that his faith doesn't. Instead, the monk goes on an arduous journey to find Borte. It was such a breath of fresh air to feel another kind of strength coming from this equally-committed holy man who had chosen another way.

 

Gene Simmons (KISS) once said: "Women don't have a clue about this world domination stuff we guys are into." I couldn't have said it better. But what does it mean now that so many women are warriors, a much rarer occurrence in the ancient world? Is there anyone left to "keep the peace?" What/who is peace for if everyone's a warrior in a perpetual war: babies, the sick and the old? (Cf. John Paul II's Letter: "Women, Teachers of Peace.")

 

Although Temujin has great pride in his Mongols and his family, there are all kinds of mashups going on. His mother is a "Merkit." His wife's two children are from different fathers, one a Merkit from when she was abducted. Inter-marriage not only strengthens social and politicals ties, it's biologically healthy, just as intra-marriage is biologically unhealthy. Children seem to be a great focus in Mongol life. However, a historian notes that Mongol childhood was brief and harsh--Temujin learned to ride a horse when he was three.

 

The language--to my ears--sounds like a mix of Chinese, Korean and Russian. It is supposedly most similar to Turkish. There is also a real Tibetan feel--the singing is that low "ohm" growl that we hear Tibetan monks do. Although fierce warriors, the Mongols are also portrayed as a smiling, laughing, good-natured people.

 

The pacing is perfect, the cinematography and soundtrack masterful. What a great way to learn history! Limited opening in USA, June 2008. Definitely opening in Chicago.

 

Further notes: 1206--Temujin was made Khan of all Mongols. At its height, Mongolia encompassed China, Tibet, Persia and much of the former USSR. Christianity made inroads into the Mongols. Genghis Kahn had a Christian wife. In the 13th century, the Crusaders and Mongols united against the Muslims.

 

Off the web: Free Meals for Genghis Khan Family Members.

Give me the food or I conquer you. - Here's a food oddity that the London eatery chain, restaurant Shish, hopes will put it on the map.

They are advertising free meals to descendants of that famous consumer, Genghis Khan.

But first you have to prove your relation via a DNA test.

Ananova™ reports:

The unusual promotion is to mark the Mongolian government's decision to allow citizens to have surnames for the first time since they were banned by the communists in the 1920s.

Some 50,000 Mongolians now proudly claim direct descent from and bear the name of Genghis Khan.

That's a lot of meals. The restaurant teamed up with a DNA research company to do the tests required to find descendants. No mention of where they obtained Genghis Khan DNA to test against, however they might have gotten some of the DNA sampling from the Royal family:

It is estimated that 17 million people worldwide, including the British Royal Family, Iranian Royalty, and the family of Dracula, are direct descendents [sic] of Genghis Khan.

INTERESTING EDITORIAL ON GENGHIS KHAN'S ENGLIGHTENED ATTITUDE TOWARD FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NON-TORTURE, ETC.: http://www.firstuunashville.org/news/sermons/2004genghis.html

 

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY

 

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY STUDY GROUP WITH FR. THOMAS LOYA

NOTES for pages 146--176 of "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body" by John Paul II  text available from www.pauline.org

Fr. Loya can also be heard on the catholicradiointernational.com program: "Body of Truth"--answering today's issues/problems from a TOB perspective.
http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/abodyoftruth.php

Fr. Loya's DVDs (with art demonstrations) are available from www.theologyofthebody.net

We are changing our format permanently, starting next month: Father's presentation first, discussion after. Remember, you can join us LIVE, every SECOND WEDNESDAY NIGHT OF THE MONTH: 6:30--8PM CST, 7:30--9PM EST: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/theology-of-the-body

Discussion group: "TOB must be read with openness. If we start from a feminist perspective, postmodern perspective, etc., we are already defeated because we are biased, and not open."

"We can say TOB things without using religious language."

FR. LOYA:  [Sr. Helena's superfluous comments in brackets.]

It helps to say "non-sectarian" rather than "secular," when we mean "not a particular religion."

Today, people don't accept what you say from authority, but from their own experience. People today want to "feel" it themselves. And that's OK!

JPII said we all have a body, we can't deny it. Let's start there. But REALLY experience it, totally.

If we thoroughly examine a coffee cup and decide it's for coffee and not a beer mug, we didn't say anything religious, but we all agreed on what it was really best for. It has a gift for us if we use it properly because of its physical make up. Things are talking to us all the time, telling us what they are and what their purpose is. Everything speaks a language. THIS is the new evangelization: to affirm everyone's experience. We are not telling people they're bad, but that they're good and their experience is true/real. [We want to help them unpack the deeper meaning of their experiences.]

RECAP: There is only ONE REALITY: all the arts and sciences are just an unfolding of this.

All heresies have a problem with the INCARNATION ["the Scandal of the Incarnation"—St. Irenaeus/von Balthasar]. The biggest spike in all these heresies and denials was in the 16^th century. We are now in the "non-sacramental" age. We have been wearing non-sacramental glasses since we were born. [JPII was an optometrist.] John Paul II wants us to change our glasses. The Pharisees wanted to know "what are the rules?" Jesus said: "it's not about rules, it's about seeing properly." [Find all the Jesus quotes on seeing!]

participant: Could we say that Jesus came to approach us from a subjective POV when He came to earth?

A: Yes, but we don't forget about the objective—we get to the objective through the subjective.

When people want to "talk" about religion, then we need to "capture the words" and talk about the words, and also exhaust our experience of something.

"Secular feminism" comes from the Cartesian worldview of utilitarianism, power, function. (The Catholic worldview is about sacrament, symbol and sign.) So they are operating from a parallel worldview that will never converge with sacramental worldview.

Q online: Is it mostly Western cultures that espouse the Cartesian worldview? Do some cultures still hold the sacramental worldview?

A: Why do we love Rome and European cities? Because the people are laid back and hang out in piazzas doing nothing, "life-ing out." Round piazzas that foster community. American cities are built on a grid, designed for going places. Rome is built on a Catholic/sacramental worldview.

1 Peter: "We partake of the divine nature." HOW? Thru our BODIES!

"Going green" is the world's way of approaching the sacramental worldview. The Church should be leading the way in the green movement, also so that people don't go "overboard."

Q online: What is the non-sectarian language for sacramental worldview?

A: "Honesty," which everyone values, esp. young people.

Q online: How can we get used to "doing nothing"?

A: Being honest about our rhythm of life. The language of the body will tell you what it needs, and the body and mind also need leisure and contemplation.

We have to become mystics. Mysticism mean "what is most real," most concrete. Taking a long, loving look at the real. Recognizing things for what they truly are.

There is no "good use" for utilitarianism! It turns everything into an end with no value in itself.

When we were little and used to wonder and look at bugs, that was prayer. Someone taught us to put the Wow! together with God. Little kids say wow all day long. That's why Jesus said: if you don't become like little children, you won't enter heaven because heaven is wow.

Kids have nature deficit disorder today—so how can they wonder? They are being molested by videophilia, by screens!

A mystic is a TRULY NORMAL NATURAL human being.  Anything else, being out of touch with God, not seeing as God made things and sees, is UNNATURAL. [My friends from Africa say: "You say you are free and talk a lot about freedom in America, but you can't talk about God. We talk about Him all the time." Frankly, it's embarrassing. Let's put God back in our lives, not in a weird way, but with naturalness, with joy and love and thanksgiving!]

p. 151: "Original solitude"

online comment: no one to talk to!

p. 163: "Man becomes an image of God not so much in the moment of solitude as in the moment of communion." VERY IMPORTANT QUOTE

MYSTICAL is the greater reality. One God in three persons is mystical, not RATIONAL. You just live it. You can't figure it out.

Love and life are inseparable!!! (fruitfulness) That's being honest "with the words." You cannot obstruct life in love. You can try, but the potentiality is always there [life is persistent].

We have removed human sexuality from the heart of the Trinity in whose image, male and female, we are made, so we abuse it.

Like the Trinity, we don't lose our individual identity/distinctness, even in the "one flesh" union. Why don't we ever lose our interest in sex? Because it's "divine." The world knows that sex is great, but they don't know why. Maybe we can convert people by telling them what is realest to them IS great, but help them be really honest about it. [Convert the world thru sex!]

No one can say exactly what the Trinity is.

ONE analogy of the Trinity is the family. Father, Son, and then HS who IS the Love between the Father and Son (like husband, wife and child). It's not a perfect analogy. [It's not a numbers thing—that's math. It's community—communion. Also, a human family doesn't necessarily have just one child…]

Mystical marriage of God and His Creation—happened on the Cross.

Salvation history is the story of a Groom courting his Bride….

Reciprocity--initiating love is received and given back. The sun shining on the moon which sends the light back. Baseball: the pitcher throws the ball, the catcher receives it and sends it back. If no catcher, we'll have a one-pitch game.

Adam and Eve had a destiny that was incomplete, even before the Fall. They would have passed into the next life, body and soul intact, without death. They were happy with God in this life, but it wasn't the fullness that God had planned for them. (Theological speculation: Most believe that Jesus would have incarnated Himself even if we hadn't sinned.) How do we know we would have had this destiny of passing to the next life? Because it happened to the new Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary.

The "first covenant" was an unspoken dependence on God, trust. [Jesus, I trust in you!]

All sin is an attempted "shortcut" to the real thing. Our desires are right, though.
online comment: America is a country of shortcuts!

We are attracted to travelling to European cities because we realize their way of life is more "human."

JPII: "Even if a husband looks at his own wife lustfully—he can commit adultery in his heart."
The feminists freaked out, and so did many Catholics, because they both misunderstood it (looking at it from their own perspective).

online comment: Catholics don't seem to understand Catholic stuff!

We don't know what lust is and don't know what love is, so we confuse them.

Lust=to "appropriate" another for my own self-gratification, treat someone as a thing. Lust is always wrong.

Desire=to appreciate the beauty, goodness of another, be attracted by it. So often men who are trying to do the right thing feel unnecessarily guilty. Involuntary arousal is not a sin—it's what you do with it.

Love=always goes out of self to the other, does what's good for the other.

JPII in his book "Love and Responsibility" says that the opposite of love is USE, to use someone.

Mankind's first words were poetry, the words of a priest, liturgical almost: "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh"—an evocative prayer of praise.

Next assignment: read up to chapter 2

MOVIES: "IRON MAN"

 

YY 1/2

 

An arms dealer as a superhero? A unique, but ultimately disappointing concept. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) "has it all": he's a suave, good-looking, womanizing, mega-wealthy technical genius, making the world a better place by supplying the good guys (USA) with the best weaponry available against the bad guys (the Taliban). While in Afghanistan demonstrating and selling his latest super-missile to our troops, he personally experiences the devastation of modern warfare, specifically his own technology (the explosive that almost killed him was labeled "Stark Industries"). We would think that the "merchant of death"--who just seconds ago was flipping out one-liners like: "I love peace. I'd be out of a job with peace," and now has a glowing cylinder where his heart used to be--will have some kind of conversion. Not. Actually, Tony has no real transformation throughout the tale. (But maybe superheroes don't always have character arcs--maybe sometimes they're just good and well-intentioned from the get-go?) Tony only has a realization that his armaments are winding up in the hands of the enemy. He wants the system that he's a part of to be more "accountable" (as if arms dealers can actually keep track and control where their goods go). 

Three cheers for South Africa who recently turned away a Chinese ship with armaments destined for Zimbabwe. Kind of a no-brainer: hard to have a war without weapons. I found this entry in my venerable father's diary (April 1935)--wonder what ever happened to the bill!

 

"The U.S. Senate voted to keep us out of the World Court. A wise decision I believe. Let Europe fight their own battles, and let them pay us what they owe us for the last war. There is a bill pending now to take the profit out of war by making munitions manufacturers sell their products to the government in war-time without profit. This is a good bill. War, to my mind, is wholesale murder, national insanity and proof that we are not yet civilized. Governments give it romance, color, with bands playing, uniforms, big humanitarian slogans (which are all baloney), and make us patriotic by propaganda. The real true experience of the people, however, results in suffering, death, destruction, licentiousness, a breaking down of the social order and setting us back in all our activities that takes lifetimes to rebuild if at all."

 

Tony Stark sets to work developing an even better weapon in the form of a "Transformers"-like exoskeleton suit that enables the wearer (the soldier of the future) to fly and blast death-dealing streams of fire out the arms. Tony dons the red and gold armor-of-the-future and becomes "Iron Man."

  

Robert Downey, Jr., with his Al Pacino New York attitude and expressive, huge brown eyes, fits the part of Stark like a hand in a titanium alloy glove. The dialogue is rapid-fire, the special effects pop, the soundtrack pumps, the jokes are clever, but the tone is: war as merriment. War is inevitable--let's make lemonade.

 

To me, the movie had the flavor of war-porn for the masses. A now-familiar image of a fresh-faced, barely-out-of-his-teens soldier being blown up in a roadside ambush is sandwiched between Stark's last joke at the expense of peace and almost-torture scenes. I wonder what our Iraq/Afghanistan war vets think of a movie like "Iron Man"? I'm sure many would be unnerved by the realistic scenes and thundering gun battles. I wonder if they think war is this much "fun."

 

Tony Stark makes it clear that peace is not only "carrying a bigger stick," but USING that stick (so much for deterrence). If you were an arms dealer, wouldn't you agree?

 

In spite of himself, Tony hits the nail on the head when he quotes Jesus: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." (The rest of the quote is: "And give to God what is God's.") He uses it in a not-really-related-to-anything context, but it is the crux of the issue. Both pro-war and anti-war advocates use this quote. Pro-war advocates say: "See? You have to give to Caesar your military service." Anti-war advocates say: "See? My relationship with my neighbor (and my enemy) does not belong to Caesar, but to God." Jesus, of course, was not talking about military service but taxes. He had been asked if people (the Jews in the Roman-occupied Holy Land) should pay taxes to Caesar. And Jesus says this: "Whose image is on the coin?" They answer: "Caesar's." Then he said: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's." So, the question is: whose image is man made in? If in God's, dare I take it upon myself to blow up the image of God, even if Caesar says so?

 

The women in "Iron Man" consist of a bright, muckraking journalist, who, nevertheless, cannot resist jumping into bed with Tony at their first meeting (we see her again briefly at the end), and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Tony's ever-faithful and capable, but inexplicably quick-witted-one-minute-ditzy-the-next-minute assistant.

 

Twice, a better use for all the money, time, technology and energy spent on weapons was almost guiltily suggested in the film. They both involved babies: making baby hospitals and baby bottles. I'd like to say, um, why not, Mr. Stark? Why can't healthcare be "inevitable"? Lest I be accused of conversing with a Marvel Comics character Murphy Brown/Dan Quayle style, it's just so scary, knowing us Americans (and young Americans) are watching this. We Americans who are so good at blending reality and fantasy in reality, and oversimplifying what cannot be even simplified. No one makes the case for nonviolence in "Iron Man." It's just good violence against bad violence. As a 60's folk song asked: "When will they every learn?" I guess peace just doesn't sell.

 

A rather random, but not unAmerican, scene has "Iron Man" flying from Malibu to a little Afghan town to blow up some ammo and save a family. Then back to Malibu.

 

In "Iron Man" on the screen and on "Iron Man" behind the scenes, the U.S. military collaborates (stay for the credits). As I watched a civilian (Tony Stark) in Afghanistan, it reminded me, eerily, of Blackwater Security in Iraq and other less visible players who are "running the world."

 

The larger issues are never framed. What does the USA want? What does the Taliban want (and why are they being so cruel to the Afghan villagers?) What are we fighting for here? I guess we're just supposed to know from reality.

 

The parts I fear most men will like: the swaggering, the bimbos, the invincibility, the destruction, the explosions, the gadgets, the projectiles, the superhuman powers, war. The parts I liked: the hard rock, the moral discourse, the jokes, the fast car and the good acting.

 

With social unrest and rioting over food prices and shortages, what we really need right now is a superhero who can fight world hunger.