MOVIES: “NO GREATER LOVE” (DVD)

A new Christian movie about marriage has been released called "No Greater Love" (straight to DVD). I was sent a screener and was extremely disappointed. "No Greater Love" starts the same way the excellent Christian marriage movie, "Fireproof," does—with major marital discord. However, NGL is no "Fireproof."

At the beginning of NGL, husband Jeff (Anthony Tyler Quinn) and wife Heather (Danielle Bisutti) fight over Jeff's stubborn dedication to work, which often takes him away from home. Heather descends into a spiral of substance abuse and disappears, leaving Jeff with their young son, Ethan (the pre-adolescent Ethan is played by a talented Aaron Sanders). It's a smartly-done exposition, but then the story logic and emotional timbre unravel from here on out and the whole movie screams ideology. That horrible kind of religious ideology that subordinates the truly human (and therefore truly godly) to misguided derivative platitudes that end up denying the truly human. This is the kind of ethos that makes non-Christians (rightly) run as far away as they can from Christianity. NGL confirms their (mistaken) fears that God wants to obliterate our personhood, squelch our humanity, and turn us into robotic, irrational, uncompassionate religious operatives.

Where to begin? The writing, especially the dialogue, is often stultified and doesn't flow. Genuine reactions to new information do not happen. E.g., when Jeff tells his girlfriend (Heather has been gone for about ten years) of Heather's disappearance, she doesn't ask right away if there are any clues to her whereabouts. She asks this later. This is called the writer's objective rather than the character's objective. The writer's objective must always take second place, or rather be hidden in the character's objective, but we see it baldly throughout NGL. SPOILER ALERT: When Jeff and Heather finally meet again, Heather has become a Christian (while Jeff is not). Heather is strangely detached from wanting to see her son, and the first place Jeff takes her is to see a friend of his. When she is finally reunited with her son, she is more than willing to abandon him again if it's "God's will" that she move to another State. ("God's will" is discerned by an extremely deterministic notion: If God allows this or that to happen, then this or that course of action MUST be taken. There is very little room for reason, intelligence, free will, or even kindness and love.)

Strangest of all, however, is how marriage is viewed. Even though Jeff and Heather's marriage was not a Christian marriage, marriage is a natural institution, and hardly anything is said about the essence of marriage. The only thing that determines whether or not Jeff and Heather are actually married is the question of whether or not Jeff signed the divorce papers, and even though this is technically correct for a non-Christian/non-sacramental marriage, it is all rather cold and clinical (as well as requiring of the audience a breadth of knowledge about the institution of marriage). And later, when Heather's pastor and his wife urge Heather to stay with Jeff, it seems mainly to "influence" him and hopefully make him a Christian.

As a mini-refresher on the sacramental, and therefore Catholic, understanding of Christian marriage: it's indissoluble. Civil divorce is "allowed" by the Church for legal reasons (property, child support and custody, etc.), but divorce itself is not recognized by the Church because it's not recognized by Jesus. Why not? Because marriage is meant to reflect the faithful, forever bond of Christ and His Church, that is, marriage is meant to show us how God loves us. But we're only human and sinful and life is messy and sometimes married couples can no longer live together. Terrible things can happen. Yes, and so separating may be necessary.

What about annulment? Isn't that just "Catholic divorce"? No. An annulment says that the necessary grounds for marriage did not exist from the get-go (although none of the parties involved knew it at the time). So there was never a true marriage in the first place. But doesn't that make one's children "illegitimate"? Absolutely not. Again, "illegitimate" is a civil, legal term and concept. Human beings can't be "illegitimate" in God's eyes (and shouldn't be in ours). It's only the State that calls children "illegitimate" if there was no legal bond between parents when the child was born. So, you mean to tell me that because there have been hundreds of thousands of annulments granted by the Catholic Church in the U.S. (in the 20^th century), that there have been that many "never was" marriages? Ah, here's where it gets problematic. Has there been an abuse of giving out easy annulments* in the U.S.? Oh yes. John Paul II addressed this many times during his pontificate. At one point he even appealed to the couples requesting annulments themselves and asked that they really examine their consciences as to whether the conditions for valid marriage existed when they got married. (For example, if couples just keep vaguely claiming that they were immature or not psychologically ready—at whatever age—just about every married couple could say that. All of life is a growth process.)

NGL leans toward a kind of Christian fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalists purport to "take the Bible literally," which, of course, they do not. Otherwise they would have chopped their hands off and plucked their eyes out when last they sinned with them. They also do not take Jesus' teaching against divorce literally. However, we know that the Bible DOES have to be taken literally ACCORDING to the literary genre and MEANING God intended. Which is why we need the Church, "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) to help us INTERPRET Scripture, otherwise we become like "sheep without a shepherd, each going its own way" (Isaiah 53:6) and we wind up with 30,000 Christian denominations—and counting—in the USA alone. When we cut ourselves off from Peter, our Jesus-appointed shepherd (and his successor, our "German shepherd"), we can come to the oddest conclusions on our own.

How does NGL lean toward fundamentalism? By taking "literally" the passage from Ephesians 5: "…wives obey your husbands." I just love it. This one line is frequently excerpted from the whole passage which includes: "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Whoa! What a big bill to fill! A professor at a small, orthodox Catholic college I attended said: "Technically, if husbands aren't loving their wives as Christ loves the Church, why should wives obey them?" Also, the MUTUALITY of love and marriage is missed (by taking only one sentence out of its context): "Submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21). Heather begins "obeying" Jeff in all matters. Asking him what he wants her to do in every little situation, which, appropriately, drives Jeff nuts. Until the pastor explains what she is doing. In fact, Heather's whole demeanor now is that of a demure, shrinking violet.

From a story-telling point of view, there are several large flaws. One is that Heather protests she tried but couldn't find Jeff and Ethan (even though they eventually ended up living in the same town under their own names and Jeff owned a business). In an age of Google, this is just not probable. Another is that it's emphasized that Jeff has not mended his workaholic ways, and this continues to greatly disturb Heather, but then the issue is dropped and never dealt with. There's an attempt to apply 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (about non-believers married to believers) to Jeff and Heather's situation, which makes the plot points obscure and technical (never a good thing), not to mention, confusing.

I would have just dismissed NGL as an unfortunate attempt to make a movie in support of fidelity in marriage, but when two well-known Catholic media companies began promoting NGL as a wonderful movie on marriage, I became alarmed. I even checked with one company to make sure it was Catholic and not simply Christian. I called them up and asked if they had seen the movie or if they had any theologians on staff who vetted whatever they were promoting. Thus, this review.

We need to make sure that in our enthusiasm for Christian entertainment and the promoting of Christian values and outcomes, we don't begin compromising quality and the fullness of truth. We don't need to. We can't afford to. The end doesn't justify the means.

Be on the lookout for a new movie by the producers of "Fireproof" called "Courageous." It's about fatherhood. Here's hoping it will be as great as "Fireproof"! http://www.courageousthemovie.com/

___________

*Things are somewhat better now, but in the 70's and 80's, certain dioceses were known for their McAnnulments.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY 2ND SATURDAY STUDY GROUP

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY—FR. THOMAS LOYA—2^ND SATURDAY STUDY GROUP
"Love and Responsibility"
[as always, Sr. Helena's superfluous comments in brackets]

Father Loya's Byzantine church starts Lent on Monday. They have the "Vespers of Forgiveness" to prepare. They ask each other's forgiveness. They also have "ascetics" day (on the Saturday before our Ash Wed.) when they celebrate the first monastics (which today might also include religious orders/congregations).

The only correct, true worldview is SACRAMENTAL, CATHOLIC, HUMAN, LITURGICAL. Theology of the Body is a new delivery system for the entire Catholic Faith.

When some Theology of the Body people (including some well-known ones) heard that JP2G flagellated himself as a penance (this news just broke from the postulator of his cause)—and we also knew that he often slept on the floor, and prayed prostrate in the form of a cross on his chapel floor—were shocked. Why were TOB people rocked? They misunderstood that maybe JP2G was saying that the body was bad by this. But let's use some common sense: How could a man who wrote all these things about the body being good 'secretly" negate that? He was not saying that even the urges of the body are bad. They are not only neutral, they are GOOD! But asceticism and discipline are a part of the Christian life.

Celibates "simply" re-direct their urges, passions to their ultimate goal, fulfillment. Physically, emotionally we have to take steps to discipline ourselves, but it's really an affirmation that the body is so good [and powerful] that we have to consciously direct it.

In the Byzantine church, they don't eat meat or dairy all 40 days of Lent. The body rebels (at first) against asceticism. We feel hunger pains, we're irritable.

JP2G wanted to unite himself to the sufferings of Christ. JP2G saw himself as the father of the whole world (which he was)! He was clear that he saw himself suffering for the world, redemptive suffering and suffering with his contemporaries who are suffering.

We don't criticize athletes for disciplining their bodies. [St. Paul says: "they do it for a crown that fades, but we discipline ourselves for a crown that doesn't fade."] If you were to ask an athlete what defines them, they'd probably say: "the pain." The average career of an NFL player is 3 ½ years. Many say they quit because of the pain (of practice, drills, injuries, etc.)

Father Loya's church--March 18, Thurs. eve—"The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete," very deep service where they take every reference of the Bible that talks about choosing good over evil, penance, reparation. They do "full body prostrations" where they keep bowing and touching their head to the floor. It goes on for several hours. You are invited to Father's church for it. Father's church (Annunciation Church in Homer Glen, IL): www.byzantinecatholic.com You can participate a lot, a little or just observe. (This service was devised by St. Andrew of Crete.)

Our struggle is not against the flesh, but against its distortion and struggles. We are getting it ready for the age to come: "eschatological man." The source of evil is really the mind, the heart. The heart is the workshop of either righteousness or unrighteousness. Seen from below: asceticism is an unceasing battle. From above: it's enlightenment.

The material is good, but we want to master it with the spiritual. Our longings are all ordered to a longing for God.

John Paul II never used the phrase "custody of the eyes." And the real meaning of the word "custody" or "custodian" means to take care. What if a custodian of a building ran away all the time? We shouldn't look at porn ever. Not even one time [because it is just completely disordered to do one thing: scintillate, titillate, arouse, cause us to use ourselves and others, keep us on the physical level only]. But we have to get to the point where we "re-present" things that are presented wrongly to us, to see and think about things rightly. [In the movie "Avatar," the Na'vi greet each other with "I see you."]

"THE FACT THAT WILD ANIMALS WERE SUBJECT TO THE (ASCETICAL) SAINTS SPEAKS OF ANOTHER WORLD. " (Evdokimov) Humans and animals living in harmony is the way it was in the Garden of Eden.

Paul Evdokimov is a great Eastern Orthodox writer who writes in his own way about TOB.

Ascetics wanted to break the tyranny of the passions (because they can control us and disorder us).

Everyone is called to be close to God. Everyone baptized is called to be a mystic because "the mystical" is the most real. Saints and mystics are the ONLY "normal" ones. Sin brings us away from "normal." We think is sin is normal—"I'm just a human being."

Gregory Popcak book—"The Exceptional Seven Percent"—for better for ever. Only 7% of marriages are great, 15% are pretty good, the rest are struggling. (Father is having a marriage retreat in his parish.)

In TOB, you never let words go by. You capture each word and find out what it really means.

Sr. Anne: What about people who think sainthood, mysticism, asceticism is for nuns and priests and monks and not for married people?

Father: There are many, many saints, but most are NOT canonized. Perhaps the greatest saints today are the happily married couples because they are the most heroic, especially in this day and age. We are all called to be saints. Saints are also not self-aware that they are saints because being prayerful, heroic, living in reality, etc., becomes NORMAL for them. But at the same time, the closer we get to the brightness of God, the more we see our own sinfulness and need for mercy.

There's a prayer in the Byzantine church: "May our lives be unceasing penance." [Founder of Daughters of St. Paul, Blessed James Alberione said: "Live in continual conversion" or "Live with a penitent heart."]

The "mystical" is the most real, not the most unreal. The mystics were so INTO WHAT THIS WORLD REALLY IS that they were close to God. (Not AWAY from the world.)

Monastics started monasteries because early on in Church history everyone was becoming Christian and getting spiritually flabby (after the years of persecution), and so they wanted to lead a more rigorous, virtuous life. It was called white martyrdom. [All virtue is martyrdom. :] ]

We are the only creatures who can act outside of what it means to be what we are. We can act INhumanly. (A dog can never act UNdoggily.)

In Byzantine Church, when they eat the food from their Easter basket on Easter—which they've fasted from all Lent, it heightens the experience, and tastes so heavenly.

We Catholics are all supposed to abstain from meat on Friday—that never changed, even after Vatican II. Actually Vatican II said if you CAN'T abstain from meat, do something else. And it's always good to find penances that are really penances for us.

Q: I'm a vegetarian, what can I do instead of abstaining from meat?
A: Good question. You have to find where YOU will feel some pain. But the pain is not the point—it's where YOU need to do battle.

PRAYER, FASTING AND ALMSGIVING IS A TRIFECTA that purifies us. That's why the disciples couldn't cast out demons at first: they weren't doing the 3 deeply enough! Prayer makes us open to God which makes us more charitable.

Even though we're giving up something, Christianity is all about being IN something, being a PART of something.

Asceticism in a soundbite is "spiritual warfare." Warring against concupiscence and disorder so we can be ordered.

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: “LOVE & RESPONSIBILITY"

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY NOTES—FR. THOMAS LOYA—SPECIAL SESSION
USTREAMED FROM DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL/PAULINE BOOKS & MEDIA, CHICAGO
TO HESTER CAFÉ IN CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO YOU!
February 12, 2010
"Love & Responsibility" VJP2G, starting p. 101

When a man is attracted to a woman and vice versa, the couple doesn't always really know what's going on and therefore don't always know why it ends badly. JP2G says there are three elements in attraction: 1) SENSE--starts on the very basic sense-level. 2) COGNITION--Man knows this is woman, woman knows this is man. 3) IMPRESSION—this impression can remain even after they are not in each other's physical presence. Our interior senses can prolong the meeting/attraction. After an impression we can have a REACTION. A sense-impression is reaction to CONTENT. An emotional reaction is a reaction to a VALUE.

There is a hierarchy here:
SENSES
COGNITION
IMPRESSION
EMOTION
VALUE

There can be 3 results to the above:
1) sensuality—involving the physical senses
2) sentimental—emotional
3) integration—putting it all together, prioritized properly. All parts work together in beautiful harmony.

SENSUALITY alone can be consumeristic. It does not try to come into contact with the deeper realities, the person, true beauty. It's OK to see someone's body first and be physically moved (and maybe see some of the person coming through the body). But if it stays only at this level it can fool us into thinking we're in love, that it's love, into thinking that we really know the person.

p. 106—It's OK to see someone as "hot." There is nothing wrong with this. It's natural. Even children—who are not sexually developed—can be attracted to each other: puppy love. But this is not true love.

p. 107—We can't use a person's body apart from the whole person because it's an integral part of the person. If we do, it threatens to devalue the person. The couple may not realize that they are using each other because in their erogenous zones they feel good, they feel close. If relationships are based only on the sensual and stay there, they usually end badly, even in hatred, because the persons feel used.

p. 109—SENTIMENTALITY involves attraction to the whole person, male to female, female to male—not just their body and is not an urge to consume with the excitability of the physical. Sentimentality is the source of affection. There is an admiration for what is feminine by the masculine and vice versa.

In general, women are more sentimental than men, men are more sensual. Women by nature need a relational connectedness, men by nature are more connected by the physical and the perception of visual beauty. It doesn't mean that he's more of an "animal" than the woman, we're just hard-wired differently. It's so important that men and women understand this about each other.

If we stop at sensuality and sentimentality, we're still not at LOVE yet. But sensuality and sentimentality are like the building blocks of love.

p. 114—Love is full of drama. Persons, among all objects on earth, have an inner life. "Integration" means bringing things together as a whole. We need TRUTH and FREEDOM in order to integrate ourselves. If people are seeing things honestly, they'll have a greater experience of love. He will see her as a PERSON, she will see him as a PERSON, honestly.

LOVE is always a matter of the spirit, an interior matter. Love is not a feeling. Love is a spiritual state of freedom, truth and honesty. What's going on in the body alone doesn't constitute love.

p. 117--The value of the person is bound up in freedom which is of the will. If we say: "I can't help myself, we love each other." That's not love! You're not free! Love is not a compulsion. (Sentiment can be a compulsion, too.)

The objective value of love matters the most (not just the subjective value—how I experience love).

Love is about a choice to do what is better for the other person, regardless of how/what you feel (physically or emotionally). Again, it's OK to have physical and emotional elements (and it's good), but ultimately it's about love.

Q: WHAT IS TRUE LOVE?
A: You have to read the rest of "Love and Responsibility" and "Theology of the Body."Ha ha. Love is greater than the sum of its parts. It's a mystery. God is love. Love is very outward oriented to what is not just good but BEST for the other and doesn't count the cost to self.

We don't want to be JUST objective about love or JUST subjective. We want both, and to be integrated.

Q: WHAT IF SENSUALITY AND SENTIMENT GO AWAY IN A MARRIAGE EVEN FOR A LONG TIME?
A: God and the Church say: there's more to love than that. There's a covenant. Sensuality and/or sentiment often comes back. Couples go through dry periods. But they have to give it TIME. There's a process. Couples fall in love over and over again.

[CHECK OUT THE PROMISES MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE "HOLY FAMILY INSTITUTE" FOUNDED BY BLESSED JAMES ALBERIONE IN VIDEO BELOW]

Q: MEN TEND TO BE WOUNDED IN SENSUALITY, AND WOMEN TEND TO BE WOUNDED IN SENTIMENTALITY. HOW CAN WE HEAL IT?
A: People need to learn to see each other as man and woman again. "Who is he for her? Who is she for him?" What are their needs as God created us? [And Father said he's serious about finishing reading/studying L & R and TOB!]

Q: WHAT ABOUT SAME-SEX ATTRACTION?

A: This is a very hot topic in our culture. Don't have time tonight to go into it. But remember: the body doesn't lie. The body tells you who you are and who you are to be attracted to. That's why it's "THEOLOGY OF THE BODY." Same-sex attraction says there has been a disturbance in the development of a person and who they are ordered to be attracted to. But these are very complex issues and have to be dealt with fully and with compassion, but also with TRUTH. Go to Father's website: www.taborlife.org to ask him more about this. You can also check out his articles/talks on: www.catholicradiointernational.com

and the Theology of the Body section of www.catholicexchange.com

MEDIA LITERACY: PHOTOJOURNALISM PROJECT

PULITZER PRIZE WINNING PHOTOGRAPH (MEDIA LITERACY PROJECT)

“It’s not about pretty pictures. Photojournalism is the tool to help people see their life.”--John H. White (as quoted on Columbia College website where Professor White teaches photojournalism http://www2.colum.edu/cps/demo/portfolio.php )

I’ve chosen the work of Chicago photojournalist, John H. White. I say “the work” because he received a Pulitzer for his body of work, rather than just one photo or a series of photos, which seems to be a rather exceptional state of affairs. (White is halfway down in left-hand column. He is the only one receiving a Pulitzer for his body of work.) http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Feature-Photography

“1982--John H. White, Chicago Sun-Times
For consistently excellent work on a variety of subjects.”

I chose White because I was blessed to hear him speak at a regional CPA (Catholic Press Association) meeting, and I was very impressed by his spirituality, his humanity, his ethics, and what he had to say about the vocation of a photojournalist. The man can’t say more than a sentence without reference to God. He lives so close to God, and it shows in his work.

BIOGRAPHY:
John H. White was born in Lexington, North Carolina. His father, a preacher, gave him his first photography assignment when John was fourteen: to photograph the ruins and reconstruction his father’s church which had burned down.

White joined the staff of the Chicago Sun-Times in 1978, and received a Pulitzer for his body of work in 1982. The photo that he describes as “launching his career” is the photo below of a 1981 Lake Michigan baptism.

White has worked on various projects and books and has received many honors and awards since receiving the Pulitzer. Best of all, he has been teaching photojournalism at Columbia College (Chicago) since 1978, training several generations of photojournalists.

The following video is a celebration of White’s 30-year career at Columbia. Photojournalist as SUBJECT of the camera! LISTEN to the scores of cameras clicking away!

White did not have an easy life and experienced much prejudice getting his career off the ground. He says simply: People were “unkind” about giving him the “the good” photography jobs. But he believes that his life and work have been according to “God’s syllabus.”

White says that there are times when he will not take pictures—even when the competition is snapping away. These would be intimate times of grief, in the ICU, etc. Sometimes, he says, he has been so overwhelmed by the moment that he just didn’t take the shot. Because he’s in constant conversation with God, White prays before his shots. He interacts with his subjects, and constantly wears his camera around his neck like a third eye. He has been known to come upon a family reunion in a park, ask if he can take some pictures (no one knows who he is), and then hand the family a roll of the best pictures they will ever have of themselves and anonymously walk away.

Biography sources:
--CPA regional meeting, Cardinal Meyer Center, Chicago, September, 2009
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._White_(photojournalist)
--http://www.answers.com/topic/white-john

QUOTES:
“I get excited when I see God in the details.”
“Do all to the glory of God.”
“Those who don’t explore others deprive themselves of God’s precious gift of diversity.”
“People need love. You’re God’s tool.”
“Isn’t life beautiful just the same?”
“I don’t worry about anything. That’s an insult to God.”
“I get through the news and tragedies of the world because of the divine in nature.”
(He uses the word “replenish” a lot.)
“I want to be God’s picture-taking person.”
“Keep in flight.” (His website is http://www.keepinflight.com/)

So, after exploring the life of my photojournalist, which photo did I choose for this project? The photo below. When we think about Pulitzer prize winning photos, I think we usually think of something dramatic, negative, horrific. But White’s vision of life is about the ordinary, the magnificence in the everyday. When he was chosen to chronicle life in Chicago (particularly the African-American community) in the 70’s for the National Archives, he wanted to show the joy, the pride, the camaraderie in the life of the people that he photographed, and he did. He says that he made a conscious choice NOT to show the violence and crime. (And I wonder if this can also perpetuate the negativity.) In the best-selling book “The Tipping Point,” there’s a famous case-study of a neighborhood being repeatedly cleaned up (windows fixed, graffiti erased) and the crime went down drastically (it seemed the cleaning-up was the only variable). It was believed that if a neighborhood looked well-kept, it sent a message that people in this neighborhood were vigilant, would not tolerate crime, and that one should be on their best behavior here. If a neighborhood was run-down, it meant that nobody cared, nobody was watching.

If White is about “telling people their stories,” and letting people “sing their song,” then he is choosing to show people’s best side back to them, or rather the greatness in their ordinary, everyday actions, jobs, duties, responsibilities, hobbies, leisure, creativity. I tend to believe in the great value of the ordinary also, and memorized this poem when I was young:

“We see a tiny bird, and it reminds us that troubles can take wing and fly away,
and in the fragrance of one perfect blossom, a special sweetness fills an ordinary day.”

It’s interesting that this poem was also about “flight.” White takes a lot of pictures of gulls when frequenting the Lake Michigan lakefront (where he goes to pray in the morning).

The ballet dancers in the photo I chose are caught “in flight.” White said he prayed before taking this photo. He asked God for fifteen minutes of good light, but God was busy, so he asked for five minutes of good light, and he got it. I love black and white photos, and I love dance (because I don’t!) I admire people who can do such things with their bodies and, vicariously, I feel like I’m dancing and leaping through the air. The dancers are also young, and youth are usually full of hope.

When I first saw this photo, I didn’t even notice there were two dancers in the air, so this photo also teaches me to look deeper, look again, and keep on looking. I think these three ways of looking are the secret to finding the richness in the ordinary, to finding God in the ordinary, and God is love, so there is love everywhere.

I also chose this photo because I think there is something wrong with a culture that doesn’t dance. Africans (and African-Americans) are known for their gifts of dancing and movement. Even though this form of dance depicted (ballet) is more of a studied, European art form—dance is dance. This photo made me think of the African proverb: “Everything breathes, everything sings, everything dances.” Dancing to me denotes an irrepressible joy. Which I think we need more of.

We just had one of our young Sisters from Cameroon make her first profession in our chapel at our Motherhouse in Boston, and since dancing is part of the African liturgy/Mass, Sr. Neville Christine and her family danced in procession at the beginning of the Mass! (We’ve had our Samoan Sisters’ families dance in our chapel before, but this is the first time one of our own Sisters has danced in our chapel.) I feel like something has turned awfully right.

CONGRATULATIONS!

Sr. Neville Christine Forchap, FSP

We rejoice with Sr. Neville who made her first profession at our Motherhouse in Boston on February 6!

MOVIES: "DEAR JOHN"

Just in time for St. Valentine’s Day, “Dear John” is a love story based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks (“A Walk To Remember,” “The Notebook”). Judging from the popularity and solid romantic weavings of these earlier novels-to-movies (let’s just skip over “Nights in Rodanthe”), “Dear John” is going to be another favorite.

Set in Charleston, South Carolina, John (super-cute Channing Tatum) is a soldier who falls for a college student, Savannah (Amanda Seyfried), while he’s on a leave one summer. The chemistry is palpable and these two really seem meant for each other. But of course there are complications, and I don’t think I’m giving anything away when I say there is a “Dear John” letter involved.

There’s really nothing earth-shaking in the story or the relationship of John and Savannah, except that it’s refreshingly ordinary, and although the sexual tension can be cut with a knife, their blossoming, unselfish love includes other people: John’s reclusive Dad and a neighbor’s autistic son. There are different kinds of love here, all overlapping.

Savannah kind of sets the tone for both of them. She’s a good girl, he’s a reformed brawler, but they’re not so different that they don’t quickly find common ground. These are two very believable characters and two very good actors, so it’s easy to get caught up in their tale. The direction is seasoned and seamless. No gimmicks, not too much melodrama.

Critics despise two kinds of movies: comedies and sentimental tearjerkers, no matter how much audiences embrace them. Is “Dear John” a tearjerker? Not really. I didn’t shed any brine. But it does portray that kind of love that we all want (although the sacrificial aspects of their love are sometimes strained, outlandish, and a bit unfathomable). Actually, a weakness in the story is a never-satisfactorily-explained sort of faithlessness on the part of one of the lovers. But the human heart is fickle. But we don’t want to be reminded of that. Not by Nicholas Sparks. (Dude-what were you thinking? )

“Dear John” also reminds that unselfish love is really, really hard. Waiting can be really, really hard. I am reading “Love and Responsibility” (by the Venerable JP2G) which is so encouraging by its acknowledgment of this, and a philosophical dissecting of the same. During the movie, the Keith Green song kept going through my head: “You Put This Love In My Heart,” reminding me that only God can make us capable of truly self-giving love.

The acting—especially on the part of Tatum--is inspired (and I’m not just saying that because he’s super-cute). What many people don’t realize is that close-up, constantly emotive acting is the toughest kind of acting. While we may think soap operas are cheesy (albeit addictively cheesy), they are proving grounds where actors cut their teeth. Tatum masters a wide range of facial expressions and guymotions (guy-emotions: yeah, I just made that up) that make “Dear John” what it is. There’s a humility to his acting—as though he realizes he’s still new at this, but he’s also a complete, gifted natural. Okay, end of gush.

I don’t like being manipulated any more than the next movie-goer, but what’s wrong with tenderness? Isn’t that what the world needs more of?

“Dear John” never lags, and there are a few lovely twists at the end, but it also feels like there are too many endings, and the final ending is rushed and a little bit meh.

There’s one pre-marital sex scene (not terribly graphic) and one “really bad judgment on the part of a married person” scene. It’s strange to me that sex SCENES can still be PG-13, while three uses of just the “F” WORD warrant an automatic “R”-rating.

Nice modeling of dating conversations.

The war scenes felt authentic, but the lack of some kind of PTSD didn’t feel too honest.

OK. What's with gals wrapping their legs around guys when they kiss, or just say hello? I know this has been going on for a while now, but that doesn't make it OK in my book. It's too much. It's inappropriate. It's explicit. I know they don't mean it to be, but am I alone in this?

Nicholas Sparks seems to like to put actual WRITING in his novels/movies: “Message in a Bottle,”“The Notebook,” “Dear John”—could this pattern have something to do with the fact that he’s involved with the Creative Writing Department at Notre Dame?

Final verdict? Keep cranking ‘em out, Mr. Sparks!

OK—I’m going to put the actual trailer here. I don’t usually do that on purpose because then you’ll think: “I don’t need to read Hell Burns© review! I’ll just watch the trailer and make up my own mind!" OR “Hey, now that I’ve seen the trailer, I don’t need to see the movie!” I put it here to show you the acting chops of you-know-who. This is one trailer that is utterly faithful to the movie. It’s no better or worse than the movie. What you see here is what you’ll see in the movie.

OK, I just checked www.imdb.com and it's not just me. CT has no less than 5 films in development and 3 in production. Case closed.

"FAMILY PHOTOS"--MEDIA LITERACY PROJECT

BERMUDA, 1970's

MA'S KITCHEN, MASSACHUSETTS, 1990'S

MY BROTHER RALPH'S BACKYARD, MASSACHUSETTS, 2009

MY RELIGIOUS "FAMILY" (COMMUNITY) CHICAGO, 2009

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY FOR TEENS

THEOLOGY OF THE BODY STUDY GROUP—Patrick Reidy (substitute for Fr. Loya)

[Sr. Helena’s hubritical comments in brackets]

January 9, 2010
HOW CAN WE BRING THE TOB MESSAGE TO TEENS?

Patrick also teaches TOB in SPANISH! He can be contacted at http://www.taborlife.org/ He also teaches moral theology to teens.

How can we bring the TOB message to youth?? Things have really changed. The way the Catholic Faith was taught in the past doesn’t work today. Pat teaches in a very good Catholic school where the families and the youth are all into the Catholic Faith and even the youth WANT to live it, but it’s still very, very hard.

Young people need at least two other voices backing up what their parents are saying: their school and their pastors. Kids have one ear to their parents and one ear to the culture, and the culture is very, very enticing.

There are different ways to give the TOB message. Pat thinks Fr. Loya has the best approach. The movie “The Patriot,” shows how a parent had to make choices about raising kids in a war environment. The young people growing up today are dealing with, being exposed to (sexually) stuff that people used to live their lives without ever even hearing about or knowing what these things were.

[Fr. Samuel Medley SOLT—campus minister on several high school/college campuses in Corpus Christi says that sex is ALL his young people want to talk about.]
It’s important that we don’t try to BE a young person with them, but show them that we can walk around in their world to bring them higher.
--Let them know that you DO know MORE than they know about these topics (and so does God/the Church)

--It’s safe to talk about this stuff

When Pat asks teens “Why doesn’t Church want pre-marital sex?” Average teen: “I don’t know.” Catholic teens: “It’s a sin, intrinsically evil.” Then he asks them: “Is this going to stop your buddy from taking his girlfriend upstairs at a party?” They realize that they need something better for themselves and their friends.

The teens AREN’T going to be all mature about it—they still giggle, make fun, etc., but they are growing and being equipped. When Pat walked into the auditorium at the high school where he teaches, the boys started chanting "TOB! TOB!'

3 tenets of John Paul II’s New Evangelization: 1) new ardor/zeal 2) new methods 3) new expressions

Tell students: we need a new way to approach all of Catholicism: Catholicism is about having the best life, being our best selves, getting the most out of life.

REDEFINE TERMS (keep redefining/redirecting when they use improperly):
Happiness—Have them find examples of what the culture says happiness is. The Catholic definition is “fulfilling your nature” (from the Greeks). You can’t be fulfilled until you know who you are and live accordingly.

The job of the Church is to make happy/joyful people. Saints were the happiest people. The Church should just be cranking out saints.

Person—triptych. Vatican II document: Gaudium et Spes # 24—only the person is made as an end in themselves (the opposite of love isn’t hate it’s use) / man only discovers his true self by making gift of self / only Jesus fully reveals man to himself

Love--If you want to find yourself, give yourself away. “Don’t give a gift, BE a gift.”

[KIDS ABSOLUTELY NEED PHILOSOPHY.]

Many kids think they are the exact same as animals.
Teens might know something intuitively, but we need to equip them with language—and DRILL.
It’s not in the nature of a gift to expect something back. Gifts are freely given. (THAT’S THE DEF. OF LOVE.) And often it COSTS us.
[DO SOMETHING WITH AN ACTUAL GIFT BOX—GIVE IT TO THE TEENS AND THEN ASK FOR A GIFT BACK!]
We need to tell young people that the language is being hijacked from good philosophy, Catholicism, God.
Remember when “new Coke” came out? Why did they want to make a new one? To sell more. But it flopped—but the response was: “Classic Coke.” Same old coke, new packaging.
TEENS LOVE: “LANGUAGE OF THE BODY”!!!!!! TELLING THE TRUTH OR LYING WITH THE BODY. What speaks louder? THE BODY. “ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.” You can do examples of how we can say one thing with our words, another with our body. “I’m so happy to see you.” “I’m not sick,” etc.
WHAT’S DEEPER (GOD GIVES US LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS DEEPER & DEEPER INTIMACY):
I like you. I love you.
I love you. I love you & want to spend the rest of my life with you.
I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you. I want to give my life for you.
THREE SOURCES OF REVELATION: NATURE, SCRIPTURE, TRADITION
Do charades. Do an emotion (have cards and have them act them out to each other):ANGRY, FLIRTY, OVERJOYED
I can say ONE thing with my words, ONE with my body.
ASK ME WHAT I BELIEVE IN—NOT WHAT I DON’T BELIEVE IN. I BELIEVE IN: Truth, beauty & goodness.SEXUAL MORALITY IS NOT SAYING “NO” TO ANYTHING, IT’S SAYING “YES” TO THE GREATEST JOY/HAPPINESS THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN EXPERIENCE IN THEIR HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS.
VIRGINITY is a negative and a positive. What’s the negative? Not partaking in something good.What’s the positive? Integrity of body and soul. (Body and soul are integrated.) So tell them: “In marriage, you’re not going to LOSE your virginity! You’re going to increase your integrity.”
Ask them if they know any married couples who waited till marriage? They don’t say they “lost” their virginity. Do any of them have any regrets? Gee, I wish I slept with more people so I could compare you to an old girlfriend/boyfriend and think about them when where we’re making love.
We need FORTITUDE / COURAGE. Ask them: IS IT GOING TO BE HARD??
We don’t have to be GRAPHIC in our presentation of TOB. The biology is pretty simple. It’s not that hard. ;]
We need pre-emptive stuff, too. (Even if a kid has never heard a certain word YET….) This is a big objection to teaching TOB! [I believe in (about everything!): “You heard it first in the Catholic Church. In the proper context.”]
Parents are the “primary” teachers of “sex ed,” but doesn’t have to be exclusive. Other teachers should be supporting parents.
[ASK KIDS WHAT SATAN ATTACKS…(the most holy things).]
Every movie has the same plot (the hero). Why do we love it and keep going back? It’s stamped into our DNA. (Even the pagan religions.)
“supra-sensual”---JP2G’s term for the fact that the sensual/bodily points to something beyond the person (God). We should, in a sense, react to the sexual value of a person of the opposite sex. It’s what we do with that reaction.

How do you talk to young people who have "lost" their virginity? [“You can always start over” might sound like "just keep starting over.”] Ask WHERE HAVE I NOT FOUND THE DEEPER INTIMACY WITH GOD THAT I’M REALLY LONGING FOR?“The term ‘secondary virginity,’ isn’t that great because it makes it sound like you lost something, you’re second best, you’ll never be ‘as good.’” Actually, we can compromise our virginity even without having sex. It’s rather “restoring” your virginity. You CAN be whole again.

Katrina Zeno: long-term covenants with God always means:
--Shedding of blood (foreskin)
--Tearing of veil

If you’re not a good speaker, recommend books and Youtubes (Jason Evert for teens):

--“God’s Plan for You” (teens) His teens loved it! [Pauline Books & Media publication. Ahem.]
--“Real Love” (Marybeth Bonacci)
--pamphlets: Pure Love, Pure Manhood, Pure Womanhood (Jason Evert & Crystalina Evert)
--“Theology of His Body/Her Body” (Jason Evert)
--“Theology of the Body for Teens” (Ascension Press)
--“Theology of the Body for Teens” (also for Gr 7 & 8) DVD Fr. Tom Loya http://www.taborlife.org/ http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

MOVIES: "BOOK OF ELI"

YY 1/2

The latest in quite a spate of bleak apocalyptic (and post-apocalyptic) films, “The Book of Eli” adds a new dimension. Eli (eye-candy Denzel Washington, altho’ a bit scruffy here) is a lone wanderer in a post-war-to-end-all-wars America. But his meanderings have a goal: go West. Actually, the whole movie feels like the Wild West, complete with gun-slinging, saloons, shootouts at high noon. In his backpack, Eli carries a precious Bible, the last on Earth. How he knows that, well, just go with it or you won’t enjoy the movie. And you assuredly won’t enjoy the movie if you don’t like violence. Lots of righteous, blood-spurting, creative violence with surround-sound sound effects. This is pure violence as pure entertainment. The folks in my theater were laughing at the worst of it. Not because it was ludicrous or because the audience was insensitive, but because, somehow, it was meant to be funny in some absurd way. Perhaps it’s really a sarcastic violence more than anything. There are several completely unnecessary and ill-placed F-bombs on the lips of the man who wants Eli’s Bible for nefarious reasons, Carnegie, (Gary Oldman being his excellent, villainous bad self) and his henchmen.

How could a Bible be used for evil? Well, here’s where “Eli” gets interesting. Some say the Bible was used to start the Big War, but without saying how. (Made me think of those fundamentalist Christians who are eager to initiate Armageddon in the Middle East so Jesus will come back.) Carnegie wants to use it to control “the minds and hearts” of the survivors. Any which way, the Word is powerful. And can make people powerful for good or not so good. It is a “two-edged sword” in more ways than one. “Eli” seems to be saying that the Word can be the blueprint for a just, kind, ethical society OR, perhaps, for a brain-washed, kept-down, homogeneous, controllable society. The Word of God (as He once put Himself in our hands as a helpless Baby, and is now in our hands as even more vulnerable Bread) can be used any way we choose. For now. The fact that the Detroit-based Hughes Brothers (twins!) made this film (one an atheist, one not), makes the story all the more intriguing. Are we detecting input from both?

It’s a kind of message film, but it’s clever. It makes you think. The rest of the movie? It’ll keep you hanging on to see what happens, but as one of our Samoan sisters (who’s a big movie buff) says: “You can always tell an American film from a European film. The American films are sooooo unrealistic!” But Denzel pulls it off as few others could.

In one way, “Eli” is about books. The future of books, the preservation of books (and literacy for that matter). But are books and even words sometimes being treated as “things,” as “objects” by Hollywood? Sci-fi and apocalyptic movies (e.g., “The Day After Tomorrow”) always dutifully mention and/or show all the classics that would have to be salvaged for civilization, but does anyone today even want to read books? If Hollywood cares so much about literature and books and words, could dialogue in films possibly be more nuanced, intelligent, thought-provoking, diverse, expressive? The “Bible-as-literature” is perhaps the best a pluralistic society can do, and we cannot deny the Bible as part of the fabric of the founding of America, but the Word of God is so much more. God demands our total selves, our total allegiance, like ancient Israel achieved at times in their history, and as our other siblings of Abraham, our Muslim brothers and sisters, remind us by their devotion.

OTHER STUFF:

--Who did I sit beside at the screening of “Eli”?? None other than the proprietors of Chicago’s own, all-natural, scrum-diddly-umptious ELI’S CHEESECAKE!!! (They were giving out free cheesecake at the end of the film.) I didn’t make the “Eli” connection till I completely left the cinema. Duuuuuuuuuh! http://www.elischeesecake.com/

--One can’t help but think of Haiti, looking at the bombed-out environs. And—speaking of Haiti--has not Pat Robertson borne out the fact that one can mold God and His Word into weapon with one’s tongue at least?

--What is with Hollywood’s obsession (besides box office) with Doomsday? It’s kind of scary, because Hollywood is often prescient in its subject matters….

--It’s a known fact that those in the upper echelons of Hollywood actually do have a penchant for collecting rare books.

--“Eli” gets off to a very slow start.

--Eli wears Mardi Gras beads.

--Shadows of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, when the Jewish people re-find the lost Law/Scriptures.

--The costumes? Very tailored, very chic “Apocalique,” (remember “Derelique” homeless fashions in “Zoolander”?). The chick with the broken shopping cart has a Cyndi Lauper vibe. And excessive use of “Is that you behind those Foster Grants?” pilot sunglasses.

--Machete vs. chainsaw? Goliath goes down.

--What’s valuable in the future?? Hot stock tip: Chapstick.

--Denzel Washington is just so great, isn’t he? One of the best actors of his generation, crowd pleasing, versatile, oozing integrity, raises the bar of any movie he graces. I read in the New York Times Magazine once that he projects the persona of the kind of man women trust, because they can tell he’s a “good man.”

--On second thought, the violence IS a bit ridiculous when nobody gets hurt. I wonder what our Iraq/Afghanistan vets think of this kind of portrayal of violence.

--From a Media Literacy point of view, is the outré violence just a money-making element or do the movie-makers feel it’s an intrinsic part of the work? Is violence the sugar to make the medicine of God’s Word go down?

--Like "Avatar," is exciting, entertaining violence being used to tell us violence isn't the way?

--I couldn’t help thinking: bread and circus, bread and circus. Is that where we are as a society? Have we just accepted violence at some fundamental level?

MOVIES: “SHERLOCK HOLMES”

The movie "Sherlock Holmes" is many things, as is the old boy himself. This new take on the world's most famous and favorite pipe-chomping sleuth is: a macabre-lite dark comedy; a psychological/crime/supernatural thriller; as well as an action-packed detective period-piece. Holmes (the always fabulous Robert Downey, Jr.) is an inventor, a recluse, a spy, a master of disguises, a scientist, a genius, an eccentric, a musician, a cold and calculating misanthrope, an able-bodied fighter (in some respects a hybrid of "Monk," "Psych" and "House"). He teams up with a youthful Dr. Watson (Jude Law) to solve mysteries (crimes) that interest him and thus do good for England and humanity.

Their friendship is a type of mutual admiration society, though Watson always seems worse for the wear due to their acquaintance. The only thing that comes between them is Watson's impending marriage (which will break up their well-oiled team), so Holmes does some obvious and ill-appreciated (by Watson) sabotaging of the relationship. But Holmes' life is not devoid of romance either. An old flame (Rachel McAdams) with a shadowy, wrong-side-of-the-law past resurfaces and unsettles Holmes in more ways than one, setting him off on what turns out to be a world-saving endeavor.

What's in it for Holmes? It's all a very serious game for him (and Watson can't resist the lure of whatever his friend is up to, either). But Holmes also seems to feel the pull of the dark side and must keep himself in check. The new "SH" involves lots of chases and firing of pistols and oh-so-debonair Victorian haberdashery punctuated by clever, witty--although ear-straining--British banter. What better way to introduce a new generation to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's indelible, quirky investigator? If the public votes with their wallets, there will be sequels ("SH" ends as a very ripe cliffhanger, or "suspension bridge hanger"). If it works, director Guy Ritchie got away with a rather "intelligent" movie. It's great fun to listen to Holmes spilling about what clues he uncannily observes and puts together, as well as his mental sparring with the good doctor.

In the end, reason, logic and good science (used in the employ of the good) defeats fear, hocus-pocus and techno-madness. Elementary, my dear Watson.

OTHER STUFF:

--Downey: not a bad accent, that.

--It took some getting used to Downey's New York Italian looks and diminutive body-type filling in for Holmes, but in the end, it flies. As much as I loved watching Basil Rathbone as a kid, I tried it again recently, and it is insufferable.

--I think if we get sequels (j'espere!) the characters can be developed even more.

--Downey has turned Holmes into a bit of a magician in the way he deports himself. Nice.

--What's with the, like, 37 references to the "ginger midget"? This is especially unfunny after "South Park" fans (zombies) beat up red-headed kids at a school in California.

--There is a bit of a comeback of all things Victorian these days. See this insightful article about "steampunk" (named for all those steam-powered pistons, gears and whirl-a-gigs on Victorian machines): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1945343,00.html

--The soundtrack tells the story so well! It's like a story in stereo: visual and audial! You could close your eyes and write your own story to it.

--The surroundings are perfectly dripping, drab, dingy, dreary, drizzly and Dickensian.

--How come all the fight scenes have IRISH music playing?

--WAY too many ravens.

--(Lord Blackwood) It just dawned on me that the devil never promises what he can't give. He only promises what he CAN give in THIS life. He never even falsely promises eternal life—the thing we're all supposed to want. Only Jesus promises (and delivers) eternal life. And we are so STUPID that we're willing to settle for this life only. Blast! How dumb can we be? Thank God HE still loves us. BTW: "Revelation 1:18" is about JESUS—may He always be praised--not Old Scratch.

--Movie is a tad long. That really long fight scene with the French giant and the ship slipping into the water was boring and took us out of the story.

--Ooooh! It just dawned on me—when SH sees Mary's ruby-diamond necklace in the rubble, was that plot point ever tied up? Or is that for a sequel? I'll betcha Mary is T-R-O-U-B-L-E. I'll betcha she's a plant of…curse you, Professor Moriarty!!!

--The wicked-good Eddie Marsan plays his great top-hatted grouch!

--Why didn't Lord Coward just shoot SH through the smoke? Puh-lease….

--Although I liked this movie, a review on www.rottentomatoes.com called it "SH for the ADD generation...jerking and twisting..." which I totally agree with!

MAGI ARE MODELS OF FAITH, REASON, SCIENCE

Wise Men Were Truly Wise, Says Pope
Notes Willingness to Mix Science and Faith

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 6, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The Wise Men from the East were not afraid of what would today be considered the "contamination" of science by the Word of God, says Benedict XVI. Instead, they were truly wise, avoiding self-sufficiency and ready to seek answers from others. The Pope reflected today on the true wisdom of the Magi when he addressed those gathered in St. Peter's Square to pray the midday Angelus."The Evangelist Matthew […] stresses how the Magi arrived in Jerusalem following a star, seen at its rising and interpreted as a sign of the birth of the king proclaimed by the prophets, that is, of the Messiah," the Holy Father said. "Arriving in Jerusalem, however, the Magi were in need of the indications of the priests and scribes to know exactly the place where they should go, namely, Bethlehem, the city of David. The star and sacred Scriptures were the two lights that guided the way of the Magi, who appear to us as models of genuine seekers of truth."

The Pontiff noted how the Magi were wise men who "scrutinized the stars and knew the history of peoples.""They were men of science in a broad sense," he continued, "who observed the cosmos regarding it almost as a great book full of divine signs and messages for man."But, the Pope affirmed, their learning, "far from making them self-sufficient, was open to further divine revelations and appeals. In fact, they were not ashamed to ask for instructions from the religious leaders of the Jews. They could have said: We can do it alone, we have no need of anyone, avoiding, according to our mentality today, every 'contamination' between science and the Word of God.

"Instead, the Magi listened to the prophecies and welcomed them and, no sooner were they on the way to Bethlehem, than they again saw the star, almost as a confirmation of the perfect harmony between human seeking and divine Truth, a harmony that filled the hearts of these genuine wise men with joy."SurprisedThe search undertaken by the Magi culminated "when they found themselves before 'the Child with Mary, his Mother,'" Benedict XVI added, noting that this was a further indication of their humility."They could have remained disappointed, even scandalized," he said. "Instead, as true wise men, they were open to the mystery manifested in a surprising way, and with their symbolic gifts, demonstrated that they recognized in Jesus the King and Son of God."The Pope pointed to a final detail to confirm "the unity between intelligence and faith: It is the fact that 'warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.'"

"It would have been natural to return to Jerusalem, to Herod's palace and the Temple, to proclaim their discovery," he said. "Instead, the Magi, who chose the Child as their sovereign, protected him in concealment, in keeping with Mary's style, or better, with that of God himself. And thus, as they appeared, they disappeared in silence, content, but also changed by the encounter with Truth. They had discovered a new face of God, a new royalty: that of love."The Holy Father concluded with a prayer to the Mother of Bethlehem: "May the Virgin Mary, model of true wisdom, help us to be genuine seekers of the truth of God, capable of living always the profound harmony that exists between reason and faith, science and revelation."

NUNS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN

JOHN PAUL II FILM FESTIVAL IN MIAMI--OPENING NIGHT

MOVIES: “TAPIOCA”

(This review may only be shared in its entirety.)

I was asked to review this movie for "The Catholic New World," Chicago's Archdiocesan Newspaper (being that I am its storied movie reviewer). However, the language and jokes are just so lewd and coarse, I could never do that. Note to guys everywhere: Women hate this kind of humor. If we say we like it, we're just pretending, like we say we like sports. And we think you should hate it, too.

There are very few women in the film. Only two young women who get dissed (and avenged), two bimbos, and Queen Clothilde. Yes, the dead French saint, but it works. It's kind of unfortunate that this isn't family viewing (an option was obviously made for "adult fare" to preserve the authenticity of the worlds of stand-up comedians, the street, addiction and guy-dom.) You know when a joke is off-color, but the general concept of the joke and its execution are really, really funny? That's "Tapioca."

Also, the DVD says "2007," and we try to review mostly current films.

That being said, this is actually a very interesting, though at times rather staged, movie. Call it "gutter theology"—literally. "Pipes" (Chicago stand-up comedian Mike Houlihan) is a down-on-his-luck Chicago used car salesman and TV pitchman. He descends into homelessness because of booze and the fact that he's basically a jerk. Or "slimebag" as St. Peter calls him. Yes! Another dead saint that totally works. Not corny. I really liked this grizzled St. Peter with his fisherman's slicker, sitting in a southside Irish pub. Oh yes, and Pipes is a racist. But the tables are turned on him by "Nuts" (Ben Vereen!)—a mysterious, crazy, homeless guy with one of the cutest, shiniest-coated homeless dogs ever. The tables are COMPLETELY turned on Pipes, and he is forced to eat his words, almost to his utter degradation. It reminded me of the Israelites wandering in the desert—who complained to God that they would die there. And so they did. The Houlihan/Vereen thing also reminded me of the famous episode of "All in the Family" with Archie Bunker and Sammy Davis, Jr. (one of the greatest moments in TV as far as I'm concerned).

Out of all the things I like about "Tapioca," my favorite thing is that it's LOCAL, GRASSROOTS FILMMAKING. If I didn't know some guys like Pipes here in Chicago, I may not even totally get "Tapioca." It's that local. I'm from Boston, have lived in various cities around the country, and only Chicagoans say "goofy." A lot. Hollywood can do a "version" of Chicago, but Chicago can do Chicago best. "Streetwise." "Fermilab." "Little Company of Mary." Unintelligible to the rest of the country. Yay.

What really DIDN'T work in this movie was—alas—the title! And it's almost as though the filmmakers knew it, because they keep bludgeoning us over the head with the word and the convoluted concept. This movie should have been called, pardon MY French now: "Saving A**." The tagline should have been the wonderful advice (among a lot of other wonderful advice in the film): "Think about saving someone else's a** for a change." THAT'S what this movie is all about!!! (It would also have given a clue to the rough nature of the film.) Someone called in to Relevant Radio recently (our Midwestern Catholic radio station) and asked, "How can I make Christmas holy?" After seeing "Tapioca," I thought to myself, "simple": "Think about saving…."

It's hard to classify this film—and that's good, too! Truly experimental, ground-breaking stuff. There's lots of improv woven in (lots of stellar sob stories from panhandlers—just like we've all heard—that deserve remuneration just because they're so entertaining), cartoons, one-liners, soliloquies, a sudden busting out of rhymes (hip-hop), a kind of jazzy vaudevillian soundtrack (for Pipes is a sort of tragic clown), a brilliant scene where Pipes meets an old Black street preacher—this actor is incredible. I laughed so hard and rewatched a few times to catch each flawless second/detail.

There are many poignant moments, like whenever the homeless Danny shows up: an abused child in an adult's infirm body. There is a realism, a verite to most of the film—which, of course, contrasts with the self-conscious "staged" parts, and the tongue-in-cheek parts, and all the other parts. The dialogue is more real than the most realistic screen dialogue--because it doesn't go for verisimilitude—it feels more like a partially-scripted "reality show" or like "The Office." It's like a prolonged, enhanced sketch comedy. It doesn't feel "all over the place," but rather like a variety-pack with a big dose of crazy.

Pipes' humor is that Irish, melancholic, crying-in-my-soup brand of humor. It reminded me of the classic 1960's documentary, "Salesman," about a Boston-Irish Bible salesman whose sales are going down because of his increasing cynicism.

"Tapioca" deals with lots of stigmas: mental illness, alcoholism, losing one's job, homelessness, LOTS of urinating and defecating….

There's a bit of Dickens' "Christmas Carol" to "Tapioca." This dark comedy is also a story of redemption. Men discovering their own and others' humanity. Wanting to discover it. The "brotherhood of man." Who won't go to heaven? "Those who forget what it means to be a human being," warns the gatekeeper. There is a meeting of the minds, a rough coming together of Black Mississippi-bred Christian faith and White Irish Catholicism. It reminded me also of the movie "Crash," where people REALLY say what they're REALLY thinking without holding back. And it's for the better. Gets things in the open air where they can be dealt with.

Religion is not icing in "Tapioca." It's the entrée. All our good deeds are written in the Big Book. God is real. The divine is poking through all over the place.

Besides Mike Houlihan, Mark Borchardt, and Ben Vereen (Emmy and Tony Award Winner—"Roots," "All That Jazz"), "Tapioca" features Gregory Hollimon ("The Fugitive," "Strangers with Candy") and Tim Kazurinsky ("SNL"). http://www.tapiocathemovie.com/

MEDIA TECHNOLOGY: HD FLIP VIDEO CAMERA

JOIN US!

Want to print this out as a flyer? http://www.hellburns.terapad.com/ (Look for "Church History Flyer")

"Da Vinci Code"? "Angels and Demons"?

Do you know your Church history???

Church History Study

20-Week Overview of 2000 years!

Pick up where Acts of the Apostles left off!

"EPIC—A Journey Through Church History" Jeff Cavins DVDs and a facilitator!

JANUARY 16—JUNE 26, 2010

WHEN: Saturday mornings 10:30AM—12:00PM

WHERE: PAULINE BOOKS & MEDIA 172 N. Michigan Ave. (between Lake and Randolph)

MATERIALS: Optional workbook $25, optional timeline chart
COST: $40
Pre-registration required: 312-346-4228 or HELRAPHAELFSP@aol.com

(Sorry, payment not refundable after Jan. 16.)
It's the greatest story…NEVER told!

REGISTER NOW!

Name:_________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:______________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip:________________________________________________________________________________ Phone:_____________________ Email:____________________________________________________________
Method of payment: CASH CHECK VISA MC
CC#__________________________________________________________EXP.__________
TOTAL: $____________________________

MOVIES: “AVATAR”

Call me a CGI philistine, but I don't really see what's so technically DIFFERENT about "Avatar" from the other fine SPFX-laden movies these days (even after seeing it in IMAX 3-D), but I will take the film world's word for it that this is a ginormous leap forward. The biggest technological leap forward that I was ever able to perceive on screen is still "Star Wars" (and--I'm serious--the pioneering "Veggie Tales").

"Avatar" is not all about action and special effects, however. There is superlative acting by Sam Worthington* (the soldier), Sigourney Weaver (the chain-smoking scientist), Stephen Lang (the ruthless Colonel). The story is entertaining and satisfying. The banter is amusing and truth-telling.

"Avatar" documents the soldier's struggle. The soldier is always in the middle. Always the one who pays the most: with body, soul, conscience, sanity. (That is, the soldier pays the most after the "collateral damage" innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire.) A soldier's intentions are not necessarily those of the war machine behind him/her (big business, big science, multi-nationals, the military, the government), and the soldier may not always realize this till he/she is in deep.

Jake Sully is a wheelchair-bound Marine who is nobody's first choice for a mission to the moon Pandora where a priceless substance called "unobtanium" is found "below the ground." It's the new petrol that Earth (led by the USA, of course) must have by any means necessary.

Jake goes to Pandora as a native avatar (the natives—the Na'vi--of Pandora are blue, nine-feet tall and have a culture/dress/jewelry/weapons/beliefs/language very similar to Native Americans). Like the movie "Surrogate," people are immobile in a bed-like device while their avatar is active.

Jake is just following orders, doing a job on Pandora--but his heart is strong, good and fearless, which is readily recognized by the natives, especially the chief's daughter, Neytiri, (Zoe Saldana—superlative voice-acting). The natives agree to teach him their ways (as Jake secretly reports back to the Colonel and Grace, the scientist). But when Jake realizes the Na'vi will never move from their uber-valuable home, and the expedition to extract the unobtanium is going ahead at whatever cost, he must choose sides.

What is so thoroughly new and earth-shaking (cosmos-shaking) to me about "Avatar," is its theology. The Na'vi live in harmony with nature (although they kill animals for food, but ask forgiveness of each animal they kill—like Native Americans) and worship a Mother Goddess who is completely transcendent and outside of nature. (Therefore, this is not pantheism, panentheism, or even New Age). We never see her, but the Divine is firmly a character, sustaining life and intervening. Something like the concept of Providence. The Na'vi even say at a certain point: "God will provide." We haven't really seen this kind of a God in the movies before. If there is a mention of God in movies, it's often a kind of magical, God-as-Santa, God-as-a-just-in-case-cover-all-the-bases-God, God-as-superstition, or fleeting references to a rather distant, occasionally meaningful Judaeo-Christian God ("Christian" films and some African-American films are an exception, because God is either central or taken seriously or both).

"Avatar" presents a rather sound natural theology. God is beyond nature, but acting upon and within nature. Nature is presented according to "The Gaia Theory": all of Nature is one giant, interactive, interlocking, entirely interdependent living organism, starting at the sub-atomic level. Usually, the Gaia Theory (a scientific explanation) is presented without reference to God; and religion tends to teach only about God and humans without reference to Nature. "Avatar" brings the two together.

We are so individualistic that we need this message of our profound organic connection--that only modern science could have concretely revealed to us! Yay, modern science! This is ultimately what http://www.themanhattandeclaration.org/ is all about. Our profound interconnectedness.

Extremists at both ends of the environmental movement are actually reading from the same playbook ("extremes meet"). Both those who trash Mother Nature with impunity and those who believe humans are a scourge/plague on the face of the Earth that should be eliminated believe—falsely—that HUMANS ARE NOT A PART OF NATURE. We most certainly are! If we could only recognize our God-designed, God-planned, God-willed "naturalness," which begins with "bodiliness," (Theology of the Body, anyone?) we would all be on the right track. Why else could St. Francis say: Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Brother Wolf? Was he New Age? Pagan? I think not.

Kudos to writer-director James Cameron (although "Avatar" is obviously not a complete, Christian worldview) for filling in the blanks and connecting the dots between God, man and nature. I really do believe that it's time we started to see more of this convergence on the silver, TV and computer screen. Hollywood's basic silence about God is very unnatural and distressing. We need to see more of this GOD AS EVERYTHING. GOD AS PRIMARY. God who is the Source of all life. Our life. God who is our all. God whom we can and must rely upon. God to whom we have the most basic, fundamental, forever relationship. God who is benevolent and whom we can trust. God, without whose constant love and solicitude we would instantly non-be. God to whom we owe everything (Neytiri: "all energy is borrowed and must be given back some day"). Cameron's script says that we shouldn't be focused on one substance from the earth (oil or "unobtainium"), but on the whole earth as a whole. And what is oil but an energy source? The point is clearly made that God is the energy source we all need to be in touch with first, from whom all life and healing and necessities will flow and be taken care of. WOWZA. (Unfortunately, this worldview seems only to apply to Pandora, not anywhere else. But it's a start.)

A word about the women in "Avatar." The female soldiers are all tougher-than-thou, swaggering broads (OK, Michelle Rodriguez really IS tough) who exemplify the male paradigm better than men. Newsflash: This is Feminism 1.0. Can we please see women in traditionally male-held occupations who are, well, a little softer? Who don't look like they're going to suddenly spew tobacco on my shoes at any minute? You see, if we can be women on screen rather than men, this means we've arrived. This means that we don't have anything to prove, that the female paradigm is legit. "We're not there in the real world yet," you say? Well, how about using the media to hasten the day? Is it not arguable that shows like "The Cosby Show" portrayed what can be, or rather a section of the population that existed, but had no visibility in the popular imagination? Practice can precede precept. The female Na'vi are also just female males. They are hunters and warriors. There are NO pregnant Na'vi chicks, and there are NO children nowhere. Only when our emotional heartstrings are being pulled at the end –SPOILER ALERT!—and the Na'vi's home is ready to be fire-bombed do we hear: "There are children and babies down there!" Um, OK—we'll take your word for it (and we've already seen lots of crowd shots). All I could think of was the nomadic Neanderthals. It's believed they went extinct for many, many reasons, but one of them was the lack of division of tasks. Pregnant women and infants went on the hunt. I shudder to think. (There was no way to cook or preserve food—it was hand-to-mouth.)

This is a film squarely about culture, about God, and about the colossal shooting-oneself-in-the-foot foolishness of "might makes right." It made me think: who COULD kick the butt of the "just take whatever you want" United States portrayed in "Avatar"? Hmmm, Mother Nature, perhaps? I have huge doubts about where "global warming" is actually going (I've read Al Gore, the "disaster" scientists who says it's too late to do ANYTHING, and the "denying" scientists who say we're going to be fine), but if you "you-know-what" in your own bed or "you-know-what" where you eat, you're going to have to sleep in it and eat it.

OTHER STUFF:

--Jake has good instincts. And shouldn't all the awesome technology he's using also be used for the wonder, fun, exploration, and joy Jake wants to use it for in the beginning (not just for profiteering and destruction)? But in the end, isn't he dumb for not seeing the big, destructive picture he was an integral part of? But in the end, wasn't he smart to know how to win the respect of the tribe back?

--Wasn't Jake cruel to let Neytiri fall in love with him (an avatar!)? But of course there are two examples in the movie (don't wanna spoil it) when/where the real J & N meet....

--J & N are like online dating. You get to know what's inside a person first (if they're honest) and then you meet in the flesh....

--This coming together of real and virtual worlds is another huge theme of "Avatar." At a certain point, I wasn't really distinguishing too much (I "fell for it"!), and by the end, there's a total enmeshment during the battle and of course after....

--I was disappointed by the small IMAX 3-D at Navy Pier, Chicago. First of all, what happened to those huge nausea-inducing-side-of-20-barns-size screens? And the 3-D wasn't all that. But, I was in the first row. And my 3-D glasses were smudgy. And maybe I wasn't supposed to have my 3-D glasses smashed against my eyes, but perched on the end of my nose. And maybe they were getting all foggy because I ran to the theater in a snowstorm. And maybe my eyes are aging and I need real glasses.

--"Avatar" is available in 2-D, IMAX 3-D, Digital 3-D, and Real D 3-D. Say wha????

--I thought the stakes could have been higher than Jake wanting his legs back. And he was never in any real danger, only his avatar was. If there had been some kind of life-and-death CONNECTION between avatar Jake and real Jake, that would have totally upped the ante.

--"Avatar," set in the future, refers to wars in the past with Venezuela and Nigeria….hmmm. What do these two countries have in common?

--If the "Mother Goddess" is outside of and acting on "Mother Earth," where's the yin and the yang? Why is it OK to say "Mother," but not "Father"?

--We don't seem to see any worship/adoration/praise of God in "Avatar," but petition, trust and providence is a good start.

--Like "Book of Eli," is Cameron using exciting, entertaining violence to tell us that violence isn't the way?

--1/17/10 New York Times crossword puzzle already using "Tree of Souls"!

--My definition of Virtual Reality: ANY media representation of reality. If the FULL gift of the bodily presence is not there, it's VR. To put it positively: VR can extend a PART of the gift of the bodily presence in space and time.

--For me, the very simple difference between reality and VR is the body.
1. God created us as bodies. 2. Bodies define us. 3. Bodies are not optional.
Even though it seemed like Jake was really getting in touch with his body and nature and animals on Pandora, he was not. His body was in a pod. He may have been able to experience scent, touch, taste, etc., neurologically only, but—that ain't livin'. Of course, as a paraplegic, this is the ONLY way he could experience being ambulatory again. But it still wasn't his own legs.

--At a certain point Jake says: "Now 'out there' is the true world and here is the dream." Will we ever get to that point as we develop VR? Are we already there? Made me think of Native Americans and the importance they put on DREAMS, a kind of virtual reality! While they were awake, they were also very aware of the "spirit world," which--I think I read somewhere that along with the dreams they believed came from the spirit world--was more real to them than "reality." Interesting. And the Native Americans didn't have the media gadgets that we have today. I'm not even sure that they all had written languages.

--The Na'vi call the earthlings' avatars "dream walkers." And when one disconnected avatar falls to the ground mid-sentence, a Na'vi picks up the body and says: "These are demons in false bodies!" Hmmmm.

--This is a true humanist movie. Yay! Humans (or humanoids) have dominion (not domination) over the earth (or Pandora) and are called to be good stewards. Yay!

--Interesting use of the word "natives" and "aliens." Who's who? When and where?

--Hurrah for the hammerhead rhinos!

--The ultimate cynicism of the Colonel: It will always come to force. Force is the only way to get things done.

--Could an avatar ever be made of organic material? Can organic and synthetic materials ever be fully fused? (It's being attempted as we speak.)

--"Avatar" seems to be James Cameron's idea of utopia (or he is just tapping into the Joseph Campbell deep mythology school of filmmaking).

--The Na'vi "mate for life."

--If I could ask James Cameron ONE question, it would be: Why did you make a THEOLOGICAL film? He didn't have to. It could have been about "the Force" or just life energy. This is THE most theological film (centered squarely on the absolute necessity of God) that I have ever seen.
Seems I have my answer in this interview with "Entertainment Weekly" (1/22/10) p. 35. The magazine was quoting some comments on the film and Cameron was replying.
COMMENT: "This movie in all aspects was the best movie ever, the Holy Spirit spoke to me all the way through.... I am convinced this was of God."
Cameron: "Well, that's nice. Forget about the divine or the mystical. I think it's really more about being in touch with the unconscious.... The more you are in touch with that kind of unconscious dream state, the more you're in touch with the audience."
The question still remains why he DID make it theological, though, although Cameron goes on to state that he doesn't always know why he makes the choices he does in his films and can't explain it.

--The audience clapped at the end.

AFTER THE GOLDEN GLOBES 1/10:

--Cameron explained his movie thus: "We are all connected, and we're all connected to the earth. If we have to go to a moon with blue people to understand that, so be it."
___
*Worthington has mastered that American soldier look in his eye, and he's not even American. He resembles a cross between a young (singer) Everlast and wrestler John Cena. Worthington was in "Terminator Salvation" and was seriously considered to play James Bond in "Casino Royale" which went, of course, to Daniel Craig (BIG MISTAKE).

____________________

From an email I received:

ANONYMOUS:
Maybe I'll say Pope Benedict XVI and your "Catholic New World" review are at odds on the theology of "Avatar."
Did you read AP's quotes from L'Osservatore Romano and Vatican Radio on the movie? Supposedly they "reflect Pope Benedict XVI's views on the dangers of turning nature into a 'new divinity.'"
And then there's Sister Helena (the Lib) "connecting the dots between God, man and nature."
We also have the decorated Marine veteran alderman of the 11th ward who says, the film makes Marines "look like lunatics." He added, "We are a good, generous country that helps people. They never mentioned America but when you have the eagle, globe and anchor -- the Marine Corps emblem -- it has to be America." And Tom Roeser (Catholic conservative) echoed that with "This is the only time I ever sat in a theater where people were cheering the forest and the blue people, attacking ex-Marines."

MY RESPONSE:
I knew "Avatar" would cause a stir (the movie itself and any halfway positive review, like mine).

There are two major points of "controversy": First, the portrayal of not just the (thinly-veiled) U.S.-led "Earth" military, but how big government, big science, big business (multi-nationals, not just the U.S.), all work together for better or for worse. Second: the huge theological underpinnings of the world of the Na'vi (on the fantastical animated planet).

First: The "military-industrial complex" (as you know, this term was coined by Eisenhower). Although "Avatar" makes a kind of caricature out of each character representing military, science, business, government, "Avatar" is actually an ode to the individual SOLDIER, doing all the dirty work, putting their life on the line, getting caught up in moral dilemmas. It is interesting that "Jake," the soldier is recognized as having a "very pure spirit" by the Na'vi. Jake is not against violence or use of force, only if it is used immorally. If you read my full review: http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2009/12/movies-avatar.html I really bring this out. I chopped this piece from the CNW review because I wanted to focus on the "God" part and I only have 450 words. eek!. "Avatar" really warranted a longer review to do it justice and avoid confusion. (Please read my whole review, even though it's lengthy.)

Second: I knew people would cry "New Age"! with regard to the God/religion element in "Avatar," but it's not. Unfortunately, what happened, (Catholic News Agency for one) is that it got called "Gnosticism"! "Avatar" is the exact opposite! There is a great lack of critical thinking here and ignorance of the actual meaning of words and concepts. The God/religion in "Avatar" is concrete. It's not a fuzzy "spirituality," it's a concrete nature religion. "Religion" means "to bind," "to connect." Religion deals in tangibles. "Spirituality" deals in just that: the spiritual, the unseen, the often "whatever you want it to be." As I mentioned, the religion is very similar to Native American religions. There is a transcendent God over all who gives and sustains everything, all life. It's a Mother Goddess (see my blog review for my problems with that). The amazing thing to me is that we don't see this kind of COMPREHENSIVE God (of whatever ilk) in the movies. Ever. God is always kept at a safe distance with a small role to play (if any). The entire ending of "Avatar" depends on GOD. And not "deus ex machina" either. GOD is everything, God is integral, God is absolutely necessary. Everything depends on God. This is the point I was trying to make.

Something else that has been going on lately with movie reviews/critiques: people are taking anything that is said by anybody in Rome about a movie and saying "the Vatican declares..." even though nothing has been said in an official capacity or by people with the duty to speak for various offices, etc. Taking the Pope's words out of context and applying them is not good either. In the movie "Avatar," nature is NOT worshipped, is NOT divine, but is dependent on an outside God for life. Actually, if one reads the Pope's strong pro-Creation talk from Jan. 1 (from which the cautionary words about making nature divine were taken), they would be found to be more in SUPPORT of "Avatar"'s respect for nature/living in harmony with nature, actually!

I have great respect for Tom Roeser and his writings. But what is being portrayed in "Avatar" is a (fictional) immoral action by the Marines/U.S./multinational-army-representing-Earth, which nobody should want to defend.

In the end, this is a fantasy. Pot-shot at U.S./military? Perhaps, but not a cheap shot. Again, Jake, the soldier is a hero (who never ceases being a soldier/warrior).

I would suggest you see the movie for yourself and see if what I'm saying isn't true....

ANONYMOUS:
thanks again, Sister -- you have a fresh approach, without an obvious agenda -- that's why you're sometimes dangerous.

MY RESPONSE:
ha ha--basically what i do is write a rambling, freestyle, non-linear, no-holds barred review for my blog. then i trim that down and edit it like crazy to be much more formal and non-first-person and appropriate for CNW. 450 words is the standard length of my review for CNW.
thanks for saying i don't have an agenda cuz i like to think that. i try to come at it very honestly AND unsuspiciously. i don't bend over backwards to "find the good"--i just really let the thing speak to me, judging it by filmmaking (screenwriting mostly) standards, philosophy, media literacy, theology of the body and the Catholic Faith! i am not looking for the usual "red flags" that causes predictable, stereotyping, alarmist reactions. I am in nobody's camp, but I know how various camps will interpret movies (and my reviews). but i must call 'em like i see 'em. my most difficult review that i'm still rather uncomfortable with actually was "new moon" and this whole thing about "losing one's soul".... i'm still rather disquieted by it. more and more we are seeing this "in between" world on the screen--neither earth, purgatory, heaven or hell--it's just this "other place" where people like the undead hang around.....with it's own rules and stuff. lots of this on TV, too: "medium," "ghost whisperer." maybe it's a kind of limbo. which should now be shuttered (pope B).

i meant to mention to you that James Cameron is no "friend" to Christianity. That's why it's so curious to me that he got "sound natural theology" down quite correctly! (he executive-produced that Canadian documentary on "They Found Jesus" Family Tomb!" in Israel. Jesus' wife, Mary Magdalene was in the family tomb, of course, along with Jesus' bones and the bones of his mother Mary.) HA HA HA.

Check out this NYTimes review that says "A" is actually insulting to indigenous peoples: http://nyti.ms/4UcofD because of the "White Messiah" thing.

Here are some more interesting reviews:

Fr. Robert Barron praises the prominence of religion in "A," (but I still disagree about the "pantheism"). The mother goddess IS personal: she "decides" and "provides" and when one of the characters dies, they go to "be with" the mother goddess. There are two different things going on: created energy/interconnected life force on the moon Pandora, and the goddess outside of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtZyku2H1PI

Randy Beeler (young Catholic dude) does fascinating reading of "A" as a kind of anti-Gospel. The blue princess Neytiri is a demonic anti-Mary! I don't think "A" is that sinister, but this is still a fascinating read (check out the anti-Pieta!) http://triptbishop.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatars-cuddly-demons-naah-blue-is.html

Check out the obsessed fan site: http://www.naviblue.com/