Daily book for young women seeking God's will in their lives!
--Jesus Speaks
--Scripture
--Advice
--To Do
--To Journal
--Prayer
--Jesus Speaks
--Scripture
--Advice
--To Do
--To Journal
--Prayer
Order here:
May 30, 2012
May 25, 2012
MOVIES: "WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING"
I thought I was gonna hafta hate on this film, but lo and behold I am pretty much lovin’ on it!
First of all, this is a very well-constructed film. Excellence in filmmaking. Excellence in COMEDIC filmmaking which is NOT easy. Excellence in ENSEMBLE filmmaking which is even harder. THIS is how it’s done, people! Hollywood never ceases to amaze when they get it right.
Second of all, this is slightly more a guy/Dad’s film than a gal/Mom’s film, so I assumed the writer was male. Nope. Two chicks. I wonder if they asked guy friends “what they would say or do” in a given situation, because the guy parts are the funniest.
Why was I all set to hate on this film? Because I thought it was going to be another one of those: “Babies actually emasculate men” films. “Being married is a drag, and being a Dad is even worse” films. But, it’s not! This is a laugh-a-minute, fun ride of a film that follows several couples through pregnancies (some quite unplanned ) and births (with one adoption). Each character is more unique and well-developed than in most single-couple romantic films! Each scene is working overtime to give us lots of information and delight us with all kinds of hilarious “touches.” The acting is superb, the transitions are superb, the directing and editing, the dialogue and plot points are superb. Did I mention that the acting is superb? The cast simply out-acts each other scene after scene.
Is it crude? Oh yeah, but mostly in the beginning, and then it becomes much sweeter and realer (and stays just as funny BECAUSE it’s being so honest). I’m still surprised that women wrote this because the writing is so tough-minded—but kudos to Shauna Cross (“Whip It”) and Heather Hach (“Freaky Friday”) for a smart, tight, fine job. British director, Kirk Jones ("Waking Ned Devine," "Nanny McPhee") is scrumtrulescent.
Remember, the whole movie is about sex because it's about pregnancy and babies.
As is the custom today, things are mostly done backwards: jump in the sack immediately, have the baby, get married.
Is this a “Theology of the Body” film? Indirectly, yes. It shows the best of what’s possible in male/female relationships and the joy of being parents when both partners are “in it” no matter what. It shows taking life on the chin, the sorrows with the joys, turning lemons into lemonade, and having a healthy sense of humor about it all. Babies are called “miracles” many times, only once or twice with a hint of sarcasm.
The best part of the movie is the REAL issues, problems, and seemingly irreconcilable differences between the couples. Dilemmas that in other films (and perhaps real life) would be deal-breakers. But the “What To Expect” couples stay the course, and the big blowout arguments and all-too-typical fights are either resolved or semi-resolved in extremely healthy ways. We are served up that genuine relationships are an ongoing process of give and take. We just do NOT see this. Anywhere. And we need it so badly. Children of divorce do not know how to deal with marital conflict and they’re terrified of it. “What To Expect” handles it fabulously. Bravo.
“What To Expect” totally prepares one for the grossness and pain and “imperfectness” and uncontrollability of the whole process. It even shows how both men and women need to overcome all their false notions of being parents, but also false “expectations” of male/female relationships.
Not to be missed is the hysterical Daddy Dude Group that meets Saturday mornings in the park. Let’s just say it’s male-adaptive parenting. Emphasis definitely NOT on hovering, helicopter-parenting. Much more laid back. Guys just do parenting differently. MUCH differently.
There is warmth in this film, and it seems to be coming from a good place. The marital arrangements may be heterodox, but the “spirit of the law” is observed. Moral of the story: “When it comes to babies, there’s no such thing as ‘ready.’”
DISCLAIMER: Some feedback I got on this review said I wasn't clear enough about the wrongness of sex outside marriage. I do not believe in sex outside marriage in any form. Sex speaks the language of "you alone forever." Sex outside marriage is a kind of a lie spoken with the body. It is damaging and destructive. Sexual love is FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FAITHFUL (marriage), FULL AND FRUITFUL.
OTHER STUFF:
--E-N-T-E-R-T-A-I-N-I-N-G.
--This movie reminded me of a time recently when I was with a bunch of home-school Moms who were trying to outdo each other in “small child ickiness” stories. They talked about having barf buckets around the house and at the kids’ bedsides (what is it with the peewees’ digestive tracts?) The Mom who won the Groddy-to-the-Max Award was the Mom who told of holding her baby over her head and the kid puked into HER mouth.
--I have friends who’ve been married 15 years. Their younger college-age friends greatly admire their marriage. But when the college students see them argue, they get scared and disillusioned: “But I thought you loved each other! But you’re fighting!” My married couple friends take this opportunity to tell them: “Yes—we’d better be fighting or our marriage isn’t real! Lovers’ quarrels!” Young people can tend to think that any kind of discord means “road to divorce.”
--“What To Expect When You’re Expecting” might be good “required viewing” for marriage prep courses!
--There are quite a few great side characters, too. All fleshed out. Well inserted, well used. Great, great filmmaking.
--Interesting how today everyone talks like a scientist: IVF, genetics, DNA, etc.
--Abortion is simply not an option. Not on the table.
--Some great affirmations of the need to man-up to fatherhood. And loving fatherhood.
--“What to Expect” gets so real. Says what people are really thinking and feeling. And it’s not the “awful truth.” It’s a pretty beautiful truth.
--It’s OK to fight and feel crappy and sick and be scared and make mistakes in this whole new world of parenting!
--Dennis Quaid!
--The golfcarts!
--Margaritaville!
--Trophy wife as heroine!
--The ovulation app.
--“Babies can smell fear.”
--I would actually watch this film again (partly to catch ALL the jokes). And I hardly ever watch films twice.
May 22, 2012
MOVIES: "FOR GREATER GLORY"
(stars Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Peter O'Toole, Eduardo Verastegui, Oscar Israel)
“For Greater Glory” (“Cristiada” in Mexico) is the untold story of Mexico’s Cristeros War (or “Cristiada”): 1926-1929, between the government and Catholics (the actual involvement of the Mexican clergy/hierarchy and Rome is a little murkier). The events are historically accurate, and certain characters are real personalities from the struggle.
Most Americans have never heard of the Cristeros War, and, it seems, just as many Mexicans are ignorant of it as well! Why? Understandably, it makes 33rd degree Mason President Calles and the Mexican establishment look bad, so it’s not in the history textbooks. His brutal enforcement of anti-clerical laws, expelling of foreign clergy, forbidding of Catholic Masses and sacraments, as well as the outright slaughter of many priests, nuns and laity was extreme repression and a complete denial of religious freedom. Calles thought the Catholics would bow to such pressure. No such thing. The “Cristeros” took up arms and fought back--clergy among them.
“Viva Cristo Rey!” was the rallying cry of the resisters, fighters, and all faithful Catholics. Calles set up a schismatic “patriotic Church” much like the Communists in China today. (Incidentally, Cubans echoed the same allegiance before being put to death by Fidel Castro’s firing squads—see the excellent book “Against All Hope” by Armando Valladares.)
If anyone DOES know about the Cristeros War, it’s usually because they know the story of the daring young Jesuit, Blessed Fr. Miguel Pro, who used to travel around Mexico in disguise to administer the sacraments. In a huge PR blunder, Calles had the executions of priests photographed. He thought this would terrorize and deter Catholics. It had the exact opposite effect. Martyrs were created, AND there was government-issue proof! The photos of Fr. Miguel’s execution by firing squad can easily be found on Google. Fr. Pro is not mentioned in “For Greater Glory,” but no need, there are other amazing stories of heroes and heroines to be told.
The film starts off with a light, “It can’t happen here,” “It won’t be that bad,” blasé attitude and quickly deteriorates into something much more serious. This early progression of events is well-done: swift and devastating, but then the 137-minute film drags on and on. The film begins as a kind of ensemble piece: but gradually becomes Cristero General Velarde‘s (Andy Garcia) story.
This epic’s set direction and costuming is pitch-perfect, but the cinematography—although lush—is distracting and halting with far too much hand-held: in all the wrong places. Poor direction and editing make the fine cast look bad at times—all except for my guy: Oscar Israel* (who plays Victoriano Ramirez) who, for the most part, spun gold out of dross. However, I really have to give the benefit of the doubt to the possible fact that an over-the-top-Mexican-style-melodrama-western (which Americans often find laughable) was what the filmmakers were going for.
The dialogue is extremely simplistic and on-the-nose: “We will need guns! Yes, and ammunition!” “Be careful! You could get killed! Yes! I know I could get killed, but it will be for God and country!” Characters talk mostly in cliches. Several times I almost burst out laughing at very unfunny moments: “War is chess.” (Oh! I thought it was hell!) And Andy Garcia chomping on a cigar with one foot up on a rock in the background waiting for his tough guy line was just too much to bear silently.
We are automatically supposed to feel sympathy for the Catholics and identify with them, which I don’t think was achieved except on an intellectual level. I think many non-Catholics (and even some Catholics!) will bring their “Gripes Against the Catholic Church Baggage” into the cinema with them. But I guess that’s not the filmmakers’ problem. As long as the gripers don’t root for Calles. :]
It’s very important to read the text on the screen at the beginning and end of the film or you will not understand what’s going on OR the impact the Cristiada has had on modern-day Mexico.
What “For Greater Glory” lacks in cinematic prowess, it makes up in ambitiousness to tackle a crucial and uncannily timely subject. Like “October Baby,” which had its own filmmaking issues, “For Greater Glory,” too, succeeds on certain levels and is firmly in the must-see category.
Viva Cristo Rey!
________________
*Oscar Isaac played St. Joseph in “The Nativity Story.” Remember? The guy who stole Mary’s movie? Well I didn’t recognize him in “FGG,” but I just said to myself: “Put this guy in a Western and I will be glued.” (And I don’t even care too much for Westerns.) The way he moved made me believe he was a horseman and gunman, and he’s just totally otherwise riveting.
OTHER STUFF:
--Many Mexicans say that many of the stories of the Cristeros War were handed down to them in their families. Um, nuns fared very, very badly—worse than many laywomen. If you know what I mean.
--The Catholics were called “fanatics” by their enemies.
--Auxiliary Bishop Rojas of Chicago grew up in a region of Mexico where the Cristeros War was particularly intense. He recommends a 3-volume set of books on this era by _______, whom he says gives a good, unbiased account. Yeah, sorry, missed the author’s name.
--The film is doing VERY well at the box office in Mexico (#1 against “Titanic 3D”), but there are rumors that the government wants it shut down.
--Calles pretends to be doing everything for the “dignity of Mexico.”
--Eva Longoria is really pretty here. Much prettier than in “Desperate Housewives.”
--This movie was NOT timed to come out during the religious-freedom-reducing HHS mandate stand-off with the Obama administration. It was made several years ago and got held up with typical movie-delay issues.
--Acting problems or directorial problems? Sometimes the fine actors looked like they were not in good hands and didn’t know what was expected of them. This could also be an editing problem. Cut! Cut! Switch cameras! I couldn’t stop thinking of “Meet Joe Black” (Brad Pitt, Anthony Hopkins). Although FGG is MUCH better than “Meet Joe Black.” Bad directing/editing can make ANY ACTOR look bad. I actually felt that by the end, Andy Garcia looked like a buffoon. Sorry, but that’s my honest opinion.
--The grandiose soundtrack did not match the action. Sweeping-landscape-type musical segments were used for intimate close-ups between characters. The same strains just ground on and on to the point of monotony, and there’s hardly any silence. Just music, music, music at high-drama setting at all moments. It’s wearisome.
--The director or editor did not seem to know how to get into a scene late and leave it early. A rule of filmmaking. Every scene was grandly set up with pauses, longshots, grand entrances, etc. A very old style of filmmaking. The transitions from one scene to another were random and disjointed which made the whole thing feel episodic, like a bunch of vignettes strung together. There is much mugging, posing and general standing around.
--There is no impetus, no feeling of urgency, no through-line in every scene, no suspense that keeps us watching (only some mild suspense within scenes). It needed DOGEWA (from film school): “What is the character DOing to GEt what he/she WAnts at every single minute?”
--United States government involvement in the war (on Calles’ side) is explicit!
--Knights of Columbus figure in big here! (“Good guys”—in case you were wondering.)
--I got bored several times.
--The intricacies of the war are handled pretty deftly by the screenwriter. Pretty easy to follow.
--Kind of twisted theology/logic at the end when General Velarde talks to warrior priest.
--Lots of gunfights and small battles, but very little gore. The “R” rating is probably for the unusual, not-in-keeping-with-the-rest-of-the-film, violent ending. Hint: Worse than “Hunger Games,” but don’t wanna spoil.
--Absolute must-read about the fierce hatred against the Catholics and the beautiful stories of the faith and sacrifice of the Cristeros, BUT this article insinuates that Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI were part of, favorable to or at least pawns of the Freemasons: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/history/cristero.htm
May 9, 2012
May 3, 2012
April 29, 2012
MOVIES: "THINK LIKE A MAN"
When I read comedian Steve Harvey’s serious book: “Act Like
a Lady, Think Like a Man,” my first thought was: “Wow! He’s breaking the code
of silence! Men must think he’s a traitor—telling the ladies all the guy
secrets!” (The book came about as a sincere effort on Harvey’s part to
genuinely help clueless women in bad relationships with men.) The premise of
the movie: When a group of guy-friends realize that the women in their lives
are using the book to “change the game” and get what they want from the
relationship, the men decide to use the same book to make the women THINK they
are getting what they want. But, as the
voiceover says: “The only problem with PRETENDING to step up? You may find that
you actually HAVE to step up.”
Harvey’s main point to women is that men are inherently
lazy, or rather, that they’ll take the easy way out whenever given it. (The “player”
character admits he prefers women with “no standards.”) Women need to raise the
bar. Women need to require men to do certain things and take certain steps in
the relationship. The book itself is brilliant, exceedingly helpful, and is
quoted all through the movie. The movie also includes snippets of Harvey
himself on a fake talk show giving pointers. However, one unfortunate guideline
in the book is “The 90-Day Rule,” that is, women should make men wait 90 days
for sex, and then it’s OK. (Harvey has no problem with pre-marital sex.) Of
course, this is a longer waiting period than many, many “couples” utilize, so
at least it’s getting people thinking about the value of waiting at all.
DISCLAIMER: Some feedback I got on this review said I wasn't clear enough about the wrongness of sex outside marriage. I do not believe in sex outside marriage in any form. Sex speaks the language of "you alone forever." Sex outside marriage is a kind of a lie spoken with the body. It is damaging and destructive. Sexual love is FUNDAMENTAL, FREE, FAITHFUL (marriage), FULL AND FRUITFUL.Actually, the more I think about it, Harvey undoes and undermines all his good info and good advice (book & film) with his stance on pre-marital sex! Eeeeeek!
Sex IS marriage and marriage IS sex. Don't believe me? If you don't have sex, is your marriage consummated? I rest my case. If you still don't believe me, just listen to Cameron Diaz:
The film good-naturedly calls love a “battlefield” and
accuses the ladies of starting the “war.” Guy “types” (player, Mama’s boy,
dreamer, non-committer, happily-married man, miserably divorced man who thinks
he’s happy) are pitted against gal “types” (powerful CEO that can’t find her
equal, the one-night stand woman, the woman in the live-in relationship whose
partner is too comfortable and is not proposing, the single Mom who can’t find
a guy who likes kids). These are, of course, extremely realistic and common situations.
The conclusion of the film is a kind of a win-win for both “sides.”
It’s true that men are leaders in so many ways, but women must also exert their
feminine power to help shape overgrown boys into real men, NOT to emasculate
them, but to call them to true manhood! The guys may rise to the occasion kicking
and screaming, but as Harvey says at the end of his book: down deep, men really
want to be the real men that women want.
OTHER STUFF:
--Theology of the Body? Except for the premarital sex...HECK, YEAH!
--The screenwriters are men. It feels like there was a woman’s
touch in there, but it might simply be that Steve Harvey really LISTENED so
well to his female callers-in to his radio show (the inspiration for his book)
that he is now an expert on “what women want.”
--The movie highlights my FAVORITE parts of the book!
--Sad-but-true, watch-and-weep, super-short comedic cartoon “history
of men” at beginning of film. THEN: Cavemen=difficult rituals to become a man. NOW: Modern men=internet porn.
--Funny black guy/white guy humor.
--Some politically incorrect gay jokes. Interesting.
--VERY slight overtone of kids being a “problem.”
--Excellent character and plot development. Especially for an ensemble piece.
--The basketball scene could've been funnier. That includes the outtakes at the end, too.
--Excellent character and plot development. Especially for an ensemble piece.
--The basketball scene could've been funnier. That includes the outtakes at the end, too.
--This film is FILLED with lots and lots of banter. Guys
really talking stuff out with each other (and gals, too, of course) in their
guy way. The audience in my theater (young adults) were glued to the long
dialogue parts. It felt like they were trying to catch some wisdom.
--Hardcover books, Barnes & Nobles, and Oprah felt old.
--The live-in female partner is treated like “one of the
guys”!
--The happily-married man…really is!
--The high-powered CEO gal calling Harvey’s book “sexist”
proves to be just so flimsy. Men and women ARE different. Very different.
--Lots of sex talk, but it’s somehow sweet and, ultimately
PERSONAL, not IMPERSONAL, and ultimately HUMANIZING, not DEHUMANIZING.
--Men also expect a lot from women. “It’s 2012. She can open
my door for me!” Even sadder commentary: “Women will put up with anything once
they’re into you.” Actually, it’s even sadder than that. Women LOVE. And
sometimes they love very badly and put up with all kinds of things when they
should be loving themselves, too, and should either be changing the situation
or getting out of it.
--There is a faint underlying Christian element in the film.
One couple briefly pauses (before having passionate sex on a first date)
because they’re “Christian.” At LEAST we see that religion matters and has
something to say here.
--I have come to believe there’s nothing more beautiful than
a Dad. (Actually saw two happy fathers—without Moms--bringing their 3 kids each
into the cinema—but not for THIS movie! It was just such a beautiful sight.)
Especially nowadays. Because they don’t have to be. Society today does not push
men in that direction at all. And they can always impregnate and take off—as it
has always been, but now that is totally socially acceptable. Dads aren’t
necessarily respected by other men (but they get BIG props from women!)--and in
popular media, fatherhood is portrayed mostly as EMASCULATING and a DRAG—when fecundity
used to be (and actually IS) the epitome of masculinity!
--Men lie to women. Men won’t lie to other men, but they’ll
lie to women. Or at least some will. Just one more double standard. Women,
perhaps, manipulate, but are we as much outright liars as men are? I don’t
think so. Unless we’re just imitating bad men once again.
--The male/female differences are captured sooooo well in
this film. So true to life. And there’s plenty of defects on both sides.
--Sad notes that somehow feel light: stripper culture, STD
jokes, condoms.
--Men can’t become fulfilled if “all they want is sex.” Men
can’t become fulfilled without becoming “real men” WITH “real women.” Men just
THINK all they want is sex. Men just think they want to be “free.”
--Most honest comment which is actually a good thing and the
way God made us:
Zeke to Maya: “OK. I DO want the sex. And YOU.”
Zeke to Maya: “OK. I DO want the sex. And YOU.”
April 18, 2012
April 11, 2012
April 10, 2012
MOVIES: "THE HUNGER GAMES"
“The Hunger Games” is set in a way-beyond-dystopian future in which the rulers living in the Third-Reich-like “Capitol” keep the peons in the “Districts” in fear and subjugation by holding gladiatorial games each year. The combatants are children and teenagers, picked at random to fight to the death, each representing their District. This shocking and unusual premise keeps its promise and delivers all kinds of unusual twists, which are at the same time familiar to us because—everything is televised. Like a gruesome reality show.
Katniss Everdeen (the flawless Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to take the place of her little sister when her little sister’s name is drawn. A young man, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who has a crush on Katniss, is also chosen from her District. Out of twenty-four contestants, there is only one victor. We follow Katniss through her Hitler Youth-like “show no mercy” training and prepping in fighting and survival (which includes a stylist, played by Lenny Kravitz, because Katniss will need “sponsors”). The mechanics of fame are clearly delineated for the young combatants as they are packaged and presented to the public. All of this does not come naturally to the honest, unvarnished Katniss. When the games begin, alliances are made to stay alive. Some are genuine and others’ only self-serving.
“The Hunger Games” books are written by a woman, Suzanne Collins, and she gives us a strong female heroine in a cruel and violent world (although some of the other young people are also kind). Katniss never loses her humanity through it all, and never initiates the killing. Instead, she tries to flee it, and help her friends at her own peril. My one beef with the film is that Katniss has no character flaws. None. She is perfectly noble at all times. Even her weaknesses are her strengths (pluckiness, her inability to be anything but herself and play-act, etc.). It’s true that some people in real life are like this, but it makes them less relatable/imitable on screen, and it’s just one of those cardinal rules of storytelling/screenwriting: the main character has to have at least one flaw!
“The Hunger Games” is a story of veracity and self-sacrificial love in the face of power, control, image and spin. It is sharp social commentary on the very military-business-elite-media complex system that surrounds us more and more. The Games are schadenfreude, others’ misfortune as entertainment. Entertainment as control and distraction for the benefit of the few. There are potent ideas to chew on: “Not everyone likes the underdog.” “We don’t always have the luxury of being heroes and rebels if we are responsible for others.” “A little hope keeps the status quo—too much hope can foment rebellion/revolution/resistance.” “Hope is the only thing stronger than fear. Contain the hope.” “What if no one watched the Games?” (This last idea reminded me of the 60’s expression: “What if they held a war and no one came?”)
The young cast is fabulous, but so is the star-studded adult cast, and they work together like a well-oiled machine. Woody Harrelson plays Katniss’ and Peeta’s mentor. Elizabeth Banks is a Capitol operative that needs a visit from the fashion police. Wes Bentley is the TV producer of the games. Donald Sutherland is President Snow, and Stanley Tucci is simply at his best as the effervescent, toothy, blue-ponytailed host and commentator of the games.
President Snow is clearly in iron-fisted charge as a kind of Wizard of Oz-like social engineer. And the ending—showing him dissatisfied with the outcome of the Hunger Games—segues us to “Catching Fire,” the pending sequel (#2 in the trilogy).
One of the big questions surrounding “The Hunger Games” has been: Is it too violent for children? Especially since this is kids killing kids? I would say: know your kids, and at what age YOU think they can handle this. A fascinating article appeared in the Chicago Tribune citing a Hollywood script doctor turned pediatrician (yes, you read that right). The article talks about the difference between violence in print (the imagination protects the child) and violence on the screen (the imagining is done FOR the child). Another point brought up in the article is that when the aftermath of killing, maiming and violence is NOT seen, this can be more desensitizing than when it is. (There is not much aftermath in “The Hunger Games.” Most injuries and death are swift and the camera swoops away.) http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-ent-0321-violence-hunger-games-20120321,0,4551798.story
The question I would ask is: Why do we need/want to see this at all? I realized halfway through the film that I was actually watching a show within a show. What makes ME essentially different from all the people in the Districts and the Capitol who are watching this AS ENTERTAINMENT? Why do we find this entertaining and not repulsing? Is it simply: “I like to put myself in that situation and wonder what I would do?” “I like to see the good win out over evil?” (Good is firmly portrayed as good and evil as evil.) Am I desensitizing/preparing myself to accept a possibly more vicious future in reality by allowing myself to imagine one? Of course, World War II (or any real war) is far more hellish than this film. I couldn’t help thinking of the Jewish children of the Warsaw ghetto who were shot on sight--for sport--by Nazi soldiers.
The film is extremely well done on all counts. Once you know what you (and your children) are in for at the cinema, it’s your call.
OTHER STUFF:
--Jennifer Lawrence (who is 22 but looks like a teen) has an incredible ability to project innocence, resentment, simplicity, fear, anger. In an interview with “Rolling Stone” magazine, it was said of her (by those responsible for casting her)—they had never seen such reserves of emotion in an actress before. Lawrence already played a “girl surviving in the woods” in the small but acclaimed film “Winter’s Bone.” Evidently, in real life, she’s a tomboy from Kentucky with a wild streak.
--From the moment Katniss rises up on the pedestal in the middle of the wilderness to kill or be killed, we feel what war really is: an arena for mayhem and slaughter—with very few rules. She is now fair game. She is now meat.
--The movie is 142 minutes (and feels a bit long), and there were a few lulls in the rivetingness.
--The soundtrack is subtle and invisible (a good thing).
--Jennifer Lawrence has this incredible ability to put a look of "unknowingness" in her eyes.
--Katniss—although she never articulates it--would rather die with her humanity intact. She is trying mightily to win and preserve her life, but she won’t stoop to treachery or cruelty to do it. “Better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil” –1 Peter 3:17.
--The set design is sheer eye candy, from the Appalachian-like hills and woods, the miners’ drab homes, 1930’s plain Depression-era dresses; to the contrasting, garish Wonka-like world of the Capitol; to the Riefenstahl-esque propaganda-pageantry of the opening of the Games.
--I like how Katniss’ enemy was humanized at the end. We actually feel sorry for him. He was created by the Capitol.
--5 FACTS ABOUT "HUNGER GAMES" FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T READ THE BOOKS: http://screenrant.com/hunger-games-movie-books-facts-kofi-160434/ (I just have to laugh at one of these facts: "The young actors can act, too...." I find it's just the other way around these days! I have to put a good word in for the adult actors because young adult/teen/child today usually act the adults--even the seasoned ones--under the table.)
--The mocking jay is not a real bird. :]
April 9, 2012
April 8, 2012
LIFE OF ST. AUGUSTINE DVD
 |
| It will be called "Restless Heart" in English. |
There's a great new DVD from Ignatius Press in the works! (I got to see a screener.) It's one of those big production Lives of the Saints that they've been producing in Italy lately. British cast. The whole life of Augustine with occasional narration from what else but "The Confessions"--um, hard to beat that source material.
Clever and profound dialogue. Startling facts from Auggie's life--that you may not know or may have forgotten--startlingly portrayed. St. Ambrose as we've never seen him before. Wait--we've NEVER seen Ambrose on screen!
This a great film if you like: philosophy, history, oratory, Church history, apologetics, BOOKS (you'll see), heresies (Arians! Donatists!), barbarians (Vandals!), St. Augustine, St. Monica, "Man for All Seasons," or Milan.
Ambrose: "Man doesn't find the truth, the Truth finds him."
Augustine: "I'm not worthy to be a priest."
Ambrose: "O, God's going to ask a lot more from you than that." :]
There are subtle themes about CIVILIZATION and the nature of civilization.
Sr. Anne Joan (@nunblogger) and I were totally laughing (at the jokes) and talking back to the screen the whole time. It's that engaging. It was like Mystery Science Theater 3000 for Church nerds and professional Catholics. (E.g., When Augustine tries to talk King Genseric of the Vandals out of sacking Hippo, we were catcalling: "Dude! Don't do it! Your tribe will be forever associated with petty criminals!") Sr. Anne Joan and I agreed that today, our barbarians are from within. :[
This is a movie in which man's spiritual nature is successfully portrayed and God is a real character. This is a Catholic film that could only have been made by Catholics living in a Catholic country, methinks. Hollywood production standards, but not Hollywood sensibilities. It's coming from an insider's point of view. A NEW GENRE? The "CATHOLIC FILM"?
Monica figures in real big. And not just her pious praying for Augustine, but her motherly authority and personal Christian conviction. Also, Augustine's mistress and son.
This film is what we've been waiting for (always thought St. Augustine would make a good film)! Well done. Brava!
April 5, 2012
HE SPEAKS TO YOU
My book is dropping in June!
For young adult women:
365 days of conversation
with Jesus
about life.
Your life!
to order:
http://www.amazon.com/Speaks-You-Helena-Raphael-Burns/dp/081983419X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333671330&sr=8-2
sample page:
April 2, 2012
MOVIES: "BLUE LIKE JAZZ"
The new Christian film “Blue Like Jazz,” opening in theaters April 13, is already stirring up controversy. But I stand behind it. Here’s why. BLJ is about a young Christian man, Don Miller (Marshall Allman), who--for various reasons--is disgusted with his Christian faith, and opts for a wild, radically secular party college far from home where he hides his faith and tries to assimilate.
ALMOST RATED R
The movie is rated PG-13 but was almost rated R by the MPAA because of its "realness" with regard to campus life. I would say mature teens fifteen years old and up. (But of course, many parents are not monitoring--or don't really have control over, or are in denial about--what their teens are really watching, so I would definitely recommend it to these types!) Lots of language and mature themes. Director Steve Taylor won't let his own fifteen-year-old daughter see it yet, just so you know. In other words, there are teens who are already watching films like this—for better or for worse, and teens that are not—for better or for worse. (And let's not forget young people's unfettered access to digital porn 24/7.)
Although BLJ is made by Christians and examines issues of faith, it's extremely edgy and holds its own with any secular campus/coming-of-age film. The Christians portrayed are not perfect and they know it. The main character comes to realize that Jesus is perfect, and that he shouldn't be ashamed of Him just to fit in.
EVEN A DEAD SALMON CAN GO WITH THE FLOW
Which brings us around to the root cause of so many bad choices in life: bad peer pressure. The communal aspect of our lives. Humans are the most social beings on the planet. Yes, even moreso than bugs. There is a psychological term for those people to whom being original and being themselves and self-determination is MORE important than belonging to the crowd. I think they are about 1% of the population. Strangely enough, people’s obsession with being cool is a slavish obsession while they think it is an expression of freedom. As I go around presenting Theology of the Body to young people (and not so young people), I realize that even though they may come to agree with the truth of it and see the beauty of it, there is no Theology of the Body CULTURE to plug into, and so, barring being/joining the 1% (this has nothing to with the Occupy movement), they just slip into whatever culture IS around them. Thus the necessity of impacting CULTURE. I tell them “even a dead salmon can go with the flow,” and they laugh, but what we really need is hoards of salmon swimming upstream TOGETHER.
HONESTY
From a secular standpoint, this is the first truly honest college/campus/coming-of-age film that doesn’t pretend young people are NOT talking about God and religion! Catholics may be offended by the heavy use of Catholic imagery, but they shouldn’t be. It’s actually honoring Catholic symbols and bringing them to life, albeit in a very unorthodox way. To me, it shows the hunger young people (and our world in general) have for God, religion, ritual, etc.! (The pope and confessional are actual happenings on the real Reed College campus.) I’m pretty sure there’s going to be a big Catholic outcry against this film. Unfortunately.
(There's an unfortunate gross misstep right at the beginning where Don's dimwitted friend tries to say that Don's Mom is hot, but really crosses a line doing so. It's a false note, because I've checked with my guy friends and they assure me that guys do not talk about other guys' mothers like this--to the guy's face.)
HOW MIGHT BLJ HELP YOUNG PEOPLE?
At the screening I attended (with screenwriter/director Steve Taylor, actor Marshall Allman who played the main character, cinematographer/screenwriter Ben Pearson) there was a great Q and A session, and two points came up very strongly about why this is an important film that could actually help young people (I added #3).
#1.—PREPARATION. So many young Christians (and non-Christians) and their parents have no idea what these babes in the woods are in for regarding college life. If they watch the myriad silly, depraved, licentious, shallow campus life secular films constantly flooding the market, they will have an idea, but there’s nothing like being there yourself. BLJ takes a young Christian through that experience and raises lots of questions that would be good to get a handle on BEFORE heading off to college. Innocence is not ignorance. Ignorance is not innocence. There is a terrible expression which I’m afraid is all too true: “Too innocent to stay that way.” There is a misunderstanding by many adults that keeping kids in the dark will keep them innocent/good, and that if kids have knowledge it will automatically corrupt them. They also think that just by knowing something, it takes innocence away. What takes innocence away is doing/participating in evil OR thinking good is bad and bad is good (Isaiah 5:20). And kids WILL get muddled without the proper information IN CONTEXT (2 Corinthians 10:5). Young people need to “hear it first” in the Church!
The Catholic Church has officially adopted the Media Literacy Education stance with regard to media (since the document “Aetatis Novae—Dawn of a New Era,” 1992). Ignorance is dangerous. Knowledge is power. We must develop and help young people develop media skills: ACCESS / EVALUATE / DECIDE / ACT. Which aren’t bad life skills, either. We are in a strange paradox today of the proverbial “prolonged adolescence” (and 45 year olds are considered “emerging adults”!) which makes 18 the new 13, but at the same time 18 year olds are suddenly given a kind of absolute freedom when they land on college campuses.
#2.—CHRISTIANS SHOWING THEIR “DARK SIDE.” I’m not sure when Christianity became all about saving face and not about saving grace, but repentance, humility, honesty and spiritual progress require that we be realistic (at least to ourselves) about our individual and communal failings as a Church. If we, as Christians, air these wounds and failings in our self-revealing and self-divulging, therapeutic culture, we may stand a better chance of being useful, relatable, approachable to our fellow sinners than by covering them up. And we Christians are the only ones that have the cure/solution to sin! The atonement, sacrifice, mercy and forgiveness of Christ—most especially in the Sacrament of Confession. And its FREE!
One thing I don't understand, however, is how much people LOVE when public religious holy people types show their ordinariness OR crude-er side. "CARDINAL DOLAN THROWS BACK A COLD ONE!" A Prince of the Church drinks beer! And likes it! "NUN 'FAVORITES' A YOUTUBE WITH THE WORD SH** IN IT!" (I had an immense response to this--I forgot about social media tracking and my one little click was broadcast, like, everywhere. And people told me I was their FAVORITE nun because of it! If only I had known that's all it took....) I just don't get it. Personally, I love when people RAISE the bar for me and challenge me to be/do something that isn't just ordinary or "naughty." Maybe it's just the supposed contrast involved that people get a bang out of. :] Ahhhhh! And even this is addressed in BLJ come to think of it. Don puts down Penny for doing good things because she makes everyone else feel less! Really?! I will never understand this mentality as long as I live.
#3.—FAITH AND REASON. I grew up in an idyllic little Enlightenment (in the best sense of that word) town in Massachusetts, and had a fantastic education in our public school system K-8 (before public school curriculums became all agenda-ized). The (religious) Jewish parents in particular RAN the school board and we all benefitted. We knew our rights and if our teachers started preaching to us from Mao’s Little Red Book (de rigueur for the Left in the 70’s) or putting down religion (our families were almost all practicing some kind of religion, with only two conspicuous atheist families), we would tell them: “You can’t say that!” and they’d back down, afraid we’d tell our parents. We must encourage our Christian young people to THINK! They must be “allowed” to ask the Big Questions so they can own the answers! My favorite encyclical of our philosopher-pope, BJP2G, is “Fides et Ratio—Faith and Reason.” I always encourage homeschool families to make it part of their high school curriculum: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
UNRESOLVED SEX
Contemporary sexual issues are dealt with in a fragmentary way. They are more like a sad, true-to-life backdrop. Do not expect “resolution” on the sexual stuff. There’s also a kind of separation of Jesus from sexual morality. In reality, sexual morality is personal and societal at the same time. As much as today’s pundits want to pooh-pooh it--it all starts there. (Hey, if the recent HHS mandate says the Catholic Church is supposed to pay for birth control, I guess that makes “private sexual activity” a social issue after all!)
COME GO WITH ME
All life and love and beauty and goodness and truth start with the body, sex, love, the male-female relationship, the family. But this film is a kind of fundamental backing up to the “Does God Exist?” question, and so the sexual issues are present, but only dealt with peripherally. And the end of the film is just the very, very beginning for the main character, so I don’t think that raising, but not dealing with the sexual issues is a cop-out. However, as anyone who associates with young people knows, they will not automatically connect the dots (correctly) with regard to the sexual issues. BLJ is a very good/important DISCUSSION STARTER film.
If there’s some place young people know adults won’t go, they’re going to spend a lot of time there. Better we go there with them. Just a note about HOW young people (teens) process films: WAY differently than you and I. Take nothing for granted. Most of the teens I work with see plenty of R-rated films. If not in the theater, then on YouTube, Netflix, etc. A sweet fifteen year old who was tracking with everything I was saying about Theology of the Body sincerely sighed: “I love ‘No Strings Attached,’” as if this was a sweet romance! Eeeeeek! In a way, it’s all they have. It’s what they’ve been given by adults AS a sweet romance.
OTHER STUFF:
--“The most thought-provoking film of 2012! And 2011, and 2010….!”
--“Laugh-out -loud funny!”
--“Wickedly funny!”
--"Smart AND entertaining!"
--“The first honest college/campus/coming-of-age film!”
--“BLJ asks the hard questions! It goes there!”
--“BLJ makes you think, but first, it makes you laugh!”
--“BLJ makes you laugh AND think! In that order!”
--“Smart, but not intellectual!”
--“Smart, but not cerebral!”
--“Smart, but not a head-trip!”
--“Smart, but won’t make your head hurt!”
--“Quirky, but not too quirky.”
--“Existential, but not too existential.”
--“The first honest college/campus/coming-of-age film that doesn’t pretend young people are NOT talking about God and religion!”
--“The first hip Christian movie?!”
--"A love-letter to America's Northwest?!"
--“The thinking college student’s film.”
--“The thinking Christian’s film.”
--“The thinking Christian’s coming-of-age film.”
--“The first coming-of-age, coming-of-faith movie?!”
--“The most quotable film since ‘Napoleon Dynamite’”!
--“So much food for thought--you’ll be chewing for days!”
--“Independent bookstores everywhere love BLJ.”
--Is the crudeness in BLJ “lowering the bar” and capitulating to the corrupt culture? No. I think it’s rather going there to shed some light. If the racy “No Strings Attached,” “Back Up Plan,” “The Switch,” etc., were all rated PG-13, BLJ is there to “match” them. And not only is BLJ matching MOVIES about campus life today, it’s also, sadly, matching ACTUAL life on campuses today. And let’s not forget “Project X”—while rated R, it’s about high school students throwing a college-campus style debauched party (sex, drugs and massive destruction of property), and plenty of high schoolers are flocking to theaters to see it. And imitate it. (Project X parties are being held all over the country. One death so far as of this review.)
--I bemoan the coarseness of our culture and find it distasteful and depressing, but, as Blessed James Alberione said (www.MediaApostle.com) : “We must lead others to heaven. But we must lead those who live today, not those who lived ten or more centuries ago. We have to take the world and mankind as they are today in order to do good today.” “We are not called to save the people of centuries ago who had no radio, television or cinema.”
--Love how BLJ exposes how college life can be a whole new world for a young person.
--Love how BLJ shows that Christianity is thought of as “the enemy.”
--Love how BLJ show young people taking care of each other and trying to figure life out together.
--Love the challenge: “You only believe this stuff because you’re afraid to associate with people who don’t.” Faith is not a fragile thing—or it shouldn’t be. Faith, hope and love are as strong as death.
--Perfectly cast. I read the script before the movie came out and each actor was well-suited to their character.
--Parents everywhere hate speakerphone.
--BLJ ends before it should end. Which, of course, is the perfect ending.
--All this time I thought that the “music of the universe” was classical music (Sr. Helena cannot dig)—but it’s really orchestral jazz (Sr. Helena can totally dig)!
--I believe that BLJ is coming from a very good place. Why?
ABOUT STEVE TAYLOR (WRITER/DIRECTOR)
 |
| Steve Taylor and moi. Pic taken by cinematographer, Ben Pearson! |
Steve has always critiqued the Church (meaning all of Christendom: he’s an equal opportunity critique-er), but he’s the loyal opposition, the court jester. And if what he’s saying is true, why get our noses out of joint? Steve is not at all self-righteous about it, and he critiques “the world” as well.
Steve has always been too Christian for the world and too worldly for the Christians. Without even trying. This seems to be his vocation. It's a great place to be: in the RADICAL MIDDLE. Extremes just look radical, but they're not.
--Steve is really smart. Jon Stewart smart. We’re lucky to have him. :]
--I have a sneaky feeling this so-called "Evangelical film" just might leak out (word of mouth) to a much wider secular audience. BLJ is distributed by secular “Roadside Attractions,” which is simultaneously releasing the looks-pretty-dang-horrible “Friends With Kids.”
--Reed College is a REAL university in Portland, OR, which—true to its liberal ideals—not only gave permission for BLJ to film on campus, but also to use its real name! Good for them! “Renn Fayre” is a real campus tradition.
--Does BLJ make campus debauchery look like fun? Yes, but only IF campus debauchery—as it is—already appeals to you. Personally, ingesting unknown drugs with unknown effects, public drunkenness, being so out of control I can be taken advantage of or take advantage of others, STDs, getting arrested, vomit, mayhem and destruction, etc., never quite appealed to me. I don’t know why. And the film crew said the film only shows about 10% of what actually takes place. But the rave looked awesome.
--The “sacramental” Confession scene in BLJ beats every other Confession scene ever performed on screen. Better than “Third Miracle,” better than “Amadeus,” better than “Gran Torino,” etc. Why? ‘Cause it starts with JESUS. When my brother came home from his first year of college Psych class and declared to my mother: “My professor says that Catholics go to Confession because they feel guilty,” my simple-but-wise Irish Catholic mother instantly retorted: “I don’t go to Confession because I feel guilty, I go because I’ve hurt Someone I love.”
--The so-called “secular” world has often unknowingly retained more “sacredness” and “sacramentality” than the so-called “sacred,” “religious” world. Let us always remember that the “secular” was carved out of the “sacred,” not vice versa.
--From a filmmaking point of view, BLJ does what so few films today do. It MOVES ALONG, and every scene is MULTI-TASKING, giving you tons of information at many different levels--as it entertains. At film school you are taught that the characters should NOT be standing around talking to each other doing nothing else (unlike real life), and yet so many films do that. Boring! Lazy filmmaking! GIVE THE ACTORS SOMETHING TO DO. Like real life. Woody Allen does this with ad-libbing and improv (everybody talking at the same time), BLJ does it with a masterful , hard-working script.
--Why Does the Church Shoot Its Artists? Because they matter. We can’t preserve our artists from pain or they wouldn’t be able to say anything worth anything to us. I think of how much Larry Norman suffered (father of Christian rock and my favorite Christian rocker), and how that probably informed his art more than anything else.
--Is Penny too much of a serious, perfect do-gooder? Maybe. But she’s also very accepting of others and kinda classy. :]
--BLJ doesn’t present an easy “it’s bad to judge others” message, but rather: “stop thinking you know/understand other people so THAT you can judge them.”
--BLJ takes place in Portland, Oregon, a place very much ideologically like my neck of the woods in Massachusetts. And I recently found out why: the Boston Brahmins (Emerson’s gang) went to Oregon to spread their ideas.
--I just read an article in AMERICA magazine about how young Catholics on campuses feel too ashamed, too sinful to be fully in a relationship with Jesus or come to Him! Yikes! I work with youth/young adults a lot and would never have guessed this because of their supposed, apparent, overabundant confidence. But they have been told all their lives there's no such thing as sin, we're all good people, we're all winners, and yet they feel guilt (much of it perhaps because of choices/actions that they should feel guilty about), but don't know what to do with that guilt. The fake "Confession" in BLJ shows an incredibly deep "examination of conscience" and how we need to name, confess and be sorry for our sins. I wouldn't doubt that this last scene will really touch and convict many young people, and maybe even get them back to Jesus AND Confession!
--I think BLJ speaks to young people's hunger for God/religion. Yes, religion. (What else could explain their need for religion-tainted, revered rituals and traditions on campus?) Young people have put themselves "outside the pale" of religion, and make a lot of bad choices all on their own, which makes them "hypocrites," too. :]
--Don's parents are pretty horrible (as is the trend in so many films/TV), but there were other great adults in the film: his Black professor, the believing author and the minister with his little daughter.
--The Church is seen as a helper to all in need: the Church helped Don and his mother when they were abandoned by Don’s father. The minister helps Don out of his, er, “predicament.” Mother Teresa is held up as a paragon of charity. As a matter of fact, one of Mother Teresa’s “hard sayings” (not her easy “take care of the poor” message that everybody loves) is quoted: “The spiritual poverty of the West is more terrible than the physical poverty of other parts of the world.”
--Is Jesus really the “geek in the cafeteria” that we Christians are ashamed of? Only for those ruled by the tyranny of the cool. If He IS that geek, then we’d better fix our eyes on Him (Hebrews 12:2), because one day He is going to rise up—not on a shooting rampage—but in majesty and glory and love and beauty with His recompense in hand (Isaiah 40:10).
--The whole part about not being ashamed of Jesus, even though we may be ashamed of churches, individual Christians, etc., is good (kind of an answer to the "I Hate Religion-I Love Jesus" YouTube). Of course, BLJ could ALSO seem to be IN FAVOR of said YouTube because of its non-Catholic understanding of Church as a free association of believers (and only spiritually “the Body of Christ”). Separating Jesus out from His Church can make Jesus “the good guy,” and the Church the purely human “bad guy.” But the Church is not just purely human ‘cause its intertwined with and grafted onto Jesus.
“Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.” Hebrews 2:11
“If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” 2 Timothy 2:13
Jesus cannot be separated from his organic Mystical Body. (And the definition of “mystical” is not “spiritual,” but “most real”: including spirit and matter.) However, Don is asked if he believes in “all that stuff” which obviously includes more than just Jesus. :] But, as Tevye (Fiddler on the Roof) would say: “On the other hand…” here’s the problem with separating Jesus from ANYTHING: Most people simply do not have a problem with Jesus. At all. He’s a nice, long-haired guru who preached love, right? What’s not to like? This is not what Jesus said he was. He said He was God. And that makes him (as C. S. Lewis says in “Mere Christianity”) one of three things: a liar, insane, or God. And if He’s God, we gotta worship and obey him. Which kind of changes everything. And we gotta figure out if He told us HOW to worship Him, like, did He found a Church or something while He was here? Oooooooh. Now that REALLY changes everything.
--Steve Taylor has this awesome song called “Jesus Is for Losers” that will mess with your mind. First you’ll say: “Yeah, Jesus came for the losers. He loves losers.” Then you’ll say: “Wait! That makes me a loser! I’m not a loser!” And then you’ll say: “Oh, wait, I guess I should be humble and admit that if I’m a sinner, that makes me kind of a loser.” And then you’ll say: “But we have victory in Christ! I’m forgiven! I’m not a loser! And if Jesus is for losers, doesn’t that make Him a loser?” Perhaps BLJ is made to mess with your mind in a similar way.
--BLJ is extremely “sacramental.” Why? Because filmmaking HAS to be: it’s visual! Protestant filmmaker Craig Detweiler once stood up at an ecumenical Christian film festival and said: “I need to be more Catholic…(he let everyone gasp, for effect, and then continued)…in my filmmaking.” :]
--Some Catholics are going to find BLJ offensive. But they shouldn’t! The pope character wants to "do good" and sees the pope costume as a sign of "hope" for others. It's about “Catholic” (which means “universal”) visuals, signs and symbols that our world is starving for. Note how the object thrown in the holy water becomes an instrument of redemption and reconciliation! Open your eyes, Catholics! Learn how to read/watch films!
--I’m a nun and I’m NOT offended by the nun thing. Again, note how the incident becomes a moment of conversion! I’m way more offended by some real nuns in the media who claim to represent me. :]
--THREE CATHOLIC INACCURACIES (that I counted):
• The “pope” is called “Your Eminence” instead of “Your Holiness.”
• World Youth Day is not really an ecumenical event. (Hey, everyone is welcome, but it seems only Catholic youth show up. :] )
• Catholics do not use them little disposable communion cups. Like, ever.
March 30, 2012
March 23, 2012
MOVIES: "OCTOBER BABY"
“October Baby” is the story of nineteen-year-old Hannah (Rachel Hendrix), who survived a botched abortion. The film is being released by Provident Films (Sony’s Christian division). Most recently, Provident Films brought you the fine “Soul Surfer” and awesome “Courageous.” “October Baby” is a much smaller, more intimate film, not your typical big screen fare. It’s seems to be loosely based on real-life abortion survivors’ stories (e.g., Gianna Jessen and Susan Smith).
Hannah’s parents never told her about the circumstances of her birth. All she knows is that she has multiple health issues, nightmares and severe low self-esteem. A seizure while she’s acting in a play at her university brings everything to a head. The big reveal(s) to Hannah come early in the film which is a refreshing change from dragged-out movies that arrange the MOST monumental reveals toward the end. Hannah sets out on a journey to resolve her dark issues, with the help of a childhood friend, Jason (Jason Burkey—a Roger Daltry lookalike). The surprises and additions to Hannah’s complete story just keep coming in an organic and believable fashion. “October Baby” is certainly about a hard-hitting, unknown aspect of abortion: some babies DO survive. But “October Baby” is such a soft-sell that it ALMOST feels unsensational. This being said, it’s still a MUST-SEE film. The second half of the film is also WAY better than the first half.
Anyone who has ever been involved in an abortion in any way will find much to explore and relate to in this compassionate film. The abortion nurse (Jasmine Guy) executes a truly Oscar-worthy monologue, and Hannah’s birth mother (Shari Rigby) also turns in a moving performance (be sure to stay for the credits to hear Shari’s story!). Of course, this was a very difficult film to make--because of the intense emotional drama penetrating the story--but at times Hannah’s acting/lines/reactions just do not seem to have enough depth. The film seems to be trying very hard to maintain an extremely sweet tone. (I personally don’t mind enveloping something like abortion in kindness and gentleness. It’s like bringing love and beauty into an ugly situation—and showing people that life doesn’t have to be ugly and brutal--but I wonder how it will effect audiences who aren’t already pro-life. Will they see it as overly sentimental, cloying? I don’t know. But they certainly can’t argue with the “rougher” characters experiences—the abortion nurse and birth mother.)
Does it feel like a “Christian film” (in the pejorative sense that even many Christians regard Christian media: pollyanna, easy biblical answers, saccharine, goody-two-shoes, literal Deus ex machina solutions)? Yes and no. “October Baby” doesn’t have the tone of the relatively grittier “Soul Surfer” or “Courageous,” but it faces head-on extremely unpleasant life circumstances that even Hollywood shies away from. The pace is slow, reflective and Southern (which IS true to life in the South), the parents are typical Evangelical southern Christian parents, which may seem unrealistic to the rest of us, but I assure you is not. The jokes are alternately groaners, corny and contemporary, but almost always delivered a bit ham-handedly.
There are skittish scenes involving Hannah and Jason and sleeping arrangements, with a lot of missed opportunities to talk about the value of virginity, the value of waiting for true love, respect, etc. The dialogue at these points is almost unfollowable. Hannah declares her virginity--Jason says hardly anything.
A shining and unique element to this story is a strong father-daughter relationship (cf. song “Butterfly Kisses”): a true thread pulling all through the story. I questioned the parental control Dad had over a nineteen year old, but, again, this is the South, and today’s younger generation does have that close live-at-home, greater-acceptance-of-authority, prolonged adolescence mentality. AND this is not portrayed as a completely good thing, but as one of the father’s problems. Because of the father-daughter relationship, AND for the honest dealings with abortion, I would definitely call this a THEOLOGY OF THE BODY FILM. Men should definitely see it, but it’s also a WOMAN’S FILM (not to be confused with “chick flick”). And the pickings in this category are very slim. Anorexic. There are way more TOB films for/about men.
The fact that the screenwriters were one male, one female is obvious. The film really has a woman’s touch. YAY for male/female film collaboration!
“October Baby” joins a filmography that shows us what a “civilization of love (and life)” looks like. Human beings are THE most social beings on the planet, and badness and goodness have huge ripple effects out toward all kinds of “strangers.” Everyone is a link, a part of a huge web touching countless other lives at all different points. This is also a great FORGIVENESS movie. Can you imagine something harder to forgive than what Hannah has to forgive?
OTHER STUFF:
--Much of the story development, subject matter, plot points and dialogue are even better than the execution. This is a compliment. OB could have been much more powerful using much of the same material.
--Every minor character gets a PERFECT wrap-up at the end. This is sooooo much fun to do as a screenwriter and almost irresistible, but may cause “Really??” moments.
--B-Mac and Evelyn. :]
--The young adults struck me as supersweet and wholesome. Again, this can be the reality in the “Christian culture” parts of our country, but I think “OB” might get slammed for this. Oftentimes, these college students sounded/acted more like high school students.
--As is the custom today, feigningly delicate (but actually big and brassy), heartwrenching, acoustic, truncated pop songs fill the empty spaces (cf. “Twilight” series). I think it works. However, they chose some pretty darn abominable and annoying instrumental synthesizer (yes, synthesizer) Muzak for the most poignant moments. It sounded like mediocre stock music. I kept trying not to be aware of it, but couldn’t help it. If they had only gotten better music for the many important parts of the film where they used it, the PRODUCTION VALUE would instantly have improved IMMENSELY. If anyone told them this earlier on, they should have listened! Eeeeeek! Working on a documentary film as I am now, many have warned me about the importance of stellar AUDIO. I think I’m gonna heed ‘em.
--I would love to have seen “October Baby” directed by the likes of Alexander Payne (“Election,” “Citizen Ruth, “About Schmidt,” “Sideways,” “The Descendants”). Christian filmmakers need to learn to stare directly into the sun like their secular counterparts. Christian filmmaking is coming way up and improving by leaps and bounds all the time, but we are fighting a huge CYNICISM based on people’s real, cynical experiences due to being raised by real cynical parents in real cynical homes, where people do not have an understanding of “the human,” or human dignity--so they conclude (when they see any kind of “Christian” film): “no one acts/thinks that way,” “Christians are afraid of life, to really LIVE,” “that’s not real life.” We are dealing with a real lack of hope and optimism, so the more hardcore we are—when appropriate—the better.
--I find that Christian films ARE going to the issues, but they soft-pedal them (Hannah wrote some pretty heavy stuff in her journal, but it was downplayed in the dramatic treatment of it). I find Hollywood tends to skirt or dismiss a lot of important issues because they know they just have no answers to give, OR they do a brilliant job of portraying the issues, but encased in nihilism, hedonism and despair. Often happy despair (what could be more American?). As Larry Norman said, “No one leads such a charmed life that they don’t have huge sorrows.” We, as Christians, should be “experts at the Cross” so we can meet people in their suffering. And be able to portray this suffering well in film. No one could accuse Hannah of having a charmed life once her past is revealed to her, but the hope is that people will see how much being Christian, having her life open to God, and coming from a loving family helped Hannah face horror.
--It's always such a dilemma for me: Do we SHOW sweetness so people will know what's possible, show 'em what it looks like? OR do we get more gritty to win their credulity?
--On a personal note, because they didn’t even show a kiss, there was some kind of non-voyeuristic, low-emotional-sleaze factor that I appreciated in this film. Not just because I’m a nun (hey, I’m a media nun AND not a prude—I just watched the Swedish-version “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy) but because I’m a woman. So much of the emotion portrayed in film can be (and is rightly called) “women’s porn.” Women are so much more susceptible to damaging emotional fantasies than men.
--I cried at the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)