TORONTO: COURSE IN PREPARATION FOR MARIAN CONSECRATION, APRIL 19--MAY 27

TORONTO--LENTEN DAY OF REFLECTION--MARCH 25, 2017

This event is for men and women.

For young women discerning the Sisterhood, there will be a combined vocation discernment component to the day. If you are interested also in the vocation segment, please RSVP to: srhelenaburns@gmail.com

MOVIES: "THE SHACK"

Should you see the film? Yes.

Now for my review. Wow. Where do I begin? "The Shack," the book, is a New York Times bestseller, first published in 2007. It was written by Canadian William P. Young, who experienced healing in his own life, and as a Christian, needed to wrestle with the perennial "problem of evil" question. That's what the whole film is about: one long Job-style interrogation of God. Now. I highly recommend you read the book first. If you will not, try to read the book after. I eagerly anticipated this film because I loved the book so much, but as I watched the film--reasonably well-done as it is--I began to wonder if this book should ever have been made into a film. A book is mysterious and haunting (as we use our own imagination), but a film is "on the nose," spelled out, flat,  and one-dimensional in comparison. This book in particular is mysterious and haunting as it deals with the Trinity and suffering!

SOUND THEOLOGY

First, the theology. I am hearing accusations of "The Shack" being New Age. No. This is thoroughly Christian and Trinitarian (which, of course, is redundant). The book and film boldly take on depicting the Trinity and somehow it works. This is not a literal: Here's exactly what God "looks like" (the First and Third Person of the Trinity did not become incarnate). It's rather a: what if I got to have a long conversation with God, face to face, about how I don't like how He "set things up" (forgetting that we keep rejecting His original plan of how He set things up), how the world is, how my life is? What if I got to go to the Source to ask why? Certainly, we can do that in prayer. Certainly, we can read the Bible (it's all in there, germinally, at least). "The Shack" is quite a feat, really. Although lots of answers are creatively given for the problem of evil, we don't get trite, cliché answers. And it's not cerebral. The answers all come about relationally. There are no answers outside of relationship. In fact, there exists nothing in God's Creation outside of relationship. God Himself is pure relationship.

HELL BURNS

Without giving too much away, I will tell you that Mack, the troubled husband and father of three, is summoned by "Papa" (God the Father) to meet Him and Jesus and the Holy Spirit in a shack in the woods. Sound corny? It really isn't. Especially if you read the book first. Actually, if you read the book first, anything potentially corny or even offensive will have its edge taken off. So much of the filmic "Shack" is pretty much exactly as I pictured it. But the visuals really aren't that important. It's the heart. It's the essentials that the visuals should never distract us from (and here I'm not denigrating corporeality at all, only saying that "The Shack" deals primarily with the spiritual matters that explain and manifest themselves in and through the physical). If we don't understand spiritual matters, how will we ever understand physical matters?

"IF WE LOOK FOR THE BAD...
WE WILL SURELY FIND IT." --ABRAHAM LINCOLN

If you come at "The Shack" assuming it fits into orthodox Judaeo-Catholic-Christian theology, I think you will find that it fits. If you come at it with suspicion, ready to attack, to nitpick, you could probably twist almost anything from the film into cannon fodder. My one (big) reservation is about hell. There is no mention of hell, only of love and forgiveness. God does say that "no one gets away with anything," and that His will is salvific (as it certainly is!), but hell exists, and there is the possibility that any one of us will choose it. (God doesn't send anyone to hell. Heaven is a gift and a gift can be refused.) This might simply be a glaring omission of the film, but a strange one since the film deals with the problem of evil, punishment, redemption, forgiveness and the afterlife. One of the explanations in the film for the evil people do is: they are just a product of their environment (Jean Jacques Rousseau!). Father beats son because he was beaten by his father, all the way back to Adam. Where is personal responsibility? However, the film suggests that personal responsibility involves forgiving those who have hurt you (Jesus' mandate and the words of the "Our Father.") "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay" (Deuteronomy 32:35/Romans 12:19).

Hell is even more on my mind at the moment since Jesus is preachin' about it in today's readings as I write this review: http://usccb.org/bible/readings/022317.cfm

OUR NEED FOR MERCY

At one point, a separate Wisdom figure (a woman) demands that Mack judge God and judge the world because he seems to be so good at that. She helps him see the logic of and need for mercy.

GOD IS A WOMAN?

The Trinity was well cast. Yikes. I know this all sounds so blasphemous and sacrilegious, but it is not. There is nothing glib about "The Shack," and it's coming from a very good place. I've spoken to faithful, orthodox Catholics who have endured terrible losses who found the book very helpful. God the Father is played by Octavia Spencer (there were rumours that Oprah would be in the part, and she would have done a great job, but Oprah always portrays such strength. Octavia exudes the warmth and gentility needed for the role.) Why is "Papa" shown (initially) as a woman (but still called "Papa")? Because Mack  had a drunken, abusive father who beat him and his mother. "Papa" tells Mack: "I didn't think you could handle seeing a father just now." It's not a statement that God is not Father, or has not revealed Himself to us as the "masculine principle" of Father and Son, or that He is some kind of androgynous, amorphous Being. Mini-spoiler: Eventually, He will appear to Mack as Father (Graham Greene!) at a stage of Mack's healing where God says: "for this next part, you will need a father."

God in His divinity “transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman, He is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood...: no one is Father as God is Father." --CCC #239

“I kneel before the Father,
from whom every family in heaven
and on earth derives its name.”

                                   Ephesians 3:14-15

Jesus is a Jewish carpenter (played by Israeli Avraham Aviv Alush). The Holy Spirit is an Oriental woman (Japanese actress Sumire Matsubara). Again, this is not a statement that the Holy Spirit is female. If I recall, in the book, she is shimmery and constantly appearing and disappearing--not so in the film. The three actors do marvels with these larger-than-life (what else could we call them?) thespian tasks.

THEODICY

Rather than try to dialogue with every bit of this jam-packed yet not over-stuffed exploration of the problem of suffering and evil coinciding with a good God, I would just like to applaud and second its explanations. My one criticism might be that it feels a little mild, a little tame. Where is the passion? Where is the rage? Sam Worthington (whom I really enjoy as an actor) is terribly miscast (and he's the main character). He doesn't seem to know what to do with the part. He is not believable, and he adopts a strange, husky, whispery tone for most of the film. He has a non-typical Australian accent that almost sounds like a speech impediment (I'm not being mean or facetious here). His pronunciation of words sounds almost like a thick Welsh accent--lots of "th" sounds where there are none in English--so between the low, mumbling tones and the accent, it's often very difficult to catch his words, and it makes him unrelatable. He doesn't seem like your average Joe. He doesn't seem like he has suffered (like Casey Affleck in "Manchester By The Sea"!) He seems like a deer-in-the-headlights actor who is making us work hard to understand what he's saying.

Like Jacob, we are called to wrestle with God. But there must come a time when we move on, marked by the struggle. As the saying goes: suffering can make us bitter or better.

PRODUCTION VALUES

The film has the look and feel of a Hallmark film. The soundtrack is as vanilla, beige and generic as you can get. It really, really, really could have benefited from a sparse modern soundtrack rather than the full-blown, sappy treatment at all moments. It would have given it a whole different feel that would have been more appealing to a younger crowd and given it some gravitas. (Full disclosure: I also loved the young boy God figure in Ridley Scott's "Exodus." I think I go for gritty when it comes to God in cinema. This does not mean that I personally want to suffer.  I know God is reading this review, so I just wanted to state that for the record.)

The Southern twangy voiceover at the beginning, coupled with the tired, recycled Muzak soundtrack sets the tone as "Southern Christian Movie." I have spoken of this flaw repeatedly in my reviews of "Christian" films. And I deeply respect Southern Christian culture! I have been a recipient of its goodness! Nevertheless. Dear Southern Christian filmmakers: If you want to appeal to a wider audience--even though the film may actually be set in the South--there must be more to Southern culture than a lulling, milquetoast approach to God.

Also, advice for ALL movies: We needn't see the "old world" in Act One as perfectly shiny, giddy and blissful. It can be happy, but nuanced. There will still be a healthy contrast when the bomb drops.

STRIKING A CHORD AND HITTING A NERVE

Reports are that people are weeping in cinemas. Tears of healing. I'm so glad that the film has managed to connect, especially with a new audience or an audience that never will read the book. I felt that the book preserved and honored the horror of the tragedy better than the film, but perhaps that's just my perspective. Perhaps today in our literal, visual society, people DO need things spelled out for them, perhaps they need to SEE a little something in order to believe--and that's OK, too. May this film do much good to people who need family/relationship/tragedy healing to get over their frozen anger at God and others, and gain a better understanding of reality.

OTHER STUFF:

--Theology of the Body? Right on, as far as masculinity-fatherhood, femininity-motherhood goes. Really shows how the father-relationship, the father-wound either orders or disorders individual, family and societal lives.

--However, the wife is near-perfect. She is perfectly supportive and hardly has an emotion of her own. Some of the reactions and dialogue are not realistic, under these or any circumstances. People just don't talk like that. And I'm not even referring to the Godtalk. In screenwriting, there's something called "the writer's objective" (what the writer is trying to say/get across--and this must be absolutely invisible). "The character's objective" is what the character is trying to say/get across--which should be the only thing we hear. We hear the writer's objective all over "The Shack." It shows the screenwriter's lack of patience and/or craft in burying the need to give the audience information and move the story ahead deep inside the character's objective.

--Bizarre Indian princess story at the beginning, almost intimating a bizarre and necessary sacrifice. Can't remember if that was in the book. I sure hope not.

--Possible film heresy: The Holy Spirit is not Jesus' soul/spirit. Jesus has/is His own human soul.

--Some REALLY great lines and nuggets and quotes. The Holy Spirit brilliantly (of course!) condemns moral relativism and being our own arbiters or right and wrong (what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is really about).

--I like Graham Greene (Canadian!) better than Morgan Freeman as God. :)

--Read the fascinating story of how "The Shack" came to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shack. This Wikipedia entry also includes Protestant objections to its theology, including an accusation of "modalism." Read about William P. Young: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_P._Young.
Beautiful "Shack" website: www.theshackbook.com

RESPONSE TO TEEN VOGUE FROM A PRO-LIFE TEEN

MOVIES: "LA LA LAND"

Is the fêted "La La Land" really so great? Yes, if you like sheer escapist  films and golden-era Hollywood films. Also, it's pretty much a quasi-musical. It doesn't try too hard, and is very tongue-in-cheek about what it purports to be, so it's an overall light and uplifting experience. Definitely the "feel-good" film of the year. However, there are some challenging conversations toward the end, and it will be imperative that you decide what YOU would do in Mia's (the ever-effervescent Emma Stone) and Sebastian's (Ryan "Hey Girl" Gosling) place. The writer-director is Damien Chazelle ("Whiplash").

HOLLYWOOD LOVES FILMS ABOUT HOLLYWOOD

Hollywood loves films about Hollywood and the whole process of filmmaking (remember "The Artist" and, more recently, "Birdman"? Both Best Picture winners in their respective Oscar years). But why do most people enjoy dreaming with the silver screen? Ah, this is one of the great draws of story and film. Just for a moment, just for a minute, we imagine and enter wonderful worlds and trip the light fantastic. As Berthold Auerbach said of music: "Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life." The music in question here is jazz (which I, for one, am wildly fond of). Sebastian is a classic jazz piano player who dreams of opening his own club. But classic jazz is dying. Mia dreams of being a successful actress, but she's in the company of thousands and thousands. What are her chances of standing out?

After having lived in L.A. for five years, I understood the drill: actors can't keep jobs because they have to keep going to auditions at odd hours. Actors are treated brutally and summarily dismissed with no explanation. (We screenwriters were told at UCLA that when our work is rejected, it's just our ideas, so get over it. Actors have their whole being picked over and rejected: looks, voice, walk, personality, etc.)

MAGICAL MUSIC

The soundtrack, which is critical to many plot points, helps lend an old-timey feel to the whole film--jazz, 40's romantic ballads, magical Fantasia-esque orchestra with a generous helping of chimes, oboes, plucked strings and flutes. The music and the visuals carefully play with various Hollywood decades and we float seamlessly in and out of them, even though this is firmly a present-day setting. Dancing weaves effortlessly in at opportune moments: tap, ballroom and little bit of honky tonk. The music and dancing are not overused. The camera is having lots of whimsical fun, too, sashaying and spinning about. An  element of nostalgia combined with unexpected story-turns is always lurking. LLL evokes the kind of celluloid daydreaming and stargazing people used to "live for" and "live off of." We are even transported to the Griffith Observatory in the Hollywood Hills--first in a film within the film, and then to the Observatory itself where Sebastian and Mia dance among the stars.

"La La Land" is a straightforward linear romance with no flashbacks or B stories--which is a bit of a relief in today's "Memento," toying-with-chronology-and-point-of-view" storytelling culture. LLL is a film about hope and wonder (the last film I saw about wonder was "Tree of Life." Wonder is a bit of a rarity as a film-subject, maybe it always was?) If you're like me, you'll smile frequently during this unusual film.

MARRED

Sebastian and Mia meet in infamous L.A. traffic on a backed-up freeway on-ramp, and the movie starts off with a bang as people get out of their cars and begin dancing on them --synchronized and singing, of course--like so many commercials we've seen. Pure "fun" is the word that came to mind over and over. And charming. Definitely charming. Just as I was feeling like this was really a lovely throwback to a sweeter time (single girls living all together in an all-girl apartment! Girl roommates giggling over dates coming to pick them up!)--the filmmakers had to slip in a modern-day requisite, a fly in the ointment, a snake in the garden: hooking up and living together. Sigh. As though it were nothing. Sigh. Hooking up and co-habitation is really a blight on the whole enterprise with its terrible message of CONDITIONAL LOVE.

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS...WELL?

Will you agree with the ending? That it's a good ending, a "just" ending? At first I didn't totally agree, but then I realized it might have been a kind of "altruistic love" ending, almost an O. Henry "Gift of the Magi" type ending, but I mustn't say more than this, except that there's also a very clever alterna-ending.

I would love to discuss the ending more, but it would be a big spoiler. One thing I think we have to ask ourselves in general is this: When do we have to "give up" dreams? We only get one life. Best we make it real and good and beautiful as it is. How? By rolling it all up in a unified ball of faithful glory.

Best Picture at the Oscars? Only if it was a slow year for films, but it wasn't. We had "Hacksaw Ridge."

OTHER STUFF:

--This film is much better, more enjoyable than "The Artist."

--A lot of thought, planning and meticulosity went into this film, but the feel is so free-flowing--something that perhaps can only come about when discipline is employed. LLL is frothy, but you're forced to examine your own hopes and dreams and what you've done or not done about them.

--Tapdancing on the sunhorizon.

--An example of LLL's film-era mash-up: some of Sebastian's dialogue is of the "hard-boiled" variety.

--Lots of L.A. jokes, but not all insider jokes. Anyone can get them.

--Emma and Ryan have decent, complementary singing voices.

--Funny snatches of Mia's auditions.

--Watts Towers!

--A few great theme songs/melodies.

--Mia gets schooled on what jazz is all about.

--It seems Sebastian's music is emphasized and explored more than Mia's acting.

--The Griffith Observatory makes an appearance.

--Great build-up to their first kiss.

--Good lyrics, good movement, a good quasi-musical.

--The 1930's bungalow style apartment with the colored-and-black tiles in the bathroom.

--"L.A. worships everything and values nothing." However, I met plenty of film-historian types in L.A. within and without "the industry" who care deeply about Hollywood's past. Not L.A., mind you, Hollywood. L.A. is kind of ahistorical, continually erasing its past. So many transients! I heard it said that 1,000 people come to L.A. every day seeking fame and fortune and 1,000 leave daily. It's the "City of Broken Dreams." I remember once seeing a well-groomed woman walking down Hollywood Blvd., sobbing uncontrollably (and histrionically).

L.A. sometimes feeling like a non-existent place. The Pentecostal Movement started there among "people of every nation," led by the humble and prayerful William Seymour, and Los Angeles became known as another "Jerusalem." The buildings where it all transpired have been leveled. The downtown isn't really anything, but other scattered city-centers are where things happen: Century City, Culver City, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Venice, Malibu. The cardboard city of Skid Row is a tragic mini-metropolis of the homeless and crippled and cast off (hospitals were caught dumping John and Jane Doe patients, including the elderly in its streets when I lived in L.A. from 2000-2005). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles

Incidentally, L.A. is known for its LACK of jazz and support of jazz. I heard Carmen Lundy (singer) and Regina Carter (jazz violin) at "The Jazz Bakery" in Culver City, and Carmen was bemoaning the fact!

--Ryan Gosling is better than Ryan Reynolds (both Canadians).

--Different people are getting different meanings out of the ending. :)

TOP TOB TOMES

PHILOSOPHY RESOURCES FOR YOUNG & OLD

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

MOVIES: "FENCES"

Denzel Washington's Oscar-nominated "Fences," is an adaptation from a Pulitzer-Prize-winning 1983 August Wilson play. Denzel both directs and acts in this quotidian, small town, seemingly small stuff character study. Set in 1950's Pittsburgh, Denzel's character, Troy, is a garbage man. He's a complicated mix of a gifted raconteur, a complaining curmudgeon, and a would-have-been baseball player. We learn about the sad circumstances of his upbringing midway through the film--bringing us further back to 1918. Troy is married to the lovely Rose (the splendid Viola Davis), his second wife.

A TRUE GLIMPSE INTO A BYGONE ERA

I feel that a play/film of this nature, quality, sensibility couldn't be written today (Wilson was born in 1945). We have lost so much of the meaning of man/woman, husband/wife, the indissolubility of marriage--as well as the project of modernity and the American Dream. Although "Fences" is ostensibly about a subpar family life--due to Troy's bitterness and blaming everyone but himself, it is also hopeful--if we "take the crookeds with the straights," if we accept what life pitches at us and make the absolute best of it. However, is there a subtle apologia here for men not holding up their end of--not a bargain or a deal or a contract--but a relationship: namely, marriage? Or is this the playwright's forgiveness paean to his own father?

The period lingo, manners and mannerisms could all be researched for a story like this, but today's PC assumptions, agendas and dogmas would simply not allow for an unbiased, clear-eyed look-back into the inner sanctum of this hard-working, blue collar African-American Christian family. And even with all the good will in the world, I think the mentality and milieu of yesteryear would be almost incomprehensible to today's dramatist. Yes, I believe that that much has changed that much.

Change itself is an ever-present theme in "Fences." Troy will not believe that white attitudes toward blacks will ever change (even when faced with proof). Troy chooses to hold himself and everyone around him back, or rather "fence them in."

THERE'S NO EXCUSE

Although we can sympathize with Troy, at a certain point there are no excuses for his excuses. How he treats his wife and his two sons isn't right, but sadly typical and realistic, too. Women, wives and mothers are portrayed as the long-suffering, saintly creatures they are (or rather, were): the glue, the mortar holding everything together. I couldn't help thinking that in a few short years, that would all come crashing down and the Women's Movement would declare: Enough! (Of course, these dysfunctional male-female double standard behavioral patterns are not completely erased even today--where the woman is expected to and does hold the moral high ground while the man is his own arbiter of rectitude.)

THE PLAY'S THE THING

In "Fences," like many other plays-cum-films, the screen adaptation has not changed the hyper-real dialogue much, and it downplays the visual--except for faces and verbal interaction. Instead, it showcases Denzel, the stage actor. The question simply is: Are you OK with plays turned into films pretty much as they are? The mini-speeches are long. The settings are few and almost entirely domestic. However, the camera angles do make it feel like more of a cinematic experience. In my humble opinion, good plays will make good film-plays--even if not given the full film treatment. Bad plays...well, you get the picture. "Fences" is a good play.

Plays--like television--are a talking medium: a series of monologues. rich, crafted dialogue and storytelling linked together by subtle action-shifts (often occurring offstage). When "Fences" begins, we are treated to Troy at the top of his game, chattering up a storm, with frequent references to the inequities "Negroes" routinely endure from "the white man." We feel there may be some confrontation, some terrible injustice around the corner. We feel a tension boiling. But nothing so easy is in the cards. Troy must confront himself. Troy must have the honesty and courage to confront himself. Will he ever?

"Fences" is definitely a father-son film, "How Not To Father," perhaps. How cycles repeat themselves. But right alongside this primordial relationship is the dynamic of husband-wife (the mother-son relationship is so overshadowed by the male-to-male dynamic of father-son that Rose is not "allowed" to exercise her feminine influence on either side of the equation, even though she tries).

THE MARRIAGE DIATRIBE

And yet, Rose's impassioned and accurate "marriage diatribe" blows time-bound thinking and mores out of the water. She brilliantly, viscerally outlines the eternal, "perennial gift" (JP2) that marriage is and has always been. She skeletally describes its elevated dignity that will elevate all who fully participate in it. Not only does Rose comprehend--through experience and the practice of virtue--what the heart of matrimony is (love, duty, sacrifice, keeping one's word, modifying dreams and expectations, self-donation, honoring vows, cleaving to one person, giving one's best, meeting life's demands), she also understands what children need, what children are, and how our personal identities are formed: "We can't be other than what we are," meaning the raw material, our parentage, our childhoods, our families, our siblings, our formative experiences. But Rose also knew that these defining touchstones are not meant to fatalistically limit us. We can always reach for the more that's right in front of us.

OTHER STUFF:

--Lovely, transcendent character of "Gabriel," Troy's brain-damaged-from-war brother who lives in readiness for the next life, trumpet at the ready, fighting hell-hounds and communicating with St. Peter at the pearly gates.

--One of Troy's many excuses for his attitude and actions is a sad reduction of his marital/parental/family duties to money. He provides money and shelter, and that's all that should be required of him.

--The whole film is a negative Theology of the Body lesson.

--"Everything that boy does, he does for you. He needs to hear 'Good job, son. I'm proud of you.'"

--Marriage is becoming one. Pursuing hopes and dreams together (no matter how modest): not separately, not as individuals, living what is essentially a fantasy-double-life.

--Read more about the play (one in a series of 10): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fences_(play)

--Read about August Wilson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Wilson

MOVIES: "ARRIVAL"

The Oscar-nominated sci-fi film "Arrival" is a vacuous, insipid waste of time, in my humble opinion. I can't stand alien movies, but everyone assured me this wasn't an alien movie, or not your typical alien movie. (It is.) "E.T." and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" are so much better than "Arrival," even though they may not totally stand the test of time. Speaking of time, the theme of "Arrival" is majorly about time. But in a really bad, stupid, fictional way that doesn't translate into anything in science, physics or reality that might be even slightly helpful and useful to us human beings. "Inception" is a much better exercise of the moral imagination on the subject of time and a better use of your time.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS

I forced myself to watch this film on the recommendation of a theology-savvy, pop-culture-maven priest friend who absolutely loves "Arrival" and is (incredibly) mining its "depths" and finding gold there. I wonder if he has heard of "fool's gold." I began watching this slow-moving, boring movie with a grating, irritating, looping "other worldly" soundtrack--waiting for it to get good. But that never happened. Amy Adams does her earnest best to play a language expert who is called on by the U.S. government/military to decipher the aliens' language. Jeremy Renner might as well not have had a part at all (except for the weak, confusing ending). He is less ornamental than space debris. I like both of these actors very much and felt sad and embarrassed for them. "Arrival" was beneath their skill sets. This film could have used unknowns.

My movie reviewing skills were also squandered on this film, and I took fewer notes on this film than any film in recent memory because there was nothing to write about. The story unimaginatively commences like a sequence from a low-budget TV show: We find out what's happening through various news broadcasts: scenes of hysteria, panic and states of emergency. Twelve huge pods suddenly appear on earth, hovering in disparate locations around the world (Montana, USA--where we spend most of our time, Russia, Pakistan, China, Sudan, Greenland). No one knows what these vessels are, what they mean, why these locations were chosen.

STEREOTYPICAL

The military of each country is, of course, assessing the threat level, veering toward extreme caution, suspicion, taking no chances and assuming hostility. Communications with the beings in the pod are difficult because they use a very unusual form of language (both sounds and script). Do they come in peace? Do they come with a message? Are they offering technology? Do they know something we don't know? How much time are they giving us before they attack? Are we angering them by our miscommunication? Are we misunderstanding them completely? Oh, and the "aliens" are laughable and ridiculous looking. Sorry.

There is a thin, thin A story and no B or C story, except for continuous flashbacks involving Amy Adam's character's daughter, whom she lost to cancer. The love story is Disney princess overly romanticized. The grandiose idea/choice of war vs. peace is simplistically trotted out and simplistically dealt with. The U.S. military are stereotypically impatient, trigger-happy and ready to declare war, putting a time lock on the language-scientists to accurately decipher the aliens' intentions. But nothing feels urgent because the story, acting, tropes and visuals are so trite and tired and unengaging--and we've seen it all before on the small screen. There is nothing fresh and new here. There is abundant use of voiceover (a big no-no at my film school, UCLA), but it comes across (in Amy Adams' ethereal voice) as desperately trying to be profound and spiritual and contemplative and say something IMPORTANT. It fulfilled none of these objectives for me. I did not feel one iota reflective watching this film--many of the sentiments expressed fell on my ears like a sappy greeting card: "Don't take anything for granted." "Every day is a gift." "I embrace the journey now, every minute of it" [but it's a non-linear journey, folks, see the rest of this review]. And the ending--which plays with time--kinda sorta angered me, not because it was some impossible twist or disjointed from the rest of the film, but because it trashes reality while wanting us to believe this trashing is an actual possibility that can help us in some way examine on our own experience.

PAGAN WORLDVIEW

So here's what got me totally irked. What was presented, in the end, was a totally non-Judaeo-Christian worldview. Which is fine, because there are other worldviews out there! However, I guess what really irks me is not just a poorly-made film with a strong non-Judaeo-Christian worldview, but that Jews and Christians do not even realize how "alien" films like these are to their worldview. They embrace these films as though they contain some amazing meta-wisdom for us when they do not. (Not that we can't learn some truth, beauty and goodness contained in other worldviews, but overall? Nope.)

In "Arrival," Amy Adams' character (who has "secret knowledge" because she has "been here before," and "lived this already") clearly states: "I don't know if I believe in beginnings and endings anymore." This is a classic pagan* worldview: matter is eternal, everything just repeats itself over and over again in a never-ending cyclical pattern. Reincarnation. Time and history are non-linear. This is not the Judaeo-Christian understanding at all, and also not what cosmology and the Big Bang Theory tell us. Time, history, salvation history and each of our lives are linear. There is a beginning and an end to the story of Creation, of the world, and each of our precious life-stories. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

_______
*pagan--not a derogatory term--means literally "from the countryside," those who do not follow one of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam

OTHER STUFF:

--Some who love this film are telling me that the Amy Adams character is able to "see as God sees." I presume they mean that she has been given the "grace" to be able look backwards over her life, or lead her life in reverse, or know in advance why certain things happen or something like that. Um, no one gets that "grace." Is that even a grace? Isn't that what people go to fortune tellers for and why it's forbidden? No one sees life exactly as God sees it or understands the totality of the tapestry, and if we did, there would be no purpose for faith or hope. I would think this would be more of a curse, especially because we have free will and this "time travel" would allow us to alter the future, etc., etc. There's a reason there are no crystal balls.

Also, folks are saying "Arrival" is so pro-life. I have no idea what they're talking about. "The Girl on the Train" is pro-life. Yes--I thought that film was going to be as bludgeoningly bad as "Gone Girl," but it's actually not bad. (My "micro-review" coming soon.)

FURTHERMORE: God is not even intimated. There are just aliens--who, although butt-ugly--are more peaceful and better at time-twisting or understanding the "true nature of time" than we are or something like that because they're "highly evolved" beings that don't have to care what they look like. Rubbish. I guess I'm just fed up with God being left out. But I shouldn't let myself be fed up (even though "The Young Pope" spoiled me with the amazing overt God-talk and God as a character), because, as Charles Williams once said: "Shakespeare expressed supernatural values in natural forms," as does any good art.

If you struggle with issues of "free will" and "is man truly free"? Read David Foster Wallace's defense of free will vis-a-vis determinism and fatalism: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/fate-time-and-language/9780231151573

--I'm just re-reading my sparse notes from the film. I spy "hokey," "cheesy," "ham-handed," and "schmaltzy" scribbled in the margins.

--One good Theology of the Body aspect: Adams' character clearly represents the feminine principle of "intuitive" knowledge while Renner's character represents the masculine principle of "analytical" knowledge. Both are indispensable. Adams is pretty much the only female surrounded by male scientists and military. Obviously a message here.

--I think I read once that the physical form that aliens take in sci-fi movies is irrelevant. They're even made to be uninteresting because we're supposed to focus on something else. But still.

--Those circles drove me NUTS. I kept waiting for a different shape, a squiggle, anything!

--One interesting language theory is put forth.

--Supposedly a big revelation: "There are different ways to interpret that statement [from the aliens]." (DUH.)

--I was left with HUGE plot questions that I can't put here without totally spoiling this "film."

--Some say our obsession with aliens and alien movies is an attempt to make sense of the mystery in our own lives. Some say it's an attempt to deal with our worst fears of invasion and aggression and all-out war and annihilation. Others say it's an escape from God: the "I'll believe in anything but God" stance. I haven't quite figured it out yet. (And maybe all these explanations are true.)

         "It is appointed for man to die once, and after this, judgment." --Hebrews  9:27

BEST CATHOLIC NEWS SOURCES

                       

Why keep up with "Catholic news" from (trusted, authentic) Catholic sources? Why also get "secular" news from a (trusted, authentic) Catholic perspective? (If you're reading a Catholic blog, I'm probably LITERALLY preaching to the choir, but here goes.)

1. There's a lot going on in the Church and in the world today, good and bad. We just can't afford not to know. Ignorance is not bliss, it's blindness. It's not knowing where we're going or why. Lack of knowledge leaves us open to be easily manipulated, misled, disillusioned.

2. There's a lot going on in the intersection of the Church and the world today, good and bad.

3. If we don't keep up, we'll drift from our Faith and even become confused. Because we weren't keeping up. If we love something, we want to know it always better and keep pace with it. If we love Jesus' Church, we'll do the same.

4. We need knowledge first and then wisdom to understand the times we're living in and the challenges and opportunities for the Faith.

"The sons of Issachar, who were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do...." 1 Chronicles 12:32

5. Jesus admonished those who couldn't "read the signs of the times."

6. We have today a phenomenon of "the magisterium of the laity"* (phrase coined by a priest friend): a plethora of Catholic YouTubers, authors/speakers and social media influencers of every ilk with huge followings telling us what is true Catholicism. Many of these intelligent and fervent Catholics are disturbed (and rightly so) by the degree of confusion, heresy and corruption at varying levels of Church officialdom, academia as well as "in the pews," and are doing the following: 1) unearthing/reporting no small evildoing, malfeasance (doctrinal, sexual, financial) 2) teaching what they believe is true Catholic doctrine (which may or may not be) 3) interpreting the entirety of the Catholic Faith: doctrine, morals, worship, history, etc.

This "magisterium of the laity"--which I believe is 99.9% extremely well intentioned--is often muddying the waters even more--and yet, without some serious investigative journalism, horrors like clandestine systemic clergy sex abuse could be flourishing. Heresy could sound like genuine "development of doctrine." The glorious intellectual tradition and comprehensive teaching and wisdom of the Catholic Faith could lay fallow: untouched, untaught and untransmitted in favor of the latest spirituality/theology/sociology fads or, quite simply, religious pablum. Today's laity are the most educated in history and can't be talked down to, condescended to, patronized, gaslit. They are too smart (and good) for that. But, there is no such thing as the magisterium of the laity. The Magisterium is the pope and bishops in communion with him. It is they who hold the teaching office of the Church.

7. Even some long-time, respected, established and "establishment" mainstream Catholic media are rather recently succumbing (2020) to BAD JOURNALISM which is mostly LACK OF JOURNALISM, NOT DOING THE JOB OF A JOURNALIST: NOT going to the sources, NOT fact-checking, NOT reporting accurately and impartially. It's getting harder and harder to give rubberstamp approval to any one (or even one!) Catholic news source that's going to get it right even most of the time these days! So...#1 Know your Catholic Faith. #2 Consult trusted Catholic sources/people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is always the best go-to. #3 Trust but verify. Do your homework. Be your own journalist, fact-checker, etc.

What are some top sources for Catholic news? Here are my picks. 

These are not just websites, but can be followed/subscribed to on both Twitter and Facebook (you can usually just go to the site and sign up from there, as well as follow by email: they'll send updates into your email inbox).

www.Twitter.com is my #1 source of breaking Catholic news. Wanna get started on Twitter? It's pathetically simple to sign up. Then just "follow" me: @SrHelenaBurns and click on "Tweets" and then "Lists" at the top of my Twitter page. I only have one list: "news-secular-and-Catholic." Click on it and voila! You are instantly following 150 top Catholic (and secular news sites), as well as some very informed individual Catholics (including bloggers) who will keep YOU informed. I don't agree with ALL the sources/folks on that list, just so you know. I personally read "everything."

However, the following sources ARE vetted, and I recommend 'em:

www.WordOnFire.org   Bishop Robert Barron instantly comments on current issues with solid Catholic guidance via short YouTubes (see also his YouTube channel). Fr. Barron's YouTubes are easily shareable and very popular among young adults. It seems even young atheists will watch his stuff because "at least this guy makes sense." Or as Brandon Vogt says: "Fr. Barron is on a mission to show that Catholicism is smart, and has one of the world's most brilliant intellectual traditions."

www.CatholicWorldReport.com (from Ignatius Press--thoughtful in-depth articles about stuff I promise you you didn't know and need to. They discontinued their fine, fine print magazine which was my all-time favorite Catholic periodical. *sob*)  (You can subscribe via email.) See also: www.IgnatiusInsight.com

www.RelevantRadio.com  (Listen online!) Hi-quality 24hr Catholic radio station mostly in Chicago & Midwest. Get their app for iPhone & Android: www.relevantradio.com/app. Constant secular and Catholic news updates as well as in-depth instruction, talk shows and news analysis from Emmy-winning journalist, Sheila Liaugminas (show: "A Closer Look"). Shows are also instantly archived and easy to find on their website. I''m addicted to their "Father Simon Says" podcast: a Bible study of the daily readings. NOT a homily, a REAL BIBLE STUDY: what the Greek & Hebrew words are and what they mean, yadda, yadda.

CATHOLIC RADIO!
Support Catholic radio in your area (and online)! Radio apps for mobile technology means you can take it wherever you go, too.

TEXT ALERTS!
From U.S. Bishops regarding religious liberty (free): text "FREEDOM" to 377377 (for Spanish: "LIBERTAD")

--LighthouseCatholicMedia.org (Augustine Institute) Some of the best Catholic speakers addressing some of the most timely issues directly affecting our lives. Can't recommend enough. In general, I'll listen to each talk about 3 times. CDs and .mp3s

--www.TOBinstitute.org and www.CorProject.com Keep up with Theology of the Body! (get on their e-newsletter list) AND simply put "Theology of the Body" in Google alerts!

www.EWTN.com Global Catholic TV and radio network. EWTN is the undisputed granddaddy of Catholic TV (excluding Archbishop Fulton Sheen, of course). Foundress Mother Angelica made an option for teaching: talk shows, talking heads. EWTN does what they do well. Very well. Multimedia, tons of resources, free real-time streaming online. Also in Spanish.

www.NCRegister.com  (Owned by EWTN) National Catholic Register (can subscribe via email) print edition also available. Simply the finest, most balanced, faithful-yet-super-contemporary take on Church and world news. Bravo.

www.Zenit.org (daily headlines from Vatican--unofficial, but quick & easy way to get Vatican news)

www.News.VA/en  The new, revamped Vatican media site. Includes the official Vatican Newspaper (L'Osservatore Romano), Vatican Information Service, Fides New Agency, Vatican Radio, etc.

Blessed James Alberione reading his favorite newspaper:
L'Osservatore Romano (with Bro. Silvio de Blasio, SSP)

Below is L'Osservatore Romano (the official Vatican Newspaper, I believe it's weekly in English). Print edition is well worth the subscription price. It was printed in English in the USA (for USA and Canada) for a little while, but is now mailed directly from the Vatican. Full texts of Holy Father's talks and doings and other important stuff from the Vatican Offices.  

L'Osservatore Romano email:
 subscriptions@ossrom.va 

www.CatholicRegister.org (Canada) Voted BEST North American diocesan newspaper (weekly). From Archdiocese of Toronto, but goes all over Canada. Canadians are just so classy and literary and in-depth on the issues and such. Especially read Fr. Raymond J. de Souza column: it's incisive like a Ninja. Digital subscription available.

www.CatholicNews.com  This is the user-friendly "CNS" news service of the U.S. Bishops. This website compiles a lot of news resources, including movie reviews (which are short, dry and focus mostly on what is appropriate for children or family viewing, don't look for an appreciation of artistry). It includes links to top news stories from Origins and international  Church news. See at bottom of website: www.InterMirifica.net --int'l Catholic multimedia directory!

www.MarsHillAudio.org This is a high-brow, high-Christian, monthly NPR-style audio magazine (CD or mp3-download subscription, well worth the shekels) that keeps you up on the latest books (often by Christians) examining our culture under many different aspects. Great if you love PHILOSOPHY. Lots of interviews with authors and professors. MHA is not Catholic, but very Catholic friendly.

www.EnvoyMagazine.com Wicked fun, non-highbrow apologetics. Gorgeous graphic design. Patrick Madrid.

www.MercatorNet.com  Weird title, good info. Dedicated to any issue dealing with human dignity. In-depth, timely and thoughtful digest.

www.LumenChristi.org  Like philosophy? Me, too!!! Watch world-class Catholic (and other) philosophers on video. This amazing Institute (set up by Cardinal George at the University of Chicago, his alma mater) is revitalizing Catholic philosophy. Kind of a think tank. If you live in Chicago you can go to these talks in person. FREE.

www.OSV.com (Our Sunday Visitor) Weekly online and print. Looking for a FUN, positive, family-oriented, EASY-READ-but-still-informative Catholic news source? Look no further. Best of its kind.

www.SaltandLightTV.org (Canada) Catholic shows, news (English, French, Italian, Chinese)

www.CatholicTV.com (out of Boston) 24 hr, streaming online.

www.NETTV.net  (out of Brooklyn) 24 hr, streaming online.

www.CatholicVote.org Timely issues and essays.

www.CardinalNewmanSociety.org What's going on on "Catholic" college campuses....

www.Formed.org (Augustine Institute) Catholic Netflix! Endless resources. Get password from your parish.

www.CCO.ca (Canada) Catholic Christian Outreach: Young Adult Missionaries have great resources to share the Faith.

BEST CATHOLIC PODCASTS (huge compilation): https://hellburns.blogspot.com/2020/09/holy-catholic-podcast-pandemonium-or.html#.X5sm-4hKiM8 With the list is an accompanying explanation of why I listen to "everything," but can't actually tell you or recommend what I listen to!

BestCatholicWebsites.com  For excellence in various digital Catholic media (content and production values)

Oh yes, and a last-but-not-least reason to keep up with Catholic news:

Papa B asked us to be "an engaged, articulate and well-informed Catholic laity" 

specifically in the United States! He said this to a group of U.S. Bishops on their ad limina visit (January 2012)

because of  how religious freedom was being threatened in the USA. 

PUHLEEEEZE do not get your Church news from the New York Times. I was a long-time fan and reader of the Sunday NYT, but not any more. (Their embrace and incessant promotion of abortion is hard to stomach.) When it comes to religion (especially Catholicism) they are intellectually dishonest (misrepresenting, withholding information, pretending they don't grasp the issues) and hostile.

f

As a matter of fact, why trust secular news to:

1. report accurately (it's just all that draconic mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make sense anyway, right?)

2. care

3. comprehend

4. be honest (see #1.)

5. interpret what it all means for us?

Stop it, people! Time to wise up, keep up, and get your Best Catholic News Sources on!

End rant.

FEMINISM & THEOLOGY OF THE BODY--TORONTO

DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL BENEFIT DINNER--TORONTO, FEBRUARY 5!

MOVIES: "SILENCE"

SEVERAL SPOILERS BELOW--BUT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS FILM!

The new Scorsese film, "Silence," based on the 1966 historical novel (with the same title) by Japanese Catholic, Shûsaku Endô, is a take on: missionary activity, Christianity, the priesthood, the sacraments, religious persecution, torture, suffering, the suffering of God and the God of suffering. I read the haunting novel several years ago, and I'm sure the ending is what sticks with everyone: the conundrum of an ultimatum that does not allow YOU to suffer for your Faith, but rather makes OTHERS suffer for YOUR Faith until YOU renounce God (or "apostatize," making you an "apostate"). And actually, it doesn't even matter if those made to suffer for you are your fellow Christians or not: human beings will suffer greatly because of YOUR profession of faith.

The main way (among others) that Christians had to denounce Christ and faith in Christ was to step on His image.

AN APOSTATE PRIEST?

Now, perhaps the above information was a bit of a SPOILER for you. If so, I apologize. But it casts a back-shadow over the whole story and is actually its premise. Two young Portuguese Jesuits (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) go to Japan to find their older mentor-priest (Liam Neeson) who, it is rumored, has apostatized. They meet up with secret Japanese Christians along the way and minister to them. For these young, idealistic and fervent men, the glory of martyrdom is straightforward and clear cut. They refuse to believe their spiritual father has abandoned Christ and are convinced it's simply the slander of Japanese officials. They can't imagine the choice and the crossroad before them--they will tread the exact same excruciating path their beloved mentor trod.

JUDAS

Kichijiro (Yôsuke Kubozuka) is a Christian who denied Christ out of weakness, and we can tell right away that he's going to be trouble, a kind of Judas figure that can't be trusted. However, just like the rest of this rich tale, he is not going to be a typical tragic Judas figure. In fact, he's even a bit of comic relief. At no point are we directed to judge anyone--only to keep putting ourselves in the midst of these troubled times and in the place of these troubled souls. Jesus Himself is presented in the film as a compatriot, a com-passionate-er ("to suffer with"), a Savior, a model, a friend--not a judge.

THE PERFECT WAY TO SUFFOCATE CHRISTIANITY?

Japan is spoken of as a "swamp" by the missionaries and the Japanese themselves. A swamp that drowned Christianity (Christianity had flourished in the time of Francis Xavier and immediately after, until the Japanese officials not only instituted a crushing and murderous persecution, but forced priests to make the terrible decision.) But. #1 Christianity survived (albeit in small numbers) and was reintroduced in later centuries. #2 If the Japanese officials had found the perfect way to kill Christianity, why was this tactic not used everywhere in the world that opposes Christianity or opposes anything else for that matter? Surely this is not the first time oppressors realized that threatening someone's family/friends works way better than threatening the person themselves! So, on one hand, I think it's a false conundrum. What I used to think was the absolute death knell of faith (when I first read "Silence") is just another dastardly trick.

JESUS NEVER PROMISED US A ROSE GARDEN.
QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

What does "silence" mean? The silence of God in the face of human suffering. In the face of prayers that seem to spiral out into a void. The silence of the lack of God's intervention in affairs both human and divine. But here we must be careful of demanding God to fulfill promises He never made. Tell me where/when Jesus ever promised a life free of suffering to His followers or anyone else? Where did Jesus promise us long life or even tomorrow? This is all wishful thinking on our part. Instead, Jesus promised us the exact opposite: persecution, death, hatred, the exact same treatment He received. "God is not a rescuer, He's a Redeemer" (my friend, Fr. Michael D'Cruz, OFM, 60 years a priest). Still want to be a Christian? "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life" (John 6:68).

PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

But just to play devil's advocate here: was outward apostasy the only choice? What if the priests had refused to publicly "deny" Christ and had to continue to listen/watch as the Christians (who had already apostatized and would only be relieved by the priests' forfeiture) were tortured? (And we know the Japanese officials were true to their word and ceased the torture as soon as the priests capitulated.) Surely this was still a choice--but not a "Christian" one? Christ/Christianity does not believe in avoiding suffering at any cost, but neither does it accept suffering that can be avoided--even at great cost--out of compassion. And yet--might the Japanese officials have believed if the priests "stood firm"? Or would they have thought the priests and their God cruel beyond words--crueler than themselves? Or would it have made no difference either way? Did not the early Roman martyrs face similar choices? Who did the priests really need to witness to: God? Themselves? The Japanese officials? The Japanese Christians? Christian Europe? History? The future? All the above? God is merciful, certainly, but what of: "...if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us..." (2 Timothy 2:12)? Is our profession of faith the one thing we must never give up in this world no matter what?

BIG SPOILER ALERT: In the film, Jesus imaginatively begins to give an answer to the conundrum  (so much for "silence"). He soothingly says: "Go ahead. Trample Me. That's what I came for: to be trampled on." I don't know if I'm the only one who thought this--but those could be the very words of Satan. A deception of Satan. I really got the creeps at this point in the film.

MASS APOSTASY

Apostasy was THE great unforgivable (in many Christian leaders' eyes) sin of early Christian times. Many who apostatized were not readmitted to the Church after persecutions died down, and a controversy over how to deal with apostates raged. "Silence" just made me think how easily we apostatize today! Without even any serious threats! How we are actually living in times of such weak faith and mass apostasy--without people even realizing what they're doing. It's almost like we act as though we're living in an illusion where nothing really matters, nothing is really real and there are no real consequences to our actions or inaction. But such are our New-Age-tinged, relativistic times that tell us there is no immutable objective truth to be sought, known or adhered to. Let alone God.

FRANZ JAGERSTATTER

Blessed Franz Jagerstatter, "the only Austrian to stand up to Hitler," was told that because he wanted to do his precious little conscience, his wife and three daughters were going to suffer. Although he wasn't faced with the clear, horrorful choice of the Portuguese Jesuits, he nevertheless stated: "I don't think that just because a man has a family he is dispensed from doing his conscience." Wow. Let that sink in. We all have someone to protect. During the time of the Maccabees, the mother of the seven martyr-sons was told to dissuade her sons from death, but she did nothing of the kind and instead encouraged them to give up their bodies and limbs to the One who gave them and could restore them. And the old Jewish man was told to pretend to eat pork and save his life, but he said: "What kind of an example will that give to the young?" I know this is all so harsh. I'm just sayin. (Incidentally, Jagerstatter was guillotined by the Nazis--face up--and nothing bad happened to his family.)

MERCY

I am not strong. I have a pain tolerance of zero. And I am a totally chicken- and lily-livered in the face of any intimation of any kind of bodily harm. Without some kind of extraordinary grace of God, I would cave in, oh, the first 4 seconds of torture. What would I have done in the priests' situation? I don't know. And so, we must all throw ourselves on God's mercy. At all moments. This is definitely a film about mercy.

PEASANTS AND HEAVEN

The Christians are all peasants who have come to see themselves as beloved sons and daughters of the Father. "Christianity brought love." They are no longer animals and slaves. Not only that, there is a "paradise" awaiting them. Are they fools? Only if it's not true. So Christianity is the religion of the poor? Yes. The poor in spirit. And guess what. We're all going to die. Rich and poor alike. As the non-denoms and fundys and Evangelicals like to ask: "Are you saved?" "Do you know where you're going?" It's kind of an important question. Actually, it's all that really matters, isn't it?

PEASANTS AND PRIESTS

The padres are not seen as gods to the Christian peasants, but they understand very clearly that the sacraments (God working through matter) come through these chosen men. Sometimes they seem to have more faith in the priesthood than the priests themselves. How often the priests are edified by their great faith! Let's remember that these valiant Christians really did exist. Thousands were killed for their faith. And who are we to judge their faith? Maybe it is simpler and truer and purer than our own. If anything--these Christians could stand in judgment of the faith (or lack thereof) of us Christians of today.

A DISCUSSION FILM

There is so much in this non-tedious 2 hours and 41 minutes film that we could and should talk about for days. It's not that it's jam-packed, it's just that the very nature of God, faith, culture, Christianity and suffering are all glaring, blaring, blazing themes, and they all come together in one big package--of necessity. My head is still spinning. In a good way. And, on top of it all, many of us watching this film are looking at our Euro-centric forebears in the Faith who had a deeper, more tactile, more immediate, more vibrant, more black and white, more urgent sense of salvation than we soft, 21st-century, relativistic, dualistic (separating body and soul), abstracting postmoderns can even begin to muster a concept of. One would hope that we ahistorical folks are able at least to realize what a different mindset people had at this time in history (both the European Christians and the Japanese Buddhists). "Freedom of religion" as we understand it today was largely unheard of in the 17th century.

PARTING SHOTS

What does Scorsese think? What does Scorsese believe? I think he tipped his hand in the closing scene and the brief text-epilogue-dedication. I would rather the film have been without both.

OTHER STUFF:

--IS THIS FILM SAYING: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR BODY/EXTERIOR ACTION-BELIEFS BECAUSE ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE SOUL/INTERIOR ACTION-BELIEFS?

--Garfield was good. Perhaps a bit too perky and hopeful and not anguished enough. Driver was also good, but wasn't given many lines or much of a part, really.
The Japanese actors are P-H-E-N-O-M-E-N-A-L.

--The cinematography was not really lush, certainly nowhere near as lush as "Kundun." "Silence" is a dire human drama that can't afford to get lost in beauteous nature. There is no great horrific gore-fest here (that Scorsese could have done so well). Rather we get lost in the faith of the people, not their pain.

--Evil is not "beautiful." It is glamorous. And no one needs be "worthy" to be called evil as though evil is an actual good or substance. It is only a lack. Evil is the great illusion that will be done away with.

--Bishop Barron's even-more-spoilery-than-my-review-review (I agree with his critique in part): https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/scorseses-silence-and-the-seaside-martyrs/5360
Before the film came out, friends of mine were worried that the message would be: "See? Capitulation and dissembling and complying are ALWAYS better than suffering: one's own or someone else's." But that wasn't quite the message, especially when we see in the film plenty of Japanese being killed for the Faith outright with no complex dilemmas involved.... I do agree that the heroes put forth here are the "simple" Japanese faithful. But when we get to the other side, we'll see whether or not they were so "simple." Maybe just "stalwart"? At any rate, we know for a fact that they are saints. Martyr-saints.

Bishop Barron draws an interesting parallel with today's persecution: the privatization of the Faith. A Faith which is increasingly being restricted from being Catholically operative in the public sphere or in works of charity such as education, healthcare, etc. The Catholic Church increasingly cannot actually require that her institutions be Catholic any more. She "must" operate according to the "progressive" mores and policies of an "enlightened" society.

--Good, brief overview of book and film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_(novel)

--"America Magazine" interview with Martin Scorsese: http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/creating-silence

--A historian friend of mine has this to say:
"Cristóvão Ferreira, the priest (Liam Neeson) in #Silence, actually recanted his denial of Christ & died a Christian martyr"
"A simple Google search reveals that historically there have been sources revealing that witnesses reported his conversion at the end of his life and subsequent martydom. The book 'Silence' is historical fiction. There is controversy regarding this real priest. Unfortunately Scorsese and his priest consultant James Martin SJ chose the negative interpretation. The Japanese author admitted that he hypothesized what could have happened not what did happen. We need a Catholic historian to write a review based on historical analysis.

I think Endo did nothing wrong because he presented it as fiction. Scorsese conflates the history and the fiction by focusing on a real person without a disclaimer, without a note in the beginning that this is based on a novel. It is not fair to include a real historical person in a film yet not acknowledge that the ending is fictional. It saddens me that Scorsese neglected to include even the possibility based on historical accounts that Fr. Ferreira may have returned to the Church and died as a martyr.

The beautiful part of the film was the coverage of the martyrs. Very moving. It's too bad the ending had to be so negative. Jesus would never say deny me and trample on me. He said if we deny him, he will deny us. Of course he is merciful to we who do things out of fear but this film glorifies apostasy and doubt."

--My 90 second audio review: