November 20, 2009
Decent Films Doings: MSM notices my 2-star reviews!
(SDG)
So I was pleased to see last week that the Washington Post's "Under God" blog picked up on my 2012 review at Christianity Today in a post on the film — and that they specifically called out a "Catholic" coda at the end of the review, in which I expressed my difficulty with the depiction (and non-depiction) of Catholic clergy at key points in the film:
A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors--somewhere on the planet."
Apparently Canada's CBC took note, and this morning I did a half-hour segment on the CBC's morning show "The Current." While I always walk away from a broadcast appearance thinking about all the things I wished I had said, I thought that it went pretty well, all things considered.
Now this morning I see that NYTimes.com's Arts Beat blog picked up on my New Moon review for Christianity Today in their round-up of reviews! This time, there's not a specific faith angle; the CT.com review is quoted alongside Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek and Slate.com's Dana Stevens -- and they note, amusingly, that mine is probably "the only 'New Moon' review to invoke C. S. Lewis." Heh!
They also quote what is really the heart of my critique of the whole Twilight saga:
Twilight and New Moon are essentially uncritical celebrations of that overwrought, obsessive passion that is the hallmark of immaturity — passion that wholly subordinates all sense of one's own identity and elevates the beloved to summum bonum, or even the sole good; passion that leaps as readily to suicidal impulses and fantasies as to longing for union.
Pretty cool. (My editor at CT.com says he's going to have to keep me on all the two-star cheese-fests from now on...)
Incidentally, the WaPo blogger, David Waters, comments on my 2012 reservations, "Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut."
Maybe. First, though, how plausible is it that an enormous international project to save a remnant of thousands of people from all over the world, including many of the powerful and connected, would not include bishops? Certainly among those thousands would be some Catholics and Orthodox who would want to make provision for their faith life aprés le deluge, and would arrange for the inclusion of clergy.
Second, it's more the contrast of Catholic bishops explicitly being killed onscreen but not shown among the survivors that bothers me.
And third, I wouldn't say I had any "expectations" of "theological sensitivity" … I was merely commenting on something that's a problem for me watching the film. I might have similar reservations about a jelly donut.
Posted by SDG in Film | Permalink | Comments (18)
November 19, 2009
Opus Dei Movie On The Way
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones here, again. Hoping JA.O's resident film critic par excellence, Steven D. Greydanus, might have some more information or thoughts on this project;
It looks like Jose Maria Escriva, founder of the Catholic organization Opus Dei, is the subject of a movie soon to be out in theaters.
The movie has finished shooting and is in post-production under the watchful eye of director Roland Joffe, who also directed The Killing Fields and The Mission.
I haven't seen The Killing Fields, but The Mission I thought was a great film, and in one particular sequence gave one of the most powerful demonstrations of the value of penance I've ever seen. Not so much the value of penance in what they call the Economy of Salvation, but the deep human need for meaningful penance... the longing all spiritually healthy people have to do something to make up for our selfish acts.
This is not at all to say that we can earn our salvation through acts of penance apart from the grace of God. Without his grace, we could not even begin to repent, and our actions would be worthless.
Repentance and the desire to do penance is one of the surest indications of the working of God's grace, so the idea that acts of penance - actions we take to help make up for our sins - are somehow opposed to faith is self contradictory. Our sins can be forgiven only through the shed blood of Christ, but that does not relieve us of the responsibility to do all we can to contribute to the process of our own salvation (which is also called "sanctification" - they are two names for the same process).
Anyway, I'm sure members of Opus Dei will be looking forward to the film, as I will be. It sounds pretty highly fictionalized, but Joffe is reportedly sympathetic to the teachings of Jose Maria Escriva. I hope the movie provides some cultural balance to counter the loony speculation that followed in the wake of The Da Vinci Code.
(This was cross-posted at Tim Jones' blog Old World Swine)
Posted by Tim Jones in Film | Permalink | Comments (7)
November 18, 2009
The League of Bearded Catholics
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones, here.
For those who like their Catholic Culture full and neatly brushed, The League of Bearded Catholics is here to provide a convenient excuse constructive outlet for testosterone-infused merry making.
A hearty and hirsute celebration of the literary tradition of Tolkien, Lewis, Belloc and Chesterton.
"Break the conventions. Keep the commandments."
- G.K. Chesterton
Posted by Tim Jones in Books, Curios & Humor, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (18)
November 17, 2009
Not What The Mikado Expected
(Jimmy Akin)
I'm sure most folks have seen the picture of President Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan.
We'll it's not the first time he's done that with a foreign head of state, though this time it's even more impossible to argue (as some of his defenders, including his own press secretary, Spokesbot Robert Gibbs, did when he bowed to King Abdullah) that he was just bending over to shake the hand of a short foreign leader.
No, this was a bow--captured unmistakably in the photo from the side.
No doubt, he did it out of a belief that this is a polite way to greet people in Japan.
But one has to be careful about imitating the customs of people from other cultures, lest one send unintended messages.
For example: Does bowing to the Mikado convey politeness or subservience?
Knowing that kind of nuance is not part of a president's job requirements--but it is the reason he has a protocol office that is supposed to advise him about such things, and as Allahpundit points out, Obama's protocol office is "famously run by imbeciles."
I'm not instantly enraged at the idea of a president bowing to someone. Actually, I'm more disturbed by seeing American leaders dressing up in foreign garb at diplomatic events. But then presidents of both parties do that. I understand that it can be construed as conveying honor to another culture to adopt its dress, but clothing is so personal--and so much more perduring than a simple bow--that my preferred solution would be to have everybody show up in his own native garb (business suits for American presidents; plus formal attire for formal events).
There's always a question of how much to defer to local custom when in a foreign land, and a bow--like every gesture--has the meaning that is invested in it. It need not always convey subservience, and if there were a land where not bowing was insulting and in which their leader would reciprocally bow to our leader then I could understand.
But look at who's not bowing in the picture above.
And look at who's not bowing in the following video:
So. President Obama is made to look like a fool by what is clearly another protocol office mistake.
That raises a disturbing question: Why hasn't Obama learned his lesson from the protocol office's previous mistakes and replaced the appropriate individuals with more knowledgeable ones?
Thomas Sowell wonders what the real-world consequences will be of Obama making himself--and by the extension the United States--look weak in foreign eyes. And it does seem inevitable that this event would be read in light of Obama's tendency to apologize (in the "I'm sorry" sense) for the United States when on foreign soil.
Which brings up something else Allahpundit notes:
For another thing, and somewhat notably, Japan isn’t a stop on The One’s world apology tour. It could have been, but he declined the opportunity to turn it into one.
And he's right. Here's a case where--because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--the United States really does have something to apologize to Japan for. Defending ourselves in World War II was morally justifiable, but nuking cities to put pressure on the Japanese government was not.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (46)
November 13, 2009
Corresponding with James McCarthy
(SDG)
SDG here, belatedly responding to a number of requests I received a few months back when Jimmy mentioned on the air that I had once corresponded with anti-Catholic apologist James McCarthy.
Here's the background: In 1992, James McCarthy's video "Catholicism: Crisis of Faith" was first coming out under the banner of a group called Lumen Productions (read a short critique of the video from Catholic Answers).
In November 1992 I contacted McCarthy to express my objections to this project. (This was only a few months after I was received into the Church, though I had been researching and reading about the Faith for years, and had just begun my graduate work at St. Charles Borromeo.)
McCarthy sent me a free official transcript pamphlet based on the video, and we subsequently exchanged a series of letters. During the course of this exchange McCarthy sent me his pamphlet "The Mass: From Mystery to Meaning" as well as manuscript drafts from The Gospel According to Rome, which he asked me to critique from a Catholic perspective. (Just last night Jimmy mentioned to me that he had recently run across a text I wrote in those days in which I critiqued The Gospel According to Rome. I had forgotten all about writing that critique, so I'll be looking over that in the (hopefully near) future, and perhaps posting here any points worth making public.)
In my first letter, I quoted the words of Martin Luther: "One thing I ask, that neither truth nor error be condemned unheard and unrefuted." I wrote that I appreciated the research that went into the project, and commended them for turning to good Catholic apologetical and catechetical works as well as ecumenical councils as sources. On the other hand, I added, "precisely because your sources were so good, I fail to understand how this pamphlet could contain some of the simple factual errors that it does." After pointing out numerous instances of misstatements and distortions of Catholic teaching in Lumen's video project "Catholicism: Crisis of Faith," I concluded in my closing paragraph:
In short, the video appears to be aimed at Catholics whose faith is shallow, ill-informed, and unstable, who will not realize that there is anything more to the issues than you have presented here. It seems to seek to make a case that will appear unanswerable and unarguable to those who have never heard the arguments and answers. It looks like its purpose is to prey on the weak and sick of the flock … with promises of greener pastures: but it seems unwilling to admit to its prey that their flock may have healthier sheep (not to mention shepherds) who might withstand the attack; or that there may be greener pastures within the very fold which they have never known.
McCarthy's reply was courteous and irenic. He thanked me for the "loving tone" and reasonable approach of my letter (which he contrasted favorably with the "enraged" tone of a Lutheran woman who had also written that week to take exception of the film). In subsequent correspondence he expressed appreciation for my "good writing style and patient reasoning." (Alas, looking back at those early letters, I cringe at some of my stylistic quirks in those days.)
The following is a summary of salient points of our exchange, organized topically and generally moving from shorter and less consequential exchanges to longer and more substantial ones.
A few notes: I have made minor typographical corrections and such both to McCarthy's letters and to mine. At times I have expanded upon comments from my original emails with additional analysis (it should be fairly clear where this has been done). Third, while I believe I have the complete correspondence before me, and while I've tried to be as complete as possible, I can't be sure I haven't lost or missed something. Finally, this exchange took place over fifteen years ago; I expect that neither McCarthy nor I would necessarily approach all of the issues below exactly as we did at the time. That said, I offer the following highlights of our exchange for whatever light it may shed on works that are still offered by McCarthy.
Continue reading "Corresponding with James McCarthy"
Posted by SDG | Permalink | Comments (128)
November 11, 2009
Magic Carpet Ride
(Jimmy Akin)
My colleague at Catholic Answers Jim Blackburn was telling me about a stop-motion video made by his son Justin, with help from his brother James. The two boys appear in the film, which stars their cousin, Jackie Jo and also features her sister, Jamie Sue. (Notice anything about the letter J in this family?)
Here's the video. Enjoy!
Posted by Jimmy Akin | Permalink | Comments (18)
November 05, 2009
Astonishing
(Jimmy Akin)
President announces violent shooting of U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood.
But first . . . !
He thanks his cabinet, gives "shout outs," talks his political agenda, and gets crowd whooping and hollering and clapping.
Then he announces the tragedy and says what his "immediate thoughts" are.
How tone deaf is that? What does that say about his priorities . . . and how seriously he takes the tragedy he was about to announce.
Calling this Obama's My Pet Goat moment is an understatement.
And it'll only look worse as the fact--which the president presumably knew (since it's one of the very first things he should have been told)--that the shooter was a disgruntled Muslim penetrates public consciousness.
(Presumably the president did not know that the disgruntled Muslim also got into arguments with fellow soldiers about how Muslims should stand up to American aggressors and that he posted apparent justifications for suicide bombers on the Internet.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (22)
