Wrapping up Lit Flicks with The Hustler

For my final book/movie combo to complete the Lit Flicks Challenge, I decided to do a double revisit of The Hustler.

The story revolves around Fast Eddie Felson, a pool hustler who travels to Chicago to challenge the great Minnesota Fats. He loses spectacularly, picks up a girl, gains character, and comes back for a rematch.

Many things in the movie (characters, plot, dialogue, themes) are lifted straight from the book. One major difference is a much darker finish for one of the characters in the movie. While this doesn't change much about how things end up, it does change the way the characters get there.

This is a case where seeing the movie for the first time made me check out the book to try and get a better handle on the story. This time around I re-read the book first and then re-watched the movie. What I found is that the film and novel have become intertwined for me. I can't read the book without picturing the actors as the characters, and I can't watch the movie without phrases from the book coming to mind.

Some things I like better about the book: the attention given to the themes. For example, the idea of hustling happening in many areas of life is shown in more detail. Also explored a bit more in depth are ideas about winning and losing, not just in pool, but in life. Are some people just born losers? How far can talent take you? Can a loser turn into a winner by silencing his excuses for losing? While these are still major themes in the movie, I like the way they are examined (and concluded) in the book a bit better.

Some things I like better about the movie: watching the performances by four amazing actors. Paul Newman and George C. Scott are both so strong, I can't decide who to watch in their scenes together. Piper Laurie plays her part heartbreakingly well. And Jackie Gleason perfectly embodies Minnesota Fats. (I understand in real life he shot a pretty good game of pool, himself.)

Both book and movie are a bit gritty, although the language is coarser in the book. They both also portray pool in an almost reverential light, at least from the players' perspectives. While you might imagine it would be easier to follow the game on screen seeing it for yourself, the descriptions in the book make things clear and keep it interesting.

I'm back and forth on picking which version I like better, so I guess I'd have to say both are good, although the movie is more of a must-see classic than the book is a must-read classic. So I'd say try the movie first, and if you want more, check out the book.

Final thoughts on Lit Flicks:

In addition to The Hustler, for this challenge I read and watched The Grapes of Wrath, Jane Eyre, The Secret Garden & The Black Stallion. Only in one case did I have a real preference for the book. For the most part I enjoyed both incarnations of the story (with an occasional edge given to the movie). This happens to fit my original idea that books and movies don't have to be at odds. Let's enjoy both for the unique strengths they offer in storytelling.

While this challenge is over, I'm sure I will continue to check out movie adaptations of the books I enjoy, and I'm sure that movie credits telling me a great film was based on a book will send me looking for it. Book vs. Movie? No! Book AND movie for me!

If you are interested in more book-to-movie reviews, check out the Bookworms Carnival on literature and film.

Chesterton on St Mary's Part 3

Dear Readers, this could be my last post for a little while or at least my last regular one depending on how things go.

Returning to our topic, Fr Kennedy has often made use of the word "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" in very pejorative ways. Fr Kennedy prides himself on being "unorthodox." Jesus, we are told, was "unorthodox", whatever that's supposed to mean in such a context.

I don't have much further comment to add since I think the following quote from Chesterton mostly speaks for itself. This time, however, it is from another book of his aptly entitled Heretics. I can only hope these snippets might edge some people into reading Chesterton. If you haven't he's one of the best kept secrets out there and for many the greatest author of the 20th century. This section is the opening paragraph of the first chapter. The first chapter of Heretics by the way is an excellent antidote to this whole sorry affair as Chesterton explains the importance of going back to fundamental ideas. The last paragraph on the monk and the lamp post is golden. Anyhow, for now I present the following for your enjoyment:

" Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox."

The Oscars: Did you watch?

I know, I know, I recently did a post questioning the value of awards. But I must admit to being sucked in anyway. And so yes, I did watch (most) of the 81st Annual Academy Awards last night. Here's a few scattered thoughts about the show.

Since I didn't see all (or many, actually) of the nominated films, I'm not in a real position to debate about the rightness of who won or lost. I did feel a little sad that WALL-E didn't do better (and didn't Will Smith sound funny saying the title? He has kids, didn't he see the movie?) but overall I didn't care much about the outcomes one way or another outside of how it would leave me in the LAMB Oscar pool. (One year I won a contest run through the local newspaper for Oscar picks. Well, I tied for first. But because I had a relative working at the paper, they gave the big prize to the other guy. I got a hat.)

As far as the entertainment value of the show itself, I thought it didn't seem to drag quite so much as past years. (Although I've long been in the habit of doing other things with the show on in the background, which definitely helps.)

I thought Hugh Jackman was not a bad host, although we didn't see much of him outside of his song and dance numbers. I liked him admitting (pretending?) he hadn't seen The Reader. I didn't especially like the bit with him and Anne Hathaway, but then, I find her strangely irritating most of the time. And while I agree with the sentiment of being happy to see more new musicals out, it was during that number that I decided I don't really like Hugh's singing style.

Some random cattiness: I thought I was in favor of Kate Winslet winning, but I liked her less during her incoherent speech than in any movie I've ever seen her in (although I did like her looking for her dad). Didn't Reese Witherspoon seem strangely asymmetrical? And sorry again, Anne Hathaway, but your thank you speech from your seat professing your love for Shirley MacLaine was rather embarrassing to watch. As was an outclassed Jennifer Aniston presenting on a night with Brad and Angelina both up for awards.

What I did like: Having past winners coming out to talk about the current nominees was a cool idea, and it was interesting to see who got paired up. I also liked the montages of movie genres (like Romance in 2008). Tina Fey and Steve Martin were great. Philippe Petit doing a magic trick and balancing the Oscar on his chin was rather amusing, and made me wish I had liked his movie more. There were other little moments of enjoyment (funny bits, real emotion from folks, etc.) but not much seemed really, really memorable. Maybe because there weren't a lot of surprises?

When Slumdog won and the whole entourage of people started filling the stage, I found myself thinking it would be a great chance for some random person to jump up there just for kicks. Who would notice? I also wanted to see them all break into a choreographed dance number to the film's Oscar-winning song. That would have been a great way to end the night.

That's all I've got. Did you watch? What did you think?

The Archdiocese of brisbane and St Marys Church

What an interesting 3 days it has been and what an amount og fodder for comment. I really have not much comment on this except that now you are either behind His Grace the Archbishop of Brisbane or behind the renegade Kennedy. There is no middle position anymore unfortunately, that disappeared at the beginning of last week.

I totally concur with the comments on Coo-ees both from the mother house and the daughter house. The sooner Kennedy is away from the situation the better.

That leaves the situation with the St Marys congregation itself. This is a group of people who hate Rome and hate the Catholic Church. This is liberalism taken to extremes. They have not taken the God centred path which is the path of "reason", as the Pope explained in his Regensburg Address.

What will happen with the physical assets? Who knows. It might be the time for a long sit-in by the congregation with a legal battle which will take years.

Books vs. Movies: The Secret Garden & The Black Stallion

Here's a little something you might not know about me: when in doubt about what to read, I turn to children's books. Even if I've never read them before, I find them somehow comforting, a return to a simpler time, a safe haven from novels determined to be shocking.

So when I was recently having trouble with the books on my original Lit Flicks list (due to fading interest and/or the failure of my usually good inter-library loan system) I turned to children's classics instead. Here are my thoughts on two books I read as well as their movie adaptations.

The Secret Garden

I think I read this when I was younger as it was all vaguely familiar... little Mary Lennox is orphaned, goes to live with her uncle, discovers a mystery in the house and the power of a secret garden.

For the most part I found the story delightful. It was great to see the change in Mary. Positive, unselfish thinking is good, being out amidst natural beauty is good. The only thing I didn't like was the mumbo-jumbo at the end about "Magic" to explain things. (Also, is it just me or do the three kids in the book seem to be a love-triangle in the making?) (Yes, I know one is Mary's cousin.)

The first adaptation I tried to watch was the 1993 movie, thinking that the subject would have to be better in an updated version instead of an older, black and white version. But I really (and perhaps slightly irrationally) didn't like it. I didn't like right away that they changed how Mary was orphaned. The whole movie seemed rather dark for such a sweet story. Yes, I know that the book deals with some heavy subjects, but it didn't feel weighed down like the movie did. I watched it half-heartedly and distractedly and got even more mad at it at the end when they took the magic bit I didn't like in the book and made a bigger deal about it with a chanting scene. Blech.

It almost made me not give The Secret Garden from 1949 a try, but I'm so happy I did! While this version also takes a few liberties, (like the robin becoming a raven) overall I was so much happier with it. Margaret O'Brien stars as Mary. Although I thought her a bit too old (and too pretty) for the role, she played it with her usual intensity and charm and won me over. Little Dean Stockwell is also in this version, and man, what a cute kid he was. (At one point he talks about how he will live forever, and I couldn't help but think, of course you will, you Cylon, you!)

What I think the 1949 version really gets right is the tone of the story. For example, Mary is still contrary, but somehow her seriousness is shown as being rather ridiculous, making her more endearing. The touches of humor in the story really work against the heavier themes, and that bit of light and dark feels very true to the book. And, appropriately enough in a story called The Secret Garden, there are a few secrets to the movie that had me ready to cheer! (I don't want to reveal anything here because I'd like everyone to have the same joyful surprise that I had.)

So, book or movie? Both, as long as you watch the 1949 version. (It doesn't seem to be available on DVD yet, but you may be able to find the video or catch it on TCM.)

The Black Stallion

Here's a case where I had seen the movie before reading the book. While the basic story is the same (boy and horse get shipwrecked, become friends on an island, get rescued and enter a major race) I was surprised by how many things were changed for the movie. (What! There was never a mini horse statue? Or talk about the horse with fire in his eyes and smoke coming out of his nose?)

Some bigger changes: in the book, Alec is alone on the ship as opposed to traveling with his father as in the movie. This makes for some more emotional moments in the film. Also, Alec is significantly older in the book. While I think a younger Alec works better for his helplessness in the island scenes, I did like an older Alec for being more in control over what to do about racing his horse when he got back home.

While the book is fine as a classic children's adventure novel, The Black Stallion is a great example of a story that translates really well into a movie. Seeing as opposed to imagining is much more powerful when it comes to the frightening scenes of the ship sinking, or the beautiful moments between the boy and his horse on the island, or the exciting moments of the race at the end. Re-watching the story after reading the book, I loved even more the visuals of the horse, particularly during the dialogue-free scenes on the island. The little exotic musical cues as reminders of the horse's origin were neat, and the main actors (Kelly Reno, Teri Garr, and Mickey Rooney) were all great, too.

If you only get into one version of this story, make it the movie.

Now, I have one more book and movie adaptation to go before the end of the month to complete the Lit Flicks challenge. Can I do it? I'm sure gonna try!

Summa Theologicas Work - Translated

I realise that it has been a while since I last posted on this weblog. Unfortunately many things manage to conspire to keep the wicked at work.

At any rate with Roman's "retirement" it falls to myself and Stephen to keep the ball rolling that started over two years ago. With that I intend to try and impart my own small contribution of momentum to the effort, God willing.

Longtime devoted readers of this blog will recall my last posts which analyzed and critiqued certain sections of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion that dealt quite woefully with the five ways (quinque viae) of St Thomas Aquinas. Unfamiliar readers may like to go back and consult them. You can find the main ones here, here, here, and here.

Needless to say my understanding of these matters has deepened appreciably since I last wrote these posts. Today I would have written them differently.

Finally readers should feel free to raise any matters even slightly related to such posts even if they are just questions which they would like to see dealt with. Philosophical inquiry thrives on a mutal exchange of ideas and the shared pursuit of the Truth.

So here's hoping for some more philosophy in the future.

Presenting....The Apologists. AKA Defending Christianity: You're doing it right!

While my colleagues on this blog have offered commentary on liturgy and contemporary events in the church, I have decided to delve into the church's past for my posts in the next few weeks, and to a subject very close to my heart.

My honours thesis was written on a range of early Christian texts, but the one genre that caught my attention was that of apologia. The word apologia is Greek for 'to defend', and the genre was utilized by such ancient writers as Apuleius and Plato, whose Apology is a version of the speech Socrates made in his own defence when placed on trial in Athens.

A number of Church Fathers followed in the footsteps of Plato and also wrote apologies. These texts were ostensibly addressed to authority figures in Roman government such as provincial governors and the emperors; however, their actual audience were more likely to be Christians who, when faced with having to defend their actions, needed to explain their faith.
As a convert myself, I've had to defend my faith on a few occasions; as a result, the apologetic texts, despite being centuries old, still struck a chord with me.

Over the next few posts I make, I would like to cover five apologists of the Ante-Nicene church: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, Minucius Felix and Lactantius. If any readers are interested in reading the works of these men, a simple Google search will bring up a number of websites where you can read the complete works online. The first apologist I would like to discuss here is Justin, hopefully in the next week or so.

In the meantime, the grounding for the Christian apologetic is not only found in the works of Plato (more on this in the post on Justin...), but in the New Testament too. The trial of Paul in Acts 24-26 is the foremost example of a defence of Christianity in the NT, and a section that I would highly recommend for reading. Convincing both the procurator and the tetrarch of Judaea that he has committed no wrongdoing, Paul's speeches are a prototype for the apologetic genre, and illustrate how a successful defence of the faith could be made to an audience who stood a chance of being in the same situation as Paul.

That concludes today's post- from the early example of Paul, a shift occurs in such a way where the early Christian defence speech goes from being part of a larger narrative to being the actual subject itself. It's from this viewpoint that I'll be discussing Justin.

Cross-examining Classic Courtroom Dramas

Search for "classic courtroom dramas" and the movie topping most lists would probably be To Kill a Mockingbird. And rightly so, for that film may well be the quintessential example of the genre, with its dramatic courthouse scenes, quest for justice, great acting, and a surprise twist or two.

Also high on the list in this category is 12 Angry Men. Even though the drama takes place in the jury room instead of the courtroom, it's still drama in a judicial setting with an unfolding case, interesting evidence, and a thought-provoking look at the prejudices brought into a supposedly impartial system.

Whether it's our inherent longing to see justice done or the curiosity that keeps us hooked as the mysteries of a case are revealed, the interest in courtroom dramas continues today. (Just look at the long-standing success of the Law & Order franchise.) There have been several good movies in the genre done in more recent years, but I'd like to take a moment to make a case (sorry, I couldn't help myself) for revisiting classic movies in this category.

So, like Rod Serling standing in front of your jury box, I present for your consideration exhibits A, B, and C: three movies worthy of a look for lovers of courtroom drama everywhere.

Boomerang! (Ah, my old friend exclamation point in title appears again!)

When a beloved priest is killed in a small town, the growing public outrage and political concerns put a lot of pressure on the authorities to make an arrest. This leads to the police throwing the idea of motive out the window and instead chasing down every man wearing a dark coat and light hat (the hazy description of the murderer). Will circumstantial evidence and a forced confession be the downfall of an innocent man?

Based on a true story, this Elia Kazan movie is very interested in authenticity. We are told at the beginning that all the interior and exterior scenes were filmed in the original locales, and as many actual characters as possible were used. As I watched some of the townspeople act, I was ready to believe that they were the authentic originals, too. Which is not to say that all the acting in the movie is bad; on the contrary, the movie includes some great actors: Lee J. Cobb, a young Karl Malden, and the always lovable Dana Andrews, who is especially sweet and believable in the scenes with his onscreen wife.

There's another great bit with Dana, who plays the state's attorney. In the middle of a conversation with the frustrated chief of police, he picks up a little puzzle from the chief's desk, calmly solving it in seconds. It's only a brief moment, but it's reminiscent of Dana's character in Laura playing with a similar small puzzle. The message conveyed is much the same; here's a man patient and intelligent enough to untangle the mess and solve the case.

The movie's authenticity breaks down a bit in the courtroom scenes (I can't see a case progressing in court the way this one did) but any shortcuts taken are forgivable in view of the high drama created, particularly in one tense scene involving a loaded gun.

The Verdict: This movie is best for all those idealists who care about seeing justice done. And Dana Andrews fans.

Witness for the Prosecution

Charles Laughton plays a barrister whose ill health won't prevent him from taking on a case (or smoking, or drinking). His client, played by Tyrone Power, is a man accused of murder. Although his wife (Marlene Dietrich) gives him an alibi, in one of many twists in the film, she ends up testifying as the titular witness for the prosecution.

Laughton is great, sparring with his nurse and using his monocle as an interrogation tool. Dietrich is pretty intense, which is especially interesting in the flashback scene of how she met her husband while singing in a club in Germany. Somehow she manages to make the lyric "I may never go home anymore" sound like more of a threat than a come on, even if she is promising kisses and kisses galore.

With Billy Wilder directing these stars and Agatha Christie writing the play the movie was based on, it seems impossible to go wrong with this one. Although I've always preferred Ellery Queen to Agatha Christie, (I like having all the information and trying to guess the ending for myself instead of being surprised by shocking revelations and unforeseen events) the twists here really make the movie. I can't say much more about it without giving anything away, and the movie itself has asked me not to divulge the secret of the ending for the greater entertainment of my friends. I leave it to you to see for yourself.

The Verdict: Great for those who enjoy a liberal helping of mystery in their courtroom dramas, with nice bits of light comedy and twists a-plenty to spice things up.

Anatomy of a Murder

In this movie, there is no question of whether the accused is innocent or guilty. We know from the start that Lt. Manion killed the man he accuses of raping his wife. The questions at hand are if he was justified in his actions, and if he will go free or be convicted of his crime.

Jimmy Stewart is wonderful as always, although he's playing a slightly different role here as a lawyer with some questionable ethics. The beautiful Lee Remick is completely believable as the alluring wife of the lieutenant. George C. Scott enters late in the game and steals the limelight as one slick prosecutor. Eve Arden also has a small part as a secretary whose wit is similar to her well-known radio character, Miss Brooks.

Another nice touch in the movie is the jazzy score by Duke Ellington throughout. (One of my pet peeves is otherwise excellent movies with terrible music, like the ones that force the title into a theme song to open things. Can you imagine a song called "Anatomy of a Murder"? Yikes.)

There's also an interesting bit with some discussion over what to call a woman's undergarment. While probably shocking at the time, this whole case would now be pretty tame by Law & Order standards.

The Verdict: This fascinating look at the limits and loopholes of the justice system (with wonderful acting and music) is a real winner.

Addendum: I'm a little late in posting this as Boomerang! was just shown on TCM this morning. When I started writing this post, the movie was available on Hulu, but it seems to have been removed since. (It is available at Classicflix.)

Anatomy of a Murder and Witness for the Prosecution will both be showing on TCM this Wednesday, February 18th. Watch them back to back and examine the evidence for yourself before passing judgment on these classic courtroom dramas.

Chesterton on St Mary's Part 2

As I promised there is some more relevant GKC to refer to in relation to St Mary's. But first a more fundamental point: why discuss St Mary's at all?

I believe there is a much better reason why we should do so than merely the fact that it is topical and controversial at the moment (even though this is a 'Brisbane based' blog and it's definitely the biggest Catholic news in Brisbane right now). It's because some of the questions and objections Fr Kennedy is raising force us to ask questions well worth asking: why be Catholic? Why orthodoxy? Why dogma? Why the Church? At some stage in every Catholic's life these questions should be asked. For the convert this obviously occurs in the process of their discovery of Catholic truth. For the cradle Catholic there comes a time to choose to hang on to the religion of one's parents or to forsake it. On that note many of the present generation are not forsaking the faith properly speaking; they never had it to really know what is involved in their rejection but that's by the by. Let us not also forget the 'revert'. I should also add that I am speaking here of our firm decision to hold fast to these things, the learning goes on for a lifetime.

The worse a heretic is the more essential the issues they raise. Was Christ divine? Did he found a Church? Can that Church be found today if he did? Why would he found a Church? What is the nature and purpose of Divine Revelation?

There are other questions that this unique situation also raise such as how does social justice tie in with the rest of Christian teaching? There are enough issues to keep us going here for a long time.

In some ways it is tempting to think that all Fr Kennedy really needs is to just read a decent apologetics book. It would certainly contain answers but I doubt that would be a solution in his case. Nonetheless when Fr Kennedy says (as he is on record as saying) that he is "hazy" about whether there is an afterlife, that is a chance to perhaps review the arguments for the immorality of the soul. Most uncatechised Catholics probably don't even know there are such arguments, thinking perhaps it was all a matter of faith. In point of fact some things taught by Revelation are known to reason also.

As St Thomas says as soon as the heretic uses Scripture we can refute him using the same. (ST I, q 1, a 8).

In a recent article Fr Kennedy is reported proclaiming in a homily that:

"But we can take heart from the words of Jesus himself, who was judged harshly for his unorthodox behaviour - `By their fruits you will know them'."

Father takes heart from the fact that Christ was judged "unorthodox" by the Scribes and Pharisees (as many will remember "you're a Pharisee" is about as eloquent and insightful as most liberal arguments get). He even quotes Scripture to his favour. Yet he fails to remember Christ also taught that the Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat and therefore the disciples must "do as they say but not as they do." (Mt 23: 2-3). Father Kennedy can hardly claim he is following this. He is free to believe in the privacy of his own house that say, Archbishop Bathersby is a hypocrite. But whether that be true or false he must obey the legitimate authority of his bishop. Obedience it has been said, is the one virtue the devil can't imitate even though he is capable of appearing as an "angel of light" (2 Corth 11:14).

Authority can be abused but it is also necessary.

I'll deal with Fr Kennedy's references to "orthodoxy" another time. But for now here is the Chesterton (once again from his book called Orthodoxy):

"Modern latitudinarians speak, for instance, about authority in religion not only as if there is no reason in it, but as if there had never been any reason for it. Apart from seeing its philosophical basis, they cannot even see its historical cause. Religious authority has often, doubtless, been oppressive or unreasonable; just as every legal system (and espeically our present one) has been callous and full of a cruel apathy. It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack police without ever having heard of burglars. For there is a great and possible peril to the human mind: a peril as practical as burglary. Against it religious authority was reared, rightly or wrongly, as a barrier. And against it something certainly must be reared as a barrier, if our race is to avoid ruin. That peril is that the human intellect is free to destroy itself."

St Valentines Day

The relics of St Valentine that I photographed in the church of Santa Maria in Cosmedion in Rome. Note the bouquets of roses around the reliquary. He was either a soldier of a priest beheaded during the reign of the Emperor Aurelian

One of the strange things that the liturgical modernisers did was remove the feast of St Valentine (14 february) from the Roman Calendar. It is even more paradoxical that the feast of St Valentine is more widely celebrated in the secular world and even more commercialised (almost like Easter) than when it was supposedly removed. Thankfully Summorum Pontificum has allowed us again to celebrate this feast. We refer to the Propers of today's Mass in the Extraordinary Form:

Collect

Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,: ut qui beati Valentini Martyris tui natalitia colimus, a cunctis malis imminentibus, ejus intercessione, libereremur. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum.....

Secret

Suscipe, quaesumus Domine, munera dignanter oblata: et beati Valentini martyris tui suffragantibus meritis, ad nostrae salutis auxilium provenire concede. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum.....

Postcommunion

Sit nobis, Domine, reparatio mentis et corporis coeleste mysterium: ut, cujus exsequimur actionem, intercedente beato Valentino Martyre tuo, sentiamus effectum. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum....

Note: We assume that our readers, like ourselves, have a working knowledge of Latin or access to a copy of the Missal of Bl John XXIII, so no you are not going to get a translation.

So to keep some perspective on this feast, if you cannot get to an EF Mass in your local area, celebrate these prayers, and then go out and do something wonderful and spontaneous with the person or people that you love.

Of course St Valentine's day is a Christianisation of the old feast of Lupercal. I will leave it to Hypatia to outline the liturgical practices of that period, none of which made it into the Christian liturgy. Somehow someone decided that was inappropriate to have young men, wearing nothing but leather thongs (not on their feet), running through the basilicas whipping young women.

All I need to know about LOVE

...I learned from the movies.

THE ONE

There is only ONE person out there for you. This person is your soulmate. You will feel empty and unsatisfied with your life until you find this person. Once you find them you will be complete.

The only time you get a chance for a second soulmate is if you are parted from the first one tragically, like through death. If your soulmate happens to donate their heart to someone, look for this person, as that heart will keep beating for you alone in the body of your new soulmate.

NOT THE ONE

Sometimes you may think you have found your soulmate, only to realize that you were wrong. Don't despair. Your chances for finding the one increase dramatically when you are with someone who is not the one. Your odds of meeting your soulmate are even greater if you are engaged to the wrong person. So don't hesitate to move things along with someone who is wrong for you. They don't have to be a bad person, by the way, just someone who is not your match.

Look for someone who is kind but boring; a person like this won't even mind when they find out they are not your soulmate. Probably they will have suspected this deep inside all along, anyway. Don't feel too bad for them -- they are bound to find their one after you throw them over.

So go ahead and date that wrong person. Plan a wedding, even show up for the ceremony. The later it takes for your soulmate to show up, the more dramatic your coming together will be. And drama, as we all know, is what love is all about. Who wants a life of calm contentment and security?

LIES

There's probably something you're afraid to reveal to your soulmate because you're worried they will reject you. Lying is the way to go here. Be it your background, finances, family, children, whatever, go ahead and hide the facts from your soulmate. Wait until they are so in love with you that they won't be able to leave no matter what they learn about you.

Of course, don't be surprised if your soulmate has a secret as well. You'll find out once you are hooked. But by then it won't matter. How wise you both are!

HAPPY ENDINGS

Following all the above steps should get you to happily ever after status. Unless, of course, you are destined to have one of those tragic endings that are so moving. In that case, remember that it's better to have loved and lost... and eventually you might just find your replacement love. (Hint: make sure to find out if your soulmate has checked that organ donor box on their driver's license.)

What have you learned about love from the movies?

Chesterton on St Mary's Part 1

So, you didn't think this great British literary giant had anything to say on the matter?

Think again.

I've deliberately titled this part one as it will be one of three small segments regarding sections from Chesterton which pertain in some way to this topic. Be prepared to see outside the box... (Chesterton has a habit of forcing the reader to do this).

Probably the most consistent defense of St Marys is its commitment to "social justice" (and we all know there's no other organizations around that do that kind of thing).

That apparently justifies everything. They are committed to this one virtue. Now for the Chesterton (specifically it's from Orthodoxy):

"When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was at the Reformation) it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildy and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive."

Only Chesterton would be brilliant enough to realise that virtues on steroids (as one person put it to me) can do a lot of damage when they run off by themselves.

Here we see the effect of social justice when divorced from other virtues such as, I don't know, obedience perhaps. One way it does more damage is acting as a cover.

By the way, has anyone seen St Mary's say anything on the biggest violation of social justice in Australia, abortion? Strange, I hadn't either.

Stay tuned.

taking over St Marys

With all the fuss with St Mary's at the moment, its a good time to have a lighter take.

This is one approach that a pastor could adopt. I am not sure I would recommend it tho:

Tough Act to Convert (TAC)

While much recent media has focused on efforts of reapproachment with the SSPX there is another potential reunion in the works. The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) and its 400,000 adherents are seeking to unite with Rome.

TAC we are informed:

"...was founded in 1991 from groups that had broken with the Anglican Communion over the issue of the ordination of women and other issues. It has been in discussions with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since late 2007."

But wait, there is opposition to this wonderful news. Says one quoted Vatican source:

"The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is against it."

Fancy that. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is opposed to Christian Unity.

I guess if everybody were to be united then there would no longer be any need of a Pontifical Council for Christian Unity so perhaps it does make sense.

Besides, Cardinal Kasper has said we don't understand ecumenism anymore as meaning that the non-Catholic party come over to and join the Catholic Church. If that happened there would be no more ecumenism you see.

But fortunately:

"According to a Vatican insider, Pope Benedict himself is the driving force behind the plan and has linked it to the Year of St Paul, which ends in June."

And:

"if the Holy Father wants this to happen, it will."

I think we should all rejoice at this news and pray that it happens. A personal prelature for the Anglicans may well lead to many new converts.

Variations on a Frank Capra theme

I recently re-watched Frank Capra's You Can't Take it With You and was struck by the many similarities to another Capra film you might have heard of: It's a Wonderful Life. (How this never occurred to me before, I don't know.)

One fairly superficial connection between the two movies is the list of actors appearing in both films. Of course both star Jimmy Stewart and Lionel Barrymore, but other actors with smaller parts in both movies include Ward Bond (Officer Bert/Detective Mike), H.B. Warner (Mr. Gower/Ramsey), Samuel S. Hinds (the dads, Peter Bailey/Paul Sycamore), Charles Lane (rent collector/IRS agent), Edward Keane (loan customer/board member), and Stanley Andrews (Mr. Welch/attorney). Also in both movies: Jimmy the Raven.


The plots of the films, however, are very different. It's a Wonderful Life (as you probably know, given the years of repeated showings around Christmas-time) focuses on George Bailey, a man who, in a time of despair, wishes he had never been born. Thanks to the appearance of his guardian angel, George gets the chance to see what the world would have been like without him, and ends up coming to the conclusion expressed in the movie's title.

In You Can't Take it With You, the main character is Grandpa Vanderhof, patriarch of an eccentric household of free spirits. His refusal to sell his house is keeping wealthy Mr. Kirby from achieving a monopoly. Complicating matters is the fact that Mr. Kirby's son Tony has fallen in love with his secretary, Alice, who just happens to be the granddaughter of Mr. Vanderhof. (It's funny to see how these two actually fit into each other's families better than their own: Alice is much more serious while Tony has little interest in business and would prefer the freedom the Vanderhof clan enjoys.) When the two families get together the clash of lifestyles and philosophies is extreme (and rather amusing).


While these two stories seem to have little in common, they do serve to illustrate some deeper underlying themes. One is the idea of money not buying happiness. The two richest characters in the movies are Mr. Potter and Mr. Kirby. One is described as a warped, frustrated old man, the other is called miserable and a failure. The value of friendships over money is highlighted with the ideas that no man is a failure who has friends/the only thing you can take with you is the love of your friends. Both movies have scenes where friends come to the rescue of the main character by collecting money when they learn of a need.

One big difference in the two movies is the way personal freedom vs. responsibility is shown. While George Baily has to give up on his dreams for the good of his family and community, the Vanderhof household is full of people doing only what they please. Fulfillment in one movie comes from self-sacrifice, in the other, self-indulgence.

While It's a Wonderful Life probably presents the truer, more realistic outlook on life, like Jimmy Stewart's character in You Can't Take it With You, I am fascinated watching the loonies in Grandpa's house puttering away at their various pet projects: music, writing, dancing, fireworks, candy-making (having fun regardless of their actual skill at these pursuits).

I understand why It's a Wonderful Life has gotten more popular that You Can't Take it With You, but I'd definitely recommend the latter, even if only to show Lionel Barrymore's range at playing total opposites in characters: the hated Mr. Potter and the very lovable Grandpa.

If it were up to me, these two movies would be packaged and sold together as a pair of bookends sandwiching a similar theme: Enjoy and appreciate life!

Welcome Hypatia

Its excellent to see that the blog has gone one big step to some kind of gender balance!!

Im really looking forward to some interesting and challenging posts!!

Call me Hypatia...

...though I haven't yet been killed by an Alexandrian mob; you'll need to give me time to accomplish that, readers.

I was received into the church at the age of sixteen; as a result, I have a converts zeal for learning about the church, a zeal that has translated into Bachelors degree majoring in Religion and Classics and an honours thesis written on early Christian texts. I'm contemplating the topic of relics for my PhD presently, and have just started a vigorous research campaign to find an appropriate relic to be the focus of my study. I studied Classical Latin for three years at university, and have a very basic knowledge of Koine Greek that I hope to improve in time. Besides Classics, ancient history and church history, I'm currently having a 'fling' with renaissance humanism and plan to read the works of Erasmus over Lent.

I was invited to contribute here by Stephen- I have served at the altar with him for six years at our parish. I'm not sure what I can bring to this blog, though I am honoured to be here nonetheless.

A tale of two churches

I need to make comment on two aspects of the Church today.

One thing that the media has completely missed is that the Pope is primarily a shepherd. benedict's consecration sermon focussed on the central them "Siomon Peter do you love me - feed my sheep". When the Pope goes out to rescue some of the recalcretrant sheep and bring back to the herd is is condemned by the secular media. Yes some of the sheep are mentally unhinged, but the shepherd has to still find them and bring them gently back to to flock "holding them in his arms". In the secular media there is no forgiveness. If you hold views that do not fit in with the modern secular world, you should be flung into the darkness for eternity. This is not to say that there is still a long road to go with the SSPX. Personally, I find them distasteful, too full of sedevacantists and people who do not accept the Second Vatican Council.

But, its not about liturgy anymore since Summorum Pontificum; that issue has been resolved. Its about whether Council was a departure from tradition. Personally as one of the few people who have read the documents, I believe it was a development of tradition, although some of the offshoots (the Consilium that developed the 1969 Missale Romanum) had questionable value.

Closer to home, the result at St Mary's South Brisbane was predictable. Apart from abberations in liturgy, no one has done anything wrong here. However, it has all got caught up in the larger issues of our day: te authority of the wider church, the authority of the magisterium and interpretations of Vatican II. The new acting pastor of the parish will have a hard time of it: I see that it will be like St Vincents in Sydney: blockades, the Mass being disrupted, sit-ins, etc. However, he may win the congregation over, if he is skilled in change management, because that is what the congregation will go through.

All over the world, unfortunately the dissent in the church is becoming louder. There is no such think as "loyal dissent" as that guy Paul Collins calls it. It will not lead to a split, but it will be like WWI where there will be digging into a lot of entranched positions, with some sniping at each other and overall very little movement. Catholicism is increasingly seen as a fascist religion and maybe that is true.

The Thinker in the Street Corner

The importance of having some acquaintance with good philosophical skills and the ability to think philosophically can't be understated.

Philosophy is essentially common sense with a technical vocabulary to enable one to discuss the finer points. Well, good philosophy anyhow.

And that's precisely what the problem has been for the past four hundred years. Philosophy has become something for the birds. It has no relation to what the man-in-the-street thinks. "All that crazy stuff philosophers philosophize about" and it's a forgivable thought for much of it has been capable of such characterization.

This is brilliantly summarised in the chapter on "The Approach to Thomism" in G K Chesterton's book "St Thomas Aquinas." Please don't jump over this quote. Chesterton is priceless reading.

"Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality: to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense. Each started with a paradox: a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they would call a sane point of view. That is the one thing common to Hobbes and Hegel, to Kant and Bergson. to Berkeley and William James. A man had to believe something that no normal man would believe, if it were suddenly propounded to his simplicity; as that law is above right, or right is outside reason, or things are only as we think them, or everything is relative to a reality that is not there. The modern philosopher claims, like a sort of confidence man, that if once we will grant him this, the rest will be easy; he will straighten out the world, if once he is allowed to give this one twist to the mind."

If that's just wheting your appetite please also read this which follows shortly after (actually read the whole book):

"I am not, like Father D'Arcy, whose admirable book on St. Thomas has illuminated many problems for me, a trained philosopher, acquainted with the technique of the trade. But I hope Father D'Arcy will forgive me if I take one example from his book, which exactly illustrates what I mean. He, being a trained philosopher, is naturally trained to put up with philosophers. Also, being a trained priest, he is naturally accustomed, not only to suffer fools gladly, but (what is sometimes even harder) to suffer clever people gladly. Above all, his wide reading in metaphysics has made him patient with clever people when they indulge in folly. The consequence is that he can write calmly and even blandly sentences like these. "A certain likeness can be detected between the aim and method of St. Thomas and those of Hegel. There are, however, also remarkable differences. For St. Thomas it is impossible that contradictories should exist together, and again reality and intelligibility correspond, but a thing must first be, to be intelligible." Let the man in the street be forgiven, if he adds that the "remarkable difference" seems to him to be that St. Thomas was sane and Hegel was mad."

Getting Hitched with Hitchens

A couple of days ago I made my first outing to St Paul's bookstore near the Cathedral. Yes, for the first time. It was a flight of curiosity.

Like the Kingdom of Heaven I heard you find both the good and the bad in there and indeed that was the case. But I wasn't prepared for just how bad in some cases. I don't mean the books by Joan Chittister either (ahem, sister). But rather, quite to my surprise several copies of one of Christopher Hitchen's lastest attempts at writing a book, namely "God is not so Great How Religion Poisons Everything." Quite a surprising find I must say. Well yes, I had a quick peek, only to discover a lot of drivel but it does raise the question of just why they would sell that kind of literature and make a profit out of it? Where does one draw the line?

If the excuse is to let Catholics see the "other side" I must say that just doesn't cut it. While we no longer have an index of forbidden books Catholics are still required to be responsible in their reading and not to endanger their faith. To expose all and sundry's curiosity to such a book is not a good idea. I don't think we'd play such a loose game if the matter were physical rather than spiritual health. Secondly, I'm quite sure there are many other places such a book could be bought if someone is really that desperate (and desperate you'd have to be).

Oh but I did also notice one small copy of a book that's supposed to answer all these atheists. What a relief. Diversity is saved.

Do awards matter?

It's not a new question, but I think it's still relevant now, with the Golden Globes just behind us and the Oscars fast approaching. Also, on a smaller scale, various awards are being passed around in the blogging world (blogosphere if you must, although I don't like the sound of it). Caitlin over at Fire and Music was even kind enough to send a Superior Scribbler award along my way. So, do all these awards really matter?

Raquelle at Out of the Past made some very interesting points in a post about why she would not be passing along the awards. Mostly it boils down to her not wanting to exclude anyone by her choices. Some of these things do begin to feel more like a popularity contest than a gauge of real merit. If picked, you are in with the cool kids, if not, you are left thinking nobody wants you on their team.

I have to wonder how much even bigger awards, like the Oscars, involve favoritism and factors outside of merit alone. When Julie Andrews won for best actress in Mary Poppins, didn't it have something to do with her being shut out of the film version of My Fair Lady? When Paul Newman finally won for The Color of Money, wasn't it (at least in part) compensation for him never winning in the earlier years of his career? What about this year, will the controversy over Slumdog Millionaire hurt its chances at the Oscars? I don't know, but it does seem impossible to bestow honors completely impartially.

It also seems inevitable that someone will be missed. Even though Citizen Kane is now almost universally regarded as the best movie ever, it lost out on the Academy Award for best picture. So will some great blog get skipped over in the blog appreciation awards? Very possibly.

Don't start that get-off-the-stage music yet, I'm not finished!

These blog awards can also start to feel like chain letters, although fortunately there is no crazy threat (like your blog exploding) if you fail to pass on to the required number of people. As the list of recipients grows, however, doesn't the value of the award begin to fade? It makes me think of The Incredibles, and its point about how saying everyone is special is the same as saying no one is.

I'm also reminded of With Honors, where Brendan Fraser's character is trying so hard to graduate summa cum laude. At the graduation ceremony, his name is called and followed only by silence, but by then the importance of that brief moment has been put in perspective. He has been told he will graduate life with honor and without regret, and that is what really matters. Sure, an award is nice, but it's only a blip in a life. It's not (or anyway I don't think it should be) the end-all be-all of who we are and what we do.

On the other hand, winning an award feels great! The attention and recognition provides a nice feeling of validation. Perhaps because we are social creatures, and being lauded in your community gives one a nice boost.

So while the argument can be made that awards don't matter (that bigger awards are little more than an excuse to get dressed up and party, or worse still a big money-making scheme to draw in viewers to award shows and the system they hype, while smaller awards are given too indiscriminately and without clear enough standards) I think awards do matter. At least, winning this award matters to me. I am flattered.

And so I will accept and display the award bestowed upon me, with thanks to Princess Fire and Music. I will also follow along with its rules:

1. Name five other Superior Scribblers to receive this award.
2. Link to the author and name of the blog that gave you the award.
3. Display the award on your blog with this LINK which explains the award.
4. Click on the award at the bottom of the link and add your name to the bottom of the list.
5. Post the rules.

While there are many blogs I read and enjoy, I'm choosing to pass along this award to the following: The Flick Chick, The Film Doctor, David, Cesia, and The Movie Ness. I hope they will receive it in the spirit I send it, which is to say that I like you(r blog), and I hope you keep writing.

They can choose to play by the rules in accepting and passing it on, call in a guest blogger dressed in Native American gear to refuse, or do anything in between. I imagine it will all depend on whether or not they think awards matter.

New Directions

You are probably wondering about the future of this blog.

Generally I am keeping it in the same direction as it has been going with general discussion on liturgical praxis and some comments upon current church politics. Hopefully I will get some new authors soon to provide some different perspectives. The idea being to liven up the debate a bit, and to put out some challenges to both hard line traditionalists and hardline liberals.

Farewell to Roman

Thanks Roman for your final post and I pray for you in your new life as a seminarian.

Being involved in this blog has demonstrated to me the power of the internet. Meeting Roman has enabled me to get involved with a wider spectrum of the church and I think that it has opened up a wider spectrum of the church for him. We have assisted together in a number of Masses ranging from solemn Masses in the extraordinary form, Reform-of-the-reform Masses in the ordinary form, Solemn Pontifical Masses (the most significant being the Pontifical Mass celebrated by H.E. Cardinal Levada Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in the Cathedral) and the more left-wing weirdo Masses such as the annual "multicultural" Mass in the Archdiocese.

Cardinal Levada is received at St Stephens Cathedral, Brisbane 6th Sunday after Easter 2008

Most importantly we learned from each other, and that is how liturgy goes through its organic growth through the ages. People corresponding with each other, experimenting with what works and what doesnt work, comparing notes and passing learnings on.

I remember that Benedict XVI, in his book A New Song for the Lord recounts how he laid the cornerstone of the new seminary in Munich in 1981 and chose the following verse:

Like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pet. 2:5).

He goes on to describe how seminarians let themselves to be moulded like stones by the stonecutter, to enable that spiritual house to be built. The seminary life is that carving. I pray that he will be a holy priest who ministers not as some social worker in fancy dress (or in normal clothes like a lot of them are) but as a priest through who his parishioners see God, and through whom they humbly receive the sacraments.

And the journey continues ever on

I realise that it has been a while since I last posted on this weblog. Unfortunately many things manage to conspire to keep the wicked at work.

At any rate with Roman's "retirement" it falls to myself and Stephen to keep the ball rolling that started over two years ago. With that I intend to try and impart my own small contribution of momentum to the effort, God willing.

Longtime devoted readers of this blog will recall my last posts which analyzed and critiqued certain sections of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion that dealt quite woefully with the five ways (quinque viae) of St Thomas Aquinas. Unfamiliar readers may like to go back and consult them. You can find the main ones here, here, here, and here.

Needless to say my understanding of these matters has deepened appreciably since I last wrote these posts. Today I would have written them differently.

Finally readers should feel free to raise any matters even slightly related to such posts even if they are just questions which they would like to see dealt with. Philosophical inquiry thrives on a mutal exchange of ideas and the shared pursuit of the Truth.

So here's hoping for some more philosophy in the future.

My Final Blog post…..

Thank you dear readers for reading this blog, you have viewed and several of you have participated in my growth and formation in to a Catholic male. Clearly this is not the end of my growth; I have yet many, many year’s ahead of me. But I believe my formation is sufficient for the time being and sufficient enough for me to find my identity as a person and my identity with in the church.

You may have noticed at the start of this blog, I was a young fiery up-start, gloating of good on an MC I was, and spouting my ill informed and amateur observations of the church. I’d like to think that I have learned my lessons and have come along way since those days. I am still young and still in need of a proper formation, and perhaps a few more humbling experiences.

I wish to identify myself no longer as a traditionalist, or even a neo-conservative, but rather as a pure and straight Catholic. I have found very grievous and perilous flaws in both mentalities. Liberalism and poorly veiled Marxism are not very good fits for my mindset. Charismatics, Neocats, SedeVacantisis, Jansenists and Ultramontists, all have been on my journey so far, all of them tend to exult particular view points and mindsets, yet they all somehow fall down, at one stage or another. People within the church are very human or so I’ve gathered, they all seem to be divided against themselves, even those who are on the “side of the angels”. Yet somehow we retain at least the outward appearance of unity. The Orthodox and Anglicans, -well at least a few of them- I hold in great esteem, as they all have their particular gifts and charisms, yet they fail to unite themselves together.

Little enclaves of battle hardened and warped traditionalists, thousands of new movements spring up trying to reinvent the wheel, elitist homeschoolers and finally the old guard of the parishes who tend to have a more liberal outlook, and finally those who like to borrow complete ideas and mindsets from our separated brethren, all form the body of Christ in Australia. All of them either claim to be the flying the standard of the church with papal mandate or some sort of mandate (usually the holy spirit’s).

At the centre of all this, are our bishops. Men who have impossible positions,- apparently at their ordinations, a bull’s eye is painted on their backs. They tend to cop flak from all possible angles, either from the traditionalists demanding a return to so called “tradition” or the liberals demanding some outrageous idea (women priests, married priests, selling of church assets, the list goes on). These bishops are frequently ridiculed, mocked and harassed by overzealous faithfully (myself included on many occasions), yet they are the ones who are the ones who administer the best medicine for our souls. Perhaps the wisdom of some is lacking, or the actions, either way, these men are the best and brightest we have, they tend not to be too blunt and they certainly are aware of what lay people think. Spare a thought and a pray for them,: when ever they do something, everyone pipes up and says it’s wrong. I have learnt to have great respect for these men, no matter how “dissenting, liberal or far rightwing” they tend to be.

As a man interested in the liturgy, I tend to like both the ordinary and the extra ordinary form of the Roman rite,; both forms have the potential for a lot of liturgical fun. The Ukrainian rite and other venerable rites of the church, are not exactly substandard or foreign forms, -they are great treasures of the church. The Church revolves around Rome, but that doesn’t mean the Roman rite of the Mass is the be all and end all,; after all, Christ’s Passover would share more in common with the eastern rites, than those of the west. Perhaps it would have been better for the “extra ordinary form” to have died out after the council,; this might of lead to a quicker reform of the reform, or perhaps it would have gone down hill. Either way, the church and history has judged a different verdict.

With this post I have committed a most grievous sin, I have spoken my mind. Yes, yes, I am just some smart assed kid who thinks he knows something. Perhaps some of you will scrupulously look over my post and point out its flaws and heresies (a certain jansenist I know certainly will). The reality is, or what I have come to as a conclusion is, we are all a very flawed people, we are all divided and we are all pushing our own ideological wheel barrows, but somehow we are all outsmarted enough or forced enough to be cooped up in the Bark of Peter. As much as we hate it, the strumming guitarist has to co-exist with the schola member; the traditional way has to co-exist with the new evangelisation. East has to put up with West and we all have to put up with the Charismatics. But perhaps it would be wise to return to the good old parish….

This blog will continue to be maintained by my co-blogger Stephen, but I, at last, have decided to shut my big mouth and abandoned my enclave in cyber space. Where and What I am doing, should be bloody obvious to the learned among you. I leave for the next step of my journey, for my new adventures and for my continual formation.

Good bye, God Bless and Pray for me

Roman

P.S. comment now or forever hold your peace.

Review: Man on Wire

Philippe Petit is the kind of guy who'd be great to invite to your dinner party. Once, anyway. For he's got quite an entertaining story to tell about the time he managed to sneak to the top of the Twin Towers, rig a wire between the two buildings, and walk across. It's a feat no one else has done or will ever be able to do again. How do you beat that in polite dinner conversation? You don't, unless perhaps you can say, "I walked on the moon."

Man on Wire is a documentary film about how Philippe pulled off this amazing feat. It uses interviews of the people involved interspersed with skillfully blended archival footage and reenactments.

Perhaps it was just a matter of my expectations being set too high going in (since the film has already won several awards and is nominated for an Academy Award) but I found myself a bit disappointed by this movie. (I also have a problem with contrarily wanting to go against the majority sometimes, and so the Rotten Tomatoes 100% fresh rating for this film makes me a little cranky.)

The movie sets itself up as a heist film: we have the forming of an outrageous plan, a diverse gang coming together, the gathering of information, the wacky caper. So where does it fall short?

First, there is a lack of suspense. We know Philippe will do his walk, because we've already seen pictures of him on the wire. The moments of worry about getting caught seemed drawn out and exaggerated for effect. The dizzying heights were genuinely frightening, but again, Philippe is being interviewed, so we know he made it safely back down. Sure, you can probably assume in any heist film that the caper will occur, but the best of the genre usually have some great plot twists, and those were sadly lacking here.


There were some fun moments in the planning that were very Catch Me If You Can, like watching Philippe and his friends pose as journalists trying to get an architectural story while really gathering data on how to make the walk happen. The general trusting nature of people and lack of a tendency to question the reality presented helped Phillipe and his crew get their information and get into the buildings undetected. (That was actually a little unsettling to watch in view of the security concerns involved with the World Trade Center.)

One technical aspect of the stunt (which I had seen alluded to as being so incredible that no one wanted to spoil it) didn't really seem that earth-shatteringly brilliant, and didn't seem like that big a secret, anyway, since early talk in the film about the team's equipment (and even the trailer on the film's website) gives it away. But I will let you reach your own conclusions on this and not reveal the details here.

You might wonder, how did Philippe's obsession get started, what drives him? He explains that he always loved to climb, but he doesn't like trying to answer why. It seems that there is a rebellious streak in this dreamer, that he takes a romantic view of committing an artful crime. What he does is against the law, he knows he will get caught, but that's all part of the thrill. Philippe's passion (obsession) is something to see.

Also interesting is what is left out of the movie. No mention is made of 9/11, which is probably a smart choice, as well as a refreshing one. A man walking on a wire between the two buildings is a much better mental picture to carry around than the terrible images of the WTC attack. And I think that's part of why the movie has been so well received, that it focuses only on this beautiful moment involving the Twin Towers. But this deliberate choice of tone also means that some other negative things are only hinted at, like the impact this event and its aftermath had on some of Philippe's closest relationships. I would like to have seen that explored more.

I don't think Man on Wire is a bad movie, but I also don't think it's as great as most everyone else seems to feel it is. I think it's a slightly forced, selective look at a story meant to play on people's emotions about the Twin Towers. There's not quite enough here to make a great heist film, just like Philippe's illegal acts don't really make him a dangerous criminal. The scenes of wire-walking were breathtakingly awesome. But when they were done, I couldn't help but feel a little bit cheated. Maybe that's inevitable; from the unbeatable heights of that moment, where can you go but down?

3/5 wings

Ring out the old blog, ring in the new, ring-a-ding ding

Moviewings just came through the door in a brand-new outfit! Many thanks to Cece for the awesome blog design.

Just so we never completely forget the old look, here's a screenshot from an earlier version:


I'll miss you, teal and orange.

One other big change is in the works... as I review movies now, I will also be including my ratings. They will look like this:





(My range goes from zero to five wings, but I'm hoping never to have to use the zero.)

The wrapper may look different but the content will be more of the same, all things movie-related, with an emphasis on the classics.

Thanks everyone for reading and commenting; knowing I'm not just talking to myself here is helping to keep me going. Let me know what you think of the new look!

Discussion on Vatican II

I note that with the excommunications of the SSPX plus the 50th anniversary of the announcement of the Second Vatican Council, now there is discussion on what Vatican II was supposed to be.

I note also that the left wing of the church must be in defence mode because of this article that I read, where to the lseft wing "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd we are not supposed to read the documents as they were written but to understand all the background arguments first before putting any credence on the actual documents. obviously they are finding the actual documents too "conservative".

This is the same silly argument run by opponents of Vatican II (such as the SSPX) from the opposite tack.

Hey guys - the documents are the documents that were voted on. Read them. There is no further interpretation, just further understanding. (btw I am one of the few people who have sat down and actually read them and hope to do so again during Lent).

By the way, much of the arguments around St Marys of Brisbane are actually around Vatican II and its interpretation. We wait to hear news on that count.

A New Age

I was wondering whether to call this post "a new reformation" but I decided against that. Things are happening in the church so quickly now that I feel that the best analogy of the "barque of Peter" is that we are white water rafting, and Pope Benedict is our captain.

A couple of observations which continue from my previous post on the Church in Brisbane in 2059. On speaking to a couple of colleagues on the weekend was the observation that there are three main groupings or "demographics" that have emerged in the church today. These are:

• the cultural Catholics
• Catholics for tradition
• charismatic Catholics

The first is the Catholics like my parents who were brought up in a closed Catholic community , and Catholicsm is denoted by family and parish ties. They are not all that religious, but insist on attending Mass because that is what they were brought up with (including the fact that not attending Sunday Mass is a mortal sin). They also place most emphasis on the tribal aspect of the Catholicism that they grew up with. This is interesting, because if you see sites such as Catholica, it is very strongly on the bent that the tribal aspect of the catholicism that they were brought up with (ie. Irish/Australian Catholicism) has to be preserved at all costs. All doctrine goes out the window to maintain the comfort of existing parish and community groups (ie so goes the argument that one sees on that website continually that we need married and female clergy, selected by the community (or the tribe), to maintain the Eucharist on Sunday). Rome is seen as a hostile outsider.

It is predicted that this aspect of catholicism will fade with time , and varous estimates range from 20 years (mine) to 5 years before its extinction.

This leaves the other two groups , who will determine the church's future. As i mentioned before, these two groups will be in conflict but an interesting observation on the weekend was that the traditionalist communities do get people from charismatic groups looking for that added sense of mystery, so there is some cross-over and commonality.

I was inclined to call the second group of Catholics the Latin Mass Catholics but I widened it to all Catholics who are attached to the traditions of the church. This would broadly include both the strict Extraordinary form catholics as well as the reform-of the-reform movement. The latter is not visible in Brisbane but emerges through some of the different movements in the local church. Its outward manifestations include the use of mantillas by women, traditional devotions and Holy Communion exclusively received on the tongue.