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.