Review of Angel Studios' Cabrini

Tonight I went and saw Cabrini with my teenage daughter. I just got back from the theater and am fulfilling a promise I made on the Unam Sanctam Facebook page to post a review of it. This is going to be long, so I ask your forgiveness for the extensiveness, but I have a lot to say here.

My Opinion on The Chosen

I mentioned in a previous post that I am getting ready to launch a revamped Unam Sanctam Catholicam sister site with an entirely new and attractive layout (Deo gratias). I also stated that the movie reviews section would be going away; I've already started deleting them, as a matter of fact. But before I toss in the hat on movie reviews altogether, a viewer asked me to give my opinion on The Chosen series. This reader said that "it seems really cheesy" and "the fact that it's universally acclaimed by evangelicals" made them more skeptical.

Given that The Chosen is a series comprised of (at the time of writing) two seasons with 16 episodes total and a third season coming out in a few months, I'm not going to give a comprehensive review, but I will share my general thoughts.

I think The Chosen is absolutely fantastic. I have watched both seasons, and watched them multiple times. Several episodes have made me break down in tears in the best kind of way. It touches my heart in a way very few religious movies have been capable of. I liked it enough that I gave money to the crowdfunding campaign. So I am a big fan.

I will say that at the outset I did not like it; the first time I watched Season 1 Episode 1, I was not impressed. I even sent the folks at The Chosen a message complaining. My complaint had nothing to do with content; I was making a very technical gripe about camera angles and cinematography. I regret I sent this message now. It's challenging making any professional video production, and any series takes a few episodes to get their feet under them. I wasn't going to continue, but I heard so much praise for The Chosen that I had to continue—and I'd watched and reviewed every other depiction of Christ on film so I thought I owed it to see what all the hubbub was about.

I am so glad I persevered. The writer's of The Chosen clearly understand the difference Jesus makes in a person's life, and it is the only Jesus movie or series I've ever seen that successfully wields typology to show how the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

Are there little gripes I could make? Yes, of course. Every now and then there's some cheesy lines. Some of the sets—especially in Season 1—are a little low budget (they make the miraculous catch of fish happen in about two feet of water). John the Baptist's beard totally looks like its glued to his face. Now and then the characters talk like Protestants. But these things are all minutiae in my opinion, and not the sort I am going to gripe about. Afterall, the writers of The Chosen have also gone out of their way to incorporate Catholic elements into the storytelling as well. Season 2 Episode 6 has a beautiful scene that symbolically demonstrates the intercessory power of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And, as I mentioned, the typology is positively Catholic. And the operation of grace is depicted masterfully. 

Some may take issue that the series really uses a lot of creative license to fill in the backstories behind certain biblical episodes. But the stuff they are improvising on is stuff that's not mentioned in the Bible anyway, so it's in no way a distortion of the Scriptures—and in most cases the fabricated backstories significantly buttress the biblical episodes. For example, remember the paralytic at the Pool of Siloam who had nobody to put him into the water? He just gets a few verses in the Gospel of John. In The Chosen, we get an entire episode centered on him with a very well developed backstory. Not just a backstory, but one that is deeply moving; both times I watched that episode I wept. And the way the show used all these little narratives to build up to the Beatitudes at the end of Season 2 was superlative. Is there extrabiblical material? Of course. But everything that matters is played straight, following the New Testament beat for beat. 

As for the acting, I want to single out for praise three in particular: Jonathan Roumie (who is a practicing Catholic) as Jesus, Paras Patel as Matthew, and Elizabeth Tabish as St. Mary Magdalen. All the actors are good, but these three really carry the show, in my opinion. There are some excellent interviews on YouTube with Dr. Scott Hahn (who is also a big fan of the show) talking to Jonathan Roumie; I found these very edifying. Oh, and Eric Avari completely nails it as Nicodemus, who is a major character. I only wish he were in more episodes.

Now, I know there are Trad Catholic criticisms of The Chosen out there, some by popular priests. I am already aware of them and have read them, so please don't post them in the comments asking me to respond. All I can say is I find these Trad critiques without merit, focusing too much on matters of little import, or else making mountains out of molehills (like the critique I read where the Trad viewer objected to the fact that the infant Jesus in the Nativity was depicted wet after being born—as if its a matter of dogmatic faith that we must believe Jesus emerged from the womb of Mary entirely dry! What nonsense! I am not aware of a single point in which The Chosen deviates from any Catholic dogma, nor has any Trad criticism I've read of it been convincing. In fact, some of the Trad critiques I read made me think, "What is on earth is wrong with us?"

As to the issue that "evangelicals are excited about it therefore I am suspicious," while I understand the hesitancy when you see Protestants going gaga over something, I don't think that's ultimately a justification for skepticism. In 2004 Catholics were going gaga over The Passion of the Christ; had a Protestant said they were skeptical of it for that reason, would you have found that a compelling argument? I would hope not. Of course, sometimes Protestants get excited about something because its Protestant nonsense; but sometimes they get excited about something because its good. I say The Chosen is the latter.

One final thought: As some of you know, I was not raised Catholic. I was baptized Catholic as an infant, but I never made a First Communion until I was 22, didn't start practicing until I was an adult. I had what I consider to be a dissolute and debauched youth. When the Lord snatched me from the snare of the fowler—when He looked at me and said "Follow me"—it was life changing. And I've never looked back. The Chosen has brought me back to that place of remembering what it is like to be redeemed. Yes, I know every Catholic, even cradle Catholics, are redeemed, need to be forgiven etc. But I mean that sense of being totally lost, totally mired in darkness, and then you see the light, and you hear His voice, and He summons you, lifts you up, turns your heart of stone to flesh and calls you His own. The Chosen continually reconnects me with that experience. It continually reminds me of the difference that Jesus makes, and it challenges me to love better. 

But hey, that's just my viewpoint, and maybe my perspective on this show is colored by my experience, which is different from yours. Some of you will probably disagree; some of you probably watched it and couldn't stand it for various reasons. Some of you will think I'm a sentimental schlub for liking it. That's fine; I am a sentimental schlub. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that. I would say, if you're not positively predisposed against it, at least watch to the end of Season 1. You might find an unexpected gem.

Book Review: Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

For the past two weeks, I have been immersed in what I am convinced is the definitive biography of the Vatican II, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, by Italian author Roberto de Mattei. Dr. Mattei is no meager polemicist, and though his book supports many of the ideas proposed by Catholic traditionalists, his book is by no means a traddy diatribe. Mattei's curriculum vitae is impressive; he is Professor of Modern History at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Cassino and is currently Professor of Modern History and History of Christianity at the European University in Rome. This scholarly background shows through in his work, which is probably the most academic and dispassionate treatment of the Second Vatican Council ever written.

Even so, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story is a total vindication of the traditionalist critique of the Council and its relation to the current state of the Church. Using only documentary evidence - including records of Council proceedings, texts of interventions by the Council Fathers, personal correspondences of John XXIII and Paul VI, and personal diaries of the periti - Dr. Mattei reconstructs the tumultuous days leading up the Council and thoroughly documents the thoughts and aspirations of the Council Fathers as the event that was Vatican II exploded on the world stage.

This is where Mattei's book has its greatest value: in revealing the intentions, thoughts and opinions of the participants in the Council. Reading the words of the actual Fathers on this subject demolishes a lot of canards about the Council. For example, it is often asserted that the ambiguity of the Council documents is an accusation made by Traditionalists who seek to blame the Council itself for the Church's problems; however, the comments of the Council Fathers themselves reveal that even while the Council was in session, ambiguity and vagueness were serious concerns for many of the participants in the Council (see here).

Another example: it is commonly asserted that the Council itself was carried out in perfect continuity with previous ecumenical councils and the problems came only with a hijacking of its implementation. However, Mattei's book reveals that the participants in the Council viewed it even then as something revolutionary, from the first meetings of the first session when the Fathers revolted to throw out the documents prepared by the Theological Commission, to their replacement of the heads of all the commissions with liberals, to their setting up of a permanent body of four Cardinals that effectively served as a meta-commission to organize all the other commissions and push them towards liberal ends. We learn that it was not a liberal who first proposed interpreting the Council in light of its "spirit", but Paul VI himself who first referred to the "spirit of Vatican II" in his opening address of the Fourth Session in September of 1965; it was not dissenting bishops who did away with Latin, but Paul VI who first celebrated Masses in the Italian vernacular in 1965 and urged his bishops to imitate him. It was a dominant clique of the Council Fathers themselves who asked for vernacular, versus populum Masses, cultural Masses, and many other deviations. Yes, this book demolishes the argument that the problems did not come until implementation; the problems were present at the outset.

Also of note is the manner in which several theologians come off as not just questionable but as total heretics. Sure, we already knew about Kung and Rahner, but even some of the more "respectable" theologians are outed for the heretics they were. For example, Yves Congar, whom Scott Hahn has praised many times and often cites as a source, comes off as a radical heretic in his desire to undermine papal primacy and redefine the nature of the Church, even invoking Martin Luther at the tomb of St. Paul, "who had wanted to reaffirm the Gospel for which Paul had struggled" (pg.487). I was appalled at some of the statements from Congar's diary quoted in the book. Jean Danielou and Henri de Lubac also are revealed as hypocrites, dissenters and heretics - and this not by any insinuations of slander by the author, but by the words of these theologians themselves. Mattei as an author does not need to make any argument; he allows these periti to hang themselves by simply citing their own words.

We also see that the controversial issues today were not necessarily the controversial issues then. While post-Conciliar critiques have focused on the liturgy, there was really not that much debate at the Council about liturgical matters. The most controversial subject was undoubtedly the Council's teaching on "collegiality", which many conservative bishops believed was in flat contradiction of Vatican I and was plainly invented in 1962. More debate was held on this question than any other, with the concept of religious liberty as expounded in Dignitatis Humanae coming in second (a tidbit I found awesome was that Karol Wojtyla found grave problems with the religious liberty schema and thought the concept of truth found therein was too disassociated with Christ, who is truth). Communism also looms large in the debates, with the vast majority of the Council Fathers asking for a condemnation of communism and Paul VI categorically refusing it.

One of the fundamental themes of Mattei's work is the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as theology versus the Second Vatican Council interpreted as an event. Mattei argues that the failure of the conservative/traditional bishops to halt the liberal onslaught was due to the fundamental inability of the conservative bishops to understand that Vatican II as an historical event, a defining occurrence in the history of the Church that was widely viewed as the beginning of a new epoch. The conservative Council Fathers, naturally interpreting Vatican II in continuity with previous Councils, focused excessively on the strict theological meaning of the wording of various documents, ultimately making noble and profound objections to the ambiguities of the texts, but never fully grasping the nature of the revolution that the Council unleashed. They did not understand the manner in which the liberals wanted to use the Council, at least not until it was too late. And why would they? No Council in the Church's history had ever been used in such a way - what Benedict XVI referred to as a "meta-council." Paradoxically, the conservative bishop's view of the Council in continuity with tradition rendered them incapable of perceiving the vastness of the looming threat.

What we have is ultimately the fact that, while Vatican II may not be a total doctrinal rupture, it certainly was a historical rupture, and many of the liberal Council Fathers were content to maintain the semblance of doctrinal continuity if they could have historical discontinuity; discontinuity of fact was always the end game, even if we do not have a total discontinuity of teaching. Discontinuity de facto has been the golden apple, the liberal wet-dream, the "promised land of the Council", as Congar referred to Gaudium et Spes; conservatives can reconcile the documents and claim continuity of teaching till the cows come home - continuity de jure is an on paper reality, while the monstrous discontinuity de facto continues unabated.

Thus, the modern movement towards continuity cannot be content with merely proving it on paper or getting it authenticated in some document; there is no purely legal solution to the problem. The horses are out, and shutting the proverbial barn door now will do little good. To restore the Church, we must not only restore continuity on paper, but restore it in fact, in practice, in our lives. We must understand the Council as an historical event as well, and seek to reconcile not only documents, but lives and praxis.

This is why the book is both enlightening and depressing; it will make you mad as hell to see how things really went down, how Cardinal Ottaviani was blacklisted by the liberal elite, how the four Cardinals who dominated the Council (Frings, Konig, Dopfner and Suenens, the arch-villain) intentionally tried to dismantle the whole Catholic edifice, how the Council Fathers got us to exchange our heroes for ghosts and hot ashes for trees, in the words of Roger Waters. But it is enlightening as well, because it helps to bring into focus, glaringly, where the exact problems lie, and in doing so make the path to restoration seem more clear.

We all know there is a liberal narrative of the Council, what Benedict called the "Council of the Media"; but there is also a conservative narrative, one which tries to absolve the Council itself of all possible wrongdoing and place the blame squarely on post-Conciliar innovations. That narrative is no longer plausible after reading this book. I highly recommend it for any student of the Council, and I want to emphasize again that this book is not a polemic, not some Traditionalist attack - everything I said above is deduced simply from the speeches and writings of the Council Fathers, which this book reproduces en masse and hence becomes an indispensable resource for this important period in ecclesiastical history. It is not inexpensive, but it is certainly worth the money. When I finished the book, I was sorry it was over.  It was that good.

I also want to thank the blogger "I am not Spartacus" who brought the book to my attention and graciously sent a hard copy of it in the mail to me for my perusal. Blessings, my friend.

Click here to purchase Roberto de Mattei's The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

Best Posts of 2011

The year 2011 was my first year since I began this blog that I was not employed by the parish as a DRE and Youth Director, so I had a little bit more time to devote to blogging and felt more freedom to blog about whatever I wanted. The result was some of the most scholarly posts I have ever done (in my opinion). Here are my picks for the top posts of 2011. By the way, if you enjoy this blog, please consider forwarding some of these articles to your friends or "liking" this blog's Facebook page (linked up at the top):

Program for Parish Renewal: First in a four part series of how my pastor took a crazy. liberal parish and transformed it into a bastion of orthodoxy.

Last Supper and Liturgy: Examining the seating arrangement at the Last Supper.

Priestless parishes as a fait accompli?  The tendency of many dioceses to put forward the ideal of a priestless parish as a normative and even desirable state of affairs.

French clergy in the age of Louis XIV: An examination of the moral and intellectual state of the French clergy during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Rob Bell: Stressing the fault lines of Protestantism:  The controversy over Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" reveals an inherent weakness in Protestant thought.

"I am of Paul; I am of Apollos": A refutation to a common Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor. 10:13-17.

St. Augustine did not "invent" original sin: A refutation to the common assertion that the concept of original sin was invented by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Books that won't imperil the soul:  Thirteen recommended books in the fields of theology, philosophy, history and literature.

The JustFaith program is not Catholic: One of my most highly viewed posts of all time on the heretical tendencies of the JustFaith program.

The Assumption: Not a question of history:  Why we believe in the Assumption despite the fact that the dogma is not explicitly taught prior to Council of Nicaea.

Reliability of the Fathers: The first post in a long series about the general reliability of the Church Fathers in establishing what is the true faith.

The Homosexual Compromise: A refutation of the common assertion that homosexual orientation is acceptable in a priest so long as they don't "act on it."

Rectificare Errata: The fake encyclical I posted on April Fool's Day.

A federalist solution to abortion: Why returning abortion laws to the states is a licit strategy for ending abortion in this country.

Liturgical minimalism hurts the poor: The liturgical minimalism done in the name of making the liturgy more accessible to the poor actually hurts the poor.

Authority over demons in the Early Church: In the early Church, average lay people had authority over demons, which they exercised simply by virtue of their baptism.

Is Gandhi in hell? Using Gandhi as an example of how the principle of invincible ignorance is abused.

Speeding up to slow down: How my diocese's attempt to implement the new translation of the Missal actually put our parish behind, at least with regards to music.

What day was Jesus really born? An examination of the evidence in support of December 25th based on the time of Zechariah's service in the Temple.

Law and Tradition: Why, despite the admirable trend towards Tradition in the current Church, tradition itself can never be restored simply by legislation.

Top Ten Careers for Catholics: Ten fields you could go into instead of majoring in "liberal arts."

Christ's descent into hell: An examination of St. Thomas' reasons for why Christ descended to the dead - none of them agreeing with the reasons put forth by Balthasar. Article by Anselm.

Movie Review: Inception (2010)

I normally don't go out and see new movies that everybody is talking about; usually the fact that everybody is talking about a movie is a guarantee that the said movie is stupid, banal, etc. However, after hearing both Youth Group kids and many parents (whose opinions I respect), as well as some Catholic reviewers tell me how excellent Inception is, I decided to go out and see it.

This is advertised as a film that "makes you think" by playing with reality via dream sequences; i.e., creating a tension in which the viewer is never sure whether or not the main character is dreaming. This initially made me skeptical; the first film I can recall in my day that did this was the early 90's Schwarzeneggar flick Total Recall, which was alright but was kind of a dud. A decade later M. Night Shyamalan tried this again with The Sixth Sense, which everybody raves about to this day but which I found boring and unconvincing. Thus, when I heard that Inception had to do with dream sequences and alternate realities, I immediately thought of Sixth Sense and prepared myself for a stinker.

Boy, was I mistaken! Inception proved to be a true delight. Somewhat of an action movie, somewhat of a philosophical statement about our perceptions of reality and somewhat a love story about coping with loss, Incepetion is hard to categorize, but it is best understood as a modern take on the myth of Theseus. I'm not going to say too much more about this, but you'll understand if you see the movie.

I don't really want to give too much away about the film, save to say that it deals with the concept of individuals called "extractors" being able to get into other people's minds via their dreams in order to obtain access to hidden thoughts or (in some cases) to plant thoughts. The main plot has to do with the attempt of protagonist Tom Cobb (DiCaprio) and a team of expert "extractors" to get inside the head of the young heir to a corporate empire in order to plant a thought in his subconscious, a procedure called "inception." Why they want to do this is too complicated for me to go into here; the back story isn't too important. to get into, because all the viewer really cares about is the fascinating interplay between dream and reality as the extractors go deeper and deeper into the subconscious of the dreamer: a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, each successive dream or "layer" getting more surreal than the last.

Despite all the talk about dreams, the film manages to deal with many interesting issues surrounding the topic without even once straying into the realms of the New Age or the paranormal, which would have been very easy to do.  Thankfully it doesn't go there; it's approach is more scientific and philosophical, not pseudo-spiritual.

It is also quite clean - there is absolutely no sexuality or sensuality at all. The name of God is blasphemed about three times. Blasphemy is always regrettable, but it is not gratuitous. What do I mean by this? Well, in some movies there is a lot of blasphemy simply because the characters are made to be blasphemers; so a character is made to blaspheme constantly in the course of normal conversation. This sort of blasphemy is especially reprehensible. But then there is a more "realistic" sort of blasphemy; for example, in this film, the main character takes the Lord's name in vain after witnessing his wife commit suicide (sorry for the spoiler). This, though still regrettable, is less offensive to me because I can readily imagine that a real person who witnessed their wife kill herself before his eyes might say God's name in this manner. It is way more realistic; I'm not condoning it at all, but I am saying that it is not gratuitous. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

The film has one of those endings that leaves you on the edge and makes you walk away wondering. Beyond that I am not going to say much more.

This was one of the only films all year that is worth going to see in the theater. The plot was excellent, the movie was engaging, it had the right balance of action, thoughtfulness and tension; Leonardo DiCaprio did an excellent job and the film even managed to work in themes from Greek mythology. There is a very strong theme of warning about what can go wrong when one tries to pursue fleeting fantasies instead of the truth, and the protagonist Cobb, despite delving into the depths of the subconscious, remains committed to the existence of a ground of reality "up there." 

Except for the very few occasions of blasphemy, it was a great film. I give it three out of three papal tiaras (by the way, please note that tiaras are just my version of thumbs up or stars; the fact that I give a film two or three papal tiaras doesn't necessarily mean it's a Catholic film - it just means it was a good movie).

Movie Review: Avatar

So I let my curiosity get the best of me and went to see Avatar last night with the wife, figuring that though I generally stay away from new cinema, this film seemed to be such a cultural phenomenon that I had to inform myself about it. My wife and I both enjoyed the film; it didn't seem like three hours as I was watching it, and I can certainly say that the cinematography and effects were spectacular. Besides the fact that it was entertaining and aesthetically pleasing to watch, I can't say that much more in praise of it. I am shocked that it has become the highest grossing movie of all time and am concerned that its worldview will become more mainstream as time goes on.

The first thing I want to point out is the utter unoriginality of the movie. The movie was basically a futuristic rehash of the 1995 Disney Pocahontas film. John Smith is Jake Sully and the girl (whatever her name was) is Pocahontas. The Marines are the English, who instead of gold are seeking an absurdly named ore called "Unobtainium." There's even a sacred tree, like in Pocahontas.

But to delve into this a little more deeply, one of the central things in the film is the ability of certain men, whose minds fit a specific profile, to be able to "jump into" certain synthetically engineered biological bodies ("Avatars") and control them remotely, or "drive" them. This concept is almost directly pirated from the 1995-1996 Japanese series of anime films entitled (in English) "Neon Genesis Evangelion" (see here), which was widely popular and grossed over $16 million. The central idea of the Neon Genesis Evangelion series was that a series of teenagers, with very specific mental profiles, were chosen to pilot bio-engineered creatures called "Evas." The Evas are organic, but they are basically shell bodies that are inhabited ("driven") by the human pilots in order to combat a threatening race of alien invaders. Like Jake Sully in Avatar, the main character in Neon Genesis Evangelion is a young boy named Shinji who is initially unfit to pilot an Eva but (like Jake Sully) becomes one of the most important Eva pilots through his uncanny union with his Eva body. Anyone being honest with themselves can see the similarities - I do not accuse James Cameron of direct plagiarism per se, though it is possible; I merely point out that this is hardly an original theme.

Another element of unoriginality was the concept of the taming of those dragon-looking birds and the nonsense about them only choosing one rider for life, the riders bonding with the creature, controlling it with their mind, etc. This is obviously plagiarized from Eragon, which Christopher Paolini stole from the Dragon Riders of Pern. When I saw this concept in Eragon, I was a little frustrated, but to see it so blatantly recycled in Avatar was too much.

From a Christian viewpoint, the biggest problem with Avatar is the spirituality positively portrayed in the film. The Na'vi have a relation to their planet (Pandora) in which the entire planet is a type of semi-conscious, living organism. The "souls" of the Na'vi come forth from the planet, or rather the planet's life force (Eywa) and return to the collective consciousness of the planet when they die. Thus there is a very strong pantheistic element, with several scenes of the Na'vi worshiping or praying to the planet in bizarre religious rituals that look like a mix between Native American ceremony and African tribalism. The problem is not so much that type of ritual is portrayed as much as that it is endorsed by the obvious sympathy which the audience is supposed to have for the Na'vi.

Regarding sympathy, the plot is so one-sided as to make the Marines into unredeemable evil antagonists, such that the main character Jake Sully, a former Marine, apparently has no scruples about turning on his own comrades and slaying them in a pitched battle at the end of the movie. Through its complete positive portrayal of the Na'vi and its complete negative portrayal of the human Marines, this film attempts to elicit the viewer's sympathy and draw implicit connections to a host of real world events - I told my wife upon leaving the theater, "This film tries to make you feel bad for the killing of the Indians, destruction of the environment, and the Iraq War all at once!" Not that I approve of any of those things, but to tie them all together under the ideology of pantheistic earth-worship creates a false dichotomy - as if to say that if you oppose pantheistic earth worship you must be in favor of destroying the environment. The sympathies created by the movie are too one sided and based on such false dichotomies.

While I initially sympathized with the Na'vi, I found it difficult to maintain my sympathy the further into the film as their pantheistic earth worship began to be more emphasized and promoted. By the latter part of the film, I found myself actually hoping the Marines would succeed in their plan to blow up the "Tree of Souls," the center of the Na'vi earth cult. What does it say about a film when our sympathies switch half way from the protagonist to the antagonist? It either means that I am very sadistic, or that the movie depicts an imbalanced approach to the themes it tries to address, which I think is indeed the case here based on other reviews I have heard of the film.

One more thing - the 3D effects just weren't that awesome. I'm sorry, but they weren't. It was a little bit cool I suppose, but after a few minutes I took my glasses off, preferring to watch the film normally. To my horror, the screen was all blurry - apparently this new breed of 3D film has to be watched with the glasses (which they conveniently charge an extra $2.00 for, making the tickets for my wife and I $21.95). Unfortunately, this seems to be the new thing, because all the films in the previews were for upcoming 3D features. The 3D was neat, and the scenery was beautiful, but I never really felt like the movie was coming out at me, nor did I think it that much better than viewing a traditional, non-3D movie.

So what are we left with? A breathtaking computerized cinematography with a one-sided plot, little depth (the last twenty minutes of the film were disgustingly predictable) and a pantheistic moral message, and sci-fi ideas lifted from several other films and books. Perhaps it would be good to rent if you are curious to see it, but I wouldn't waste $21.95 just to see it in the stupid 3D that only half-works. For these reasons, I give this film one out of three papal tiaras

Review: "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"

This weekend I watched the 2007 HBO film "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee", starring Aidan Quinn, Adam Beach, Anna Paquin and August Schellenberg. The film chronicles the waning days of the Plains Indians in the latter part of the 19th century, beginning at Little Big Horn (1876) and ending at the massacre of Wounded Knee (1890). The story is told primarily through the eyes of the protagonist Charles Eastmen (played by Adam Beach), and Americanized Sioux doctor based on the historical Charles Eastman (1858-1939).

Overall this film was pretty good, and that is saying a lot for a traditionally minded Catholic who is extraordinarily picky about his movies. The film is mostly accurate to history - the role of the main character in certain historical events is exaggerated, but this is done thematically so that we see the film unfold through the lens of a single man's experiences. But as far as I can tell, most of the events portrayed and the characters involved in them are true to history. Last year I spent a month or so doing some in depth study of Native American culture in the plains and of the Indian Wars in particular (my great-great grandfather was in the Indian Wars) and found this film to be pretty true to what I read. Although you never can be sure in modern depictions of the Native American since the establishment has a vested interest in exalting the Indians and making the Americans look barbaric. Maybe that's really the way it was, but you have to be wary of anything coming out of Hollywood on this subject.

Rating/Content

Presumably because this was originally an HBO made for TV movie, it carries no rating. It would be PG, but for the unfortunate fact that the very first line of the movie contains an "F-bomb." Other than this F-bomb in the first line, there is no other profanity in the film and no sexuality. It's rather unfortunate that the writers thought this was necessary - it isn't even a substantive line. If you are watching it with your kids, perhaps turn the volume down until after you see the characters speaking for a moment. But other than the F-bomb, I'd say this film was certainly acceptable for children 10 and up.

There was a good deal of violence, none of it very graphic. However, the nature of the violence was somewhat troublesome - army shooting unarmed Indian women and whatnot. There's also several scenes of young children dying from smallpox, whooping cough, etc.

The most problematic aspect of this film for a young viewer might just be the tragic and disturbing nature of the whole tale - at the beginning of the film, the Sioux are healthy and plentiful living in the Black Hills in the traditional manner; by the end, we see them drunk and sick, wearing American clothes and confined to a pitiable welfare-state reservation where their most minute activities (like whether or not to plant crops) are regulated. The film ends with the brutal massacre of Wounded Knee (1890), and I can see some young kids being disturbed at this whole plot development. The Indians are consistently portrayed as the "good guys" in the film, and if so, this is one film where the good guys definitely do not win.

Christianity is portrayed ambiguously - the good motives of the Christian characters in the film are evident, as well as the ideals of the teachings of Jesus; but as is now done ad nauseam in these type of films, there is several pointed contrasts made between the teachings of Christ and the poor way in which the Americans involved in Indian affairs put them into practice. Christianity comes off much better in this film than the followers of the bizarre Ghost Dance cult, who are portrayed as desperate and guillble.

Plot

The plot is simply the history of the decline of the Sioux in the west. The historical narrative is told through the lives of four characters: Sitting Bull (August Schellenberg), Senator Henry Dawes (Aidan Quinn), who is in charge of Indian Affairs, Elaine Goodale (Anna Paquin), a poet and eventual spouse of the main character, Charles Eastman.

The plot can be broken up into four distinct segments: (1) Little Bighorn and its aftermath, (2) the flight of Sitting Bull and the Sioux to Canada (3) the education and return of Charles Eastman to the west to work on the reservations (4) the Ghost Dance movement and the events leading up to Little Big Horn.

Charles Eastman is meant to be the main character; Eastman is a Sioux boy who is sent east to be trained as an American and is taken under the patronage of Senator Henry Dawes, the originator of the Dawes Plan, which established the reservation system in the Dakotas and paved the way for their incorporation into the Union. Eastman, educated in the east and and erudite scholar and doctor, is sent back west as an example of what an "educated" Indian can be. At first he is a supporter of Dawes' vision of Americanizing the Sioux as a means of saving them, but when he sees the poverty and injustice rampant on the Sioux reservation he becomes a bitter critic of the government's treatment of the Indians. In the end, he winds up as an unwitting spectator and witness to the atrocity of Wounded Knee.

This is the overall plot, but though Eastman is meant to be the main protagonist, the character of Sitting Bull tends to dominate and overshadow that of Eastman, and significant portions of the movie focus on him. This does not detract from the enjoyability of the film, but it makes the plot kind of jumpy in some places (as it alternates between Sitting Bull and Eastman), and kind of dragging in others, when it focuses for long stretches on Sitting Bull apart from Eastman.

Casting & Cinematography

Those who enjoy films like the "X-Men" and the Sam Raimi "Spider Man" movies will recognize Anna Paquin (Rogue from X-Men) and a brief appearance by the memorable JK Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson from Spider Man). There is also a cameo appearance from Wes Studi, ubiquitous villain of many Indian movies, remembered especially as Magua in "Last of the Mohicans." He has a brief role as Wovoka/Jack Wilson, the Paiute Indian who started the Ghost Dance movement.

The costumes and sets are alright, but they look a tad bit Hollywoodish. Some of the Indians look like they are played by Italians, and the main Indian character of Sitting Bull is played by August Werner Schellenberg, a Swiss-German who is only partially Mohawk. In this it lacks some degree of realism. Also odd is the way in which some of the Sioux characters speak Sioux when talking to white people (Eastman greets a white audience in Sioux early in the film), but when the Sioux are shown speaking among themselves, they speak English. In my opinion, it only detracts from the realism to have speakers of another language speaking English - kind of like when we see Tom Cruise in his absurd "Valkyrie" movie attempting to play Count Stauffenberg but speaking American English. Don't get me started on that stupid movie.

Anyhow, this is a pretty good film is you see it and want to watch something educational and entertaining for the evening. The real problem isn't that it was done bad, but that it could have been done better. I give it two out of three papal tiaras.

Related Articles:
Buffalo Dance in Sante Fe
Some Intelligent Discussion on Cortez
The Cayuse Indians & Whitman Massacre
The Jesuit Martyrs of Virginia
Catholicism in the Yucatan

Movie Review: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

I hope nobody objects to me doing a movie review on here; after all, anyone who is a Traditional Catholic and has tried to find good films to watch knows how difficult it can be. Therefore, I thought it would not be outside the scope of the purpose of this blog to occasionally do some reviews about films I have seen, either to recommend to you or else to warn you not to waste your money on them.

Last night I viewed "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008), which is a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name. The film tells the tale of the mysterious alien visitor Klaatu and his robotic companion, Gort, who come to earth in order to "save" the planet. from impending doom.

The first thing to note is that this film is directed by Scott Derrickson, the same director who made "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." I heard him speaking about this film on the Al Kresta show once, and he is certainly a committed Christian, albeit Protestant. He graduated from an conservative evangelical seminary in California and even got his degree in theological studies. If you notice certain Christian themes in the film, it is probably more than coincidence.

This film was relatively good, as sci-fi films go. It was about the end of the world, but it had a substantial depth of plot, more than just a lot of explosions and apocalyptic imagery (though there was some of that at the end). The special effects were just enough to draw you into the sci-fi element of the movie but no so overbearing that it detracted from the storyline. The robotic Gort creature is especially great.

The film has one of my favorite actors and one of my least favorite: the main character is played by Jennifer Connelley, whom I have loved ever since I was a kid and saw her in "Labyrinth" with David Bowie. The alien visitor, Klaatu, is played by Keanu Reeves, whom normally I would not like, but in this film he seems suited to the role. Keanu Reeves is known as being able to make only one facial expression, and as he plays a pretty emotionless alien in this film, he fits the role perfectly.

Jaden Smith is also in the film as the irritating, sassy step-son of the main character. His character gets irritating really quick, but towards the end you start to see thematically why he was included. There is a tension in the film between the step-son and his mom which is resolved at the end of the film in the context of proving that humans are capable of true, selfless love.

The plot moves fast but not a breakneck speed; it's definitely not one of those annoying movies where the protagonists are constantly running everywhere. Basically, Klaatu (Reeves) shows up mysteriously with the vague mission of "saving earth." The humans naturally assume he is referring to saving earth from some catastrophe or attack. The mission of Klaatu is gradually revealed through his interactions with different characters as the movie progresses, but I have to say that once the full plot is revealed it becomes sort of anti-climactic.

SPOILER ALERT

We notice early on that Klaatu says he has come to "save the earth", but makes no mention of humanity. The viewer is left for most of the film wondering what he is saving the earth from, and towards the end we are distraught to find that the film buys into the current, earth-idolatry mantra that humans are like parasites on the earth. Klaatu has in fact not come to save humanity, but has come to save "the earth" from humanity. He preaches to Connelley about how destructive humans are and how they are wrecking the earth - he says, "If the earth dies, you die. But if you die, the earth survives." He then initiates a process that is meant to cleanse the earth of all traces of human habitation in the form of some kind of nano-bot self-replicating mites that devour everything.

This was very disappointing. I had hoped the director would have came up with something better than this. It is just the same earth-centered philosophy that sees the planet as having some kind of ultimate purpose of teleology apart from mankind, which is portrayed as incidental or even parasitical to earth's existence. This is the worst part about the film.

It also doesn't make sense thematically either. Klaatu tells the humans that they need to "change", but he never says how or why. Presumably, the fact that they are ruining the planet means it is something environmental. But then later, when he witnesses the main character, Connelley, exhibiting true love for her step-son, Klaatu suddenly changes his mind and decides not to destroy humanity afterall. He is moved by human love, but apparently misses the fact that there is no logical relation between a mother loving her child and human impact on the environment. He then goes to stop the whole process he has initiated and staves off the end of the world just as the great cloud of nano-mites is about to devour everything. This also doesn't make sense, because throughout the film he keeps telliing everybody that "there is nothing you can do" and saying that the end is inevitable. Later we see that in fact it is completely within his power, and that all he has to do to stave off the destruction of the world is put his hand out and touch a glowing sphere and the whole process of planetary destruction suddenly ceases without explanation. Huh?

Well, as long as you don't think too hard about these things or expect a whole lot of internal consistency, I have to say that this movie is pretty good. It's really cool seeing Gort trash all the military equipment and equally amusing to see all the interesting powers Klaatu apparently has, most relating to the ability to manipulate machinery and electricity. There are religious symbols scattered throughout the movie: people praying the Our Father, shots of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York with the spaceship behind it, scientists praying the Rosary (which was cool) and even file footage of Benedict XVI. Despite the fact that the director, Derrickson, is a Protestant, judging from this film and "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", we must deduce that he seems to have a fetish for Catholic spirituality.

There is no cussing and nothing sensual whatsoever, and best of all, the director resisted the urge to throw a love story into the mix. I suppose we could say that the relationship between the protagonist and her step-son is kind of a love story, but it is commendable that the director did not feel the need to include a romantic subplot in a story about aliens and the end of the world, where it would have been completely out of place.

In the end, I thought this was a pretty good movie. Plot kept me interested, characters were believable (despite the annoying presence of Jaden Smith), nothing objectionable, cool special effects (but not too many of them) and alright theme if you can ignore the environmentalist agenda that is subtley woven throughout. I give it two out of three papal tiaras.