Viva Cristo Rey!

I saw Cristiada (aka For Greater Glory). My first impression was that I've never seen a movie quite like it. Or, if I have, it's been a very, very long time.

First, let me get a few things out of the way. There are some technical problems with the film. There were some moments with weak dialogue and the script needed some work in fleshing out the context of what was going on. My wife, for example, was unfamiliar with the overall story of the Cristiada and wound up confused over some of the events. These issues were compounded by mediocre editing, especially in the first half. There was a lot of jumping around to and from scenes that didn't even  last five minutes and added nothing to the plot. In a movie that was pushing two and half hours, these scenes could have been cut. The result would have been a much tighter plot and maybe even less of those aforementioned weak script items.

So there you have the problems. The good news is that none of these problems changes the fact that it's a great movie. The casting was excellent, and I'm not leaving this to the famous people like Andy Garcia or Peter O'Toole. I thought Oscar Isaac was fantastic as El Catorce. Lots of people are talking about the kid who plays Blessed Jose Luis Sanchez and with good reason. He's way better than, say, the kids in Gran Torino, a much more well-known show.

Let's talk about the story-telling, though. It's a tale of war, so you can figure on a lot of battle scenes. They were there, but thankfully they don't drag on. The story here is about the people, and the narrative stays with them. People going in to see a high body count and watch some Catholics kicking butt might be disappointed. Sure, there is that, and it's admittedly welcome to see Catholics willing to fight for the Church. It's why they're fighting that's important. Blood isn't what makes one a martyr; faith does. That means you can't just focus on the shooting. When the time comes for the gear to shift from gunplay to emotion, Cristiada makes the transition without losing any power at all.

I've had a lot of people ask me if it's historically accurate. The answer is "sort of." Some liberties are taken, of course. You don't see some of Fr. Vega's indiscretions and one character's death is far from what really happened. Those things aside, the history is pretty solid. You see the Cristeros do bad things, so it's not like there's white-washing going on. The martyrdoms that took place are probably toned down in the movie in terms of how horrific the tortures were in reality. On the plus side, the St. Joan of Arc Brigades got a lot of much-deserved screen time. The most shocking thing was that the film didn't flinch from showing how the United States was an accessory to the crimes against the Church. Morrow and Coolidge were willing to sell arms to the criminals in the Calles government as long as it helped secure US oil interests.

One downer here: no mention of where Calles enmity towards the Church really came from. In other words, the Masonic connection was ignored. That's a shame but nothing to dwell on.

You're going to hear a lot of folks claim that Cristiada is propaganda or maybe too hokey or melodramatic. What's funny about this is that the true events are even more melodramatic than what was portrayed in  the movie. Consider that the Mexican federales often charged into battle shouting "Long live Satan!" Recall that Calles's armies regularly raped nuns and impressed them into duty as camp followers. The Cristeros went into battle singing hymns. The mother of several Cristeros commented that she did her part by offering up four of her sons for the honor of Christ the King, but the Almighty came up short on his end. He only took two of them. Imagine what the response would have been like if these realities had been shown.

As far as it being propaganda goes, so was Casablanca, but I haven't heard anybody complain about that. Cristiada isn't even really propaganda or it would have left out some of the Cristeros bad behavior. The real problem for reviewers is that they can't stomach a movie about Catholic stuff that doesn't show the Catholics as either stupid or the bad guys. Or they could be like Roger Ebert, and just be a dumb-ass. It's worth reading his comments, given that they are somewhat common in the reviews I've seen so far.

One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war.

Yeah, Rog, the film "seems" to approve of martyrdom. Believe it or not, going to heaven as a martyr is kind of a big deal. Maybe you missed the part at the beginning where it's explicitly stated that there's no greater glory than dying for Christ. Or perhaps you're just a douche. This next bit is even better:

If it had not hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other religions, it is lacking something.

What the crap is this supposed to mean? Ebert seems to have missed the minor point of these events taking place in 1920s Mexico. What other religions were there? Who else was targeted by the Calles law? Maybe the script should have included a scene where the Cristeros find a hidden valley full of Messianic Jews who fled a mythical set of laws preventing them from using a shofar or something. That way some more religions could have been included. Of course, this would have been complete idiocy. Let's just take the comments at face value and admit that Ebert is either stupid or reaching for things to find wrong with the film.

This brings me to my final points. Every Catholic should see this movie. In a day and age when people are willing to sign Protestant statements of faith just so their kids can belong to trendy, hipster social groups, something needs to remind them that the Faith is worth dying for and that it's not "just words" to sign oaths of heresy and schism. Catholics should also watch this movie while recalling the following:

1. There are people (like Roger Ebert) who are going to watch this movie and think that the Cristeros, and all Catholics by extension, are stupid.

2. There are people who are going to see the scenes with Fr. Christopher (Peter O'Toole) and Blessed Jose (Mauricio Kuri) and then make jokes about the sex abuse scandal. Given how the scenes are framed, this is repulsive. It's also the only thing people think about the Church anymore.

3. There are people who will see Cristiada and feel that the actions taken by Calles are justified. Whether it's the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, or the Stalinist liquidation, Catholics must understand that there are positive historical perspectives of these things and they aren't terribly hard to find. I've had good friends comment that the Church deserved what it got in the French Revolution because of Her "meddling" with government affairs. He probably thinks the same thing about the Cristeros.

4. The most telling line in the movie is when a character is told that he can save his life simply by saying "Death to Cristo Rey; long live the Federal Government." As Cardinal  George has recently suggested, we might not be all that far from hearing such a demand ourselves. And it will be people like those in #1-3 that applaud when it happens.

So there's my review. Now, go see this movie.

PS- Stay through the credits. It is extremely moving.

Review: The Tudors

I mentioned in a prior post about my maybe watching the Showtime series The Tudors. This was mostly due to the portrayals (linked there) of Sts. John Fisher and Thomas More being martyred. Honestly, I never would have thought such a reverential presentation possible from any secular media outlet.

So I watched them and thought they would make a good follow-up to my Thor review as they make for a good demonstration of a basic principle. Stories don't have to feature pornography to be good. Consider Thor. Here was a movie about a being worshipped as a god by a race of violent, barbaric people who are historically famous for murder, rape, etc. However, the movie was able to tell a story about him without any graphic portrayal or even mention of these things, even though it's pretty easy to see how a director could have worked them in there if he had wanted. It was a good movie.

On a side note, that's it's a comic book movie has nothing to do with it. Studios are releasing tons of direct to video CARTOONS now that feature things like Green Lantern shooting a guy in the face and having the gore splatter all over him, Wonder Woman overseeing the slaughter of an army that had raped a village of women, and Tony Stark naked in a hot tub with a woman. People don't care about whether a kid or parent might accidentally pick this stuff up.

The Tudors is a series about an immoral monarch, famous for his many wives and mistresses. In contrast to Thor, almost every episode of the series features a scene of softcore (I guess) pornographic sex. I'm not sure why. It is the very definition of "gratuitous." It ruins a lot of otherwise quality stuff.

It's a fairly accurate presentation of events, I think. It would have been better if Rhys-Meyers had been in a fat suit, but that would probably have reduced the glamour of his being king and made it hard for people to accept how this guy was able to have sex with so many women. Just being king wouldn't have been enough for a lot of folks.

The startling thing was always how pro-Catholic it all was. It even had a whole season dedicated to the Pilgrimage of Grace. How many people even knew what that was until this show came out?

Thomas Cromwell was shown as the a-hole that he was. The dissolution of the monasteries was basically theft. Catherine was a saint who, along with Mary, was cruelly abused. Anne Boleyn was a whore. How many public school history classes do you think actually make these points?

As fantastic (sans porn) the first seasons were, things kind of fell apart in the last season. Most semblance of plot was abandoned in order to just show various aspects of Henry's mental and physical deterioration. They went on a bizarre tangent to show the Anglicans resisting further Protestant doctrinal encroachment, but you couldn't figure out if they were Catholic or just not Lutheran/Calvinist. Lots of people died, but most of them were given such short shrift that you didn't have time to care.

Naturally, there was some homage to Elizabeth. Somebody should do a movie or TV show about her reign that isn't the Cate Blanchett hagiography.

Overall, it really was a good show up till that final season. If you can get past the porn stuff, it's worth watching and can probably be of some value in instructing Catholics on how England got to be the way it is. Following up with Robert Hugh Benson's Come Rack! Come Rope! would be a good thing.

Movie Review: Thor

I went to see Thor last night. It was the first Imax 3D feature I'd ever been to. It was pretty amazing, but I'm not sure it's so great as to want to pay 2x the regular ticket price.

This movie was an interesting experiment on several different levels. First, Thor is not a character that has a lot of wide popular appeal. I say this as someone who thinks that Walt Simonson's work with this book was one of the greatest literary achievements in the history of the written word. That's the exception that proves the rule, though. It takes an exceptional talent like Simonson to make the character work. He's honestly just not that interesting otherwise, which is why he's on the feature team of the Marvel Universe.

Second, a film translating Norse mythology into contemporary times is not going to be easy either. What with all the archaic speech and such, it would be really easy to have this whole thing degenerate into a lot of melodramatic actors hamming it up whilst delivering poorly written sappy dialogue.

I think this is why Kenneth Branagh as director was important. Having worked in theater and Shakespeare stuff, I think he could recognize the cheese potential before it got out of hand. The movie kept it's tone, and everybody stuck to playing their character straight, without giving in to self-indulgence or mockery.

One final bit before I get to the substance of things. There was not a shred of foul language or inappropriate sexual content. There is violence, but it wasn't anything more than what is in any other super-hero movie. In fact, it's probably a bit less, at least as far as humans participating goes.

Now, for the review and Catholic bits garnered from my viewing.

Minor spoilers follow. You have been warned.

What has made the good Marvel movies good has tended to be the cast. Thor is no exception, though this was one of my biggest concerns since I'd never heard of most of these folks. Then again, everybody knew who Ben Affleck and Nicolas Cage were. That didn't help Daredevil and Ghost Rider.

This Hemsworth guy pretty much nails it, both on the arrogant jackass part and the fun guy to have a beer with side. The romantic part was a bit forced, but that seemed more a function of time than the acting.

The supporting cast was good as well. Anthony Hopkins does great as Odin. This isn't Marlon Brando stopping by the set of Superman to pick up a paycheck. Heimdall, Sif, the Warriors Three all got excellent treatments. Except for Volstagg who, quite frankly, just wasn't fat enough.

Tom Hiddleston, another guy I'd never heard of, was a fantastic Loki. I didn't like the motivations unveiled at the end. It just didn't sit well with me for some reason. Loki is pretty evil. The movie tried to tone that down a bit, even though he was trying to commit genocide.

The plot worked well and is the beginning of the Catholic perspective that we consider. Thor begins with a point instructive to the masses. Humanity once lived under the principle that mankind was not alone in the universe. We've pretty much ditched that now. We're way more pagan than the pagans ever were. Their gods were basically super-heroes and displayed all the regular foibles of humanity, albeit with greater capacity for harm due to their powers. At least the pagans didn't exalt themselves as gods, which is our favorite modern pasttime.

Anyways, humanity not being alone in the movie means being stuck with Asgardians and Frost Giants. That is the back-drop of the whole film. The remaining context is essentially a replay of The Fall. Thor allows his pride to override his sense of duty to Odin the All-Father. This unleashes enormous destruction upon his people and results in his being cast out. The road back is by subordinating his own will and self-love to the ideals that his father always wanted for him. This is all very Catholic stuff and was a pleasant surprise as to how it was presented.

Going back to our previous points above, all this is done without being heavy-handed and in your face. Branagh didn't need to resort to cheap Jesus imagery a la Singer in Superman Returns. He told a story with superfluities like that stripped away and what you had left was just a good story with great acting.

And yes, there's stuff after the credits, and it's awesome.

Go see it. You'll be glad you did. And by all means, please take your kids. They'll be glad you did.

Then all of you can read Walt Simonson's Thor.

Movie Review: The Rite

So I finally saw The Rite.

HooBoy.

Let me get a couple of things out of the way right off the bat. First, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with the book by the same name, other than they both involve exorcisms. Second, this is not a horror movie, and I'm willing to be that a lot of folks aren't going to like it simply because their expectations are for something in that genre. They will be disappointed.

Moving on to the movie itself, I will be providing some minor spoilers, so those who proceed have been warned.

As anyone can gather from the previews, this is the story of a young skeptical priest who is training to drive out demons under the guidance of an experienced exorcist. Except that the young priest isn't a priest. That's just the previews misleading the audience, but I'm probably just being overly sensitive on this point. I actually thought the acting was pretty good. Colin O'Donoghue plays the skeptic well. More than a skeptic, the character is basically an atheist, and O'Donoghue does a good job of exuding the vibe of superiority and exasperation that you tend to find in a lot of the professional unbelievers these days. The real priest's role is carried by Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins is Hopkins, so you know he isn't going to suck. While he has some really good moments in this one, he doesn't really have much to work with.

I really wanted to like this movie. However, it seemed absolutely determined to make sure that I would hate it. Within the first twenty minutes, it started producing little superfluous items that seemed to have no purpose in the film except to get on my nerves. Having a guy who isn't a priest lie about being a priest, to the detriment of a dying soul at that, only to have his lie applauded by a real priest is stupid and annoying, especially since it added nothing to the story and could have been easily portrayed in a decent manner. I wish the problems had stopped here.

The movie's real damage comes from the fact that it is almost antithetical to the basic premise of the book. The book sought to give a portrayal of exorcism that was balanced between the banality of some cases and the shock of the more extreme instances. The movie's depiction is full-on sensationalism. Having ditched what should have been the main premise, the movie pushes the sensational aspects until it renders the main characters unlikeable. O'Donoghue's skeptic looks more and more like an idiot, claiming "rational explanations" for stuff that would have made Agent Scully a believer (even Season 1 Scully). Hopkins is left looking incompetent for letting someone with no faith at all assume control of situations that clearly involve the demonic.

The need to continue pushing this envelope shoves the whole movie into absurdity by the time we reach the climax. O'Donoghue, with no faith, no training, and no ordination, sallies forth to do combat with the Forces of Hell. Why him? Because he didn't feel like he could leave the possessed guy tied up all weekend while the experienced exorcist was out of town.

No, really. That was the whole rationale. Almost verbatim. To hell (literally) with his own soul, the soul of the possessed guy, the bystanders. He just couldn't leave someone tied up for a couple of days. Or go find the other exorcist. Or ANY other exorcist. Or even a real priest.

The thing that really sucks is that this movie could have been quite good. Just sticking to some semblance of the book would have helped. The temptation to try and force it into horror-dom was just too much, I guess. What you wind up with isn't a horror movie, but instead a story about faith. That is admirable, but it's too weighted down by the stupid stuff. They should have made up their minds as to what they wanted. Trying to please both sides just wound up with a crappy movie.

I will say this. At least they show exorcisms actually working. The more famous movies dealing with this subject aren't so nice. Exorcist I? Fr. Karras takes a header out the window. Exorcist II? Richard Burton consorts with demons. Exorcist III? The exorcist is getting smacked around until George C. Scott shows up and beats the demons with bullets rather than faith. Exorcism of Emily Rose? She dies.

I'm very proud of The Rite for being a movie about the power of faith, and its role in defeating Satan's minions. I just wish there was something else to praise.

There isn't. Oh, and my wife thought it was absolutely horrible, so there's your second opinion if you think you might need one.

Reading The Rite

FOR THE MOVIE REVIEW, CLICK HERE.

I just finished The Rite by Matt Baglio. This is the book that allegedly was the inspiration for the new movie with Anthony Hopkins. First, regarding the book itself. No big spoilers or anything.

This was a very well-written, journalistic account of an exorcist's training in Rome. For folks looking for a replay of Hostage to the Devil, you will be sorely disappointed. This isn't a knock against Hostage. There's a place for that kind of narrative on things. If you're looking to strip things down to the brass tacks, and tell the story of demonic possession in a way that a non-believer can walk away interested as opposed to incredulous, this is how you do it. Baglio evens mentions Hostage in an end note and believes that Fr. Martin's account is exaggerated. Maybe. Maybe not. My personal recommendation is that folks should read both books.

Anyways, Baglio's take on things comes off as subdued and objective. He gives the whole course of scientific and Scully-ish "rational explanations" their time so that nobody can accuse the Church of looking for demons under every rock and bed. He emphasizes many, many times how exorcisms are not all what you see in movies. Sometimes, they are even downright boring. From an informational perspective, this is refreshing. By my reckoning, the demonic is behind way more problems than most people care to imagine. When such activity is trivialized by the carnival acts that pass themselves off as exorcisms these days, real damage is done to the cause of trying to liberate people from Satanic oppression.

This is an area that will hopefully mine a lot of interest for the Church. People like this subject, even if it's just because they've seen all the movies about it. Once they start hearing the stories, though, my own hope is that it will humanize things a bit. Maybe even lead them to a greater curiosity for Christ's Church. Maybe even to conversion/reversion. Baglio says at the end that he was basically led back to the Faith by his work on this project.

Let me also say that the theology involved was very solid and very well-referenced. There's some stuff in there that folks could probably quibble with, but that's always going to be the case, especially on a topic like this where there is so much mystery and variation involved. This was a relief, considering how readily people are willing to slander the Church as primitive and superstitious, with exorcism cited as a prime example. The theological discussions were sophisticated enough to impress a non-believer, I think, but not so much as to deliver headaches.

Stuff I never thought about: curses. Holy smokes. The book is worth reading for this topic alone. I knew curses existed, but I never really thought about them or how they might work. There's a good treatment of the subject here. Sure, Fr. Martin talks about them in Hostage, but The Rite is much more striking in how it talks about them, probably because it's just so mattter-of-fact about it.

If there was an "Easter egg" to the book, it is how often Baglio brings up the role of the Blessed Mother. The demons are terrified of her, with most not even daring to speak her name. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has read even the first three chapters of the Bible. God wasn't joking about putting "enmity" between her and the Serpent and between her seed and his seed. Perhaps some will discover the importance of Marian devotion in all this. The demons certainly respect the significance of a relationship with Our Lady. She "burns" them and rightfully so.

Now onto the movie. Going by the previews, I have no idea what the movie has to do with the book, other than that they deal with possession. Hopefully, there isn't too much "hollywoodization," as this would but against everything the book seemed to stand for. From my read, the point was to provide information on an oft-misrepresented and misunderstood topic. Conflict is good to portray. The book doesn't shy from the graphic examples, but it doesn't dwell on them either. It's about the simplicity of there being evil and such evil seeks to destroy us. Sometimes, the Adversary breaches our defenses, and extraordinary measures must be taken. As much as I like The Exorcist movie, I don't want to see The Rite turn into stuff like Fr. Karras jumping out of windows.

When I see the movie, I'll post a review of it as well.

The Theology Of Toy Story

I saw Toy Story 3. Let me go ahead and answer the obvious question. No, it wasn't as good as the first 2.

As for the movie itself, I was struck several times with the prominence of underlying Catholic themes all throughout the show.

Spoilers do follow and you have only yourself to blame if you keep reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For example, you've got LotsOHuggin Bear who is clearly Satan disguising himself as an angel of light. I first noted this parallel when the toys arrived at the day care center and were getting the tour. Lotso was not very complimentary regarding the kids, instead trumpeting the independence of the toys.

"We own ourselves." Those were his exact words and are standard Satanic propaganda, whether it takes the atheist form of believing oneself to be sovereign over one's life or the Pelagian nonsense of salvation being a product of self rather than grace.

Contrast this with the perspective of Andy's toys. They do not pretend any equality with Andy. They accept his will, whether it's playtime or the attic. They might not like it, but they were willing to go to the attic for perhaps forever. When did they get in trouble? When they stopped trusting Andy and believed he no longer loved them. They sought their own way out of trouble. That was bad.

I could also go into parallels between their long drought of playtime and the dark night of the soul, but I'd probably have to re-read parts of St. John's work, and that would take a while. Needless to say, it's there.

Going back to Lotso, consider his ravings on top of the dumpster. He says that Daisy didn't love them and thought they were all trash and so forth. I initially took this as an accusation against God for leaving man to total depravity even after redemption, but I admit that it could also be the standard atheist tack of reducing man to just another animal. Generally speaking, these are both huge problems. Folks see man as God's work, but consider him so foul and wretched that only a few elect can have any claim to goodness at all. Or folks see man as not God's creation and just a destructive blight.

Man is made in the image and likeness of his maker. That's a big deal.

Andy's toys have always portrayed themselves as something more than mere objects. This is almost the central theme of the whole series. Being "just a toy" is a great honor and privilege. So is being "just a person."

Lotso shouts, "Where's your kid now?" Come on, folks. That's almost too blatant.

Finally, you have the scene where Andy parts with his toys. He clearly loves them all, but in a sort of reversal of the above metaphors, he speaks of Woody as always having been there for him. And that's true too. There's definitely something of the guardian angel relationship when Andy is shown as the kid rather than the sovereign. His toys are protective of him and ultimately concerned only with his happiness, often to the point of risking their own destruction. Consider all those chase scenes in the series.

"I've got to get back to Andy/Andy's House!"

Why?

"Andy needs me!"

And so forth.

Anyways, just a few thoughts. What did I miss?

I Saw Punisher: War Zone

I'm sure that many of you are appalled. Would it shock you more to learn that I thought the last Punisher movie, starring Thomas Jane as Frank Castle, was excellent? Even my wife thought it was good.

Note for fanboys: Straight to video Dolph Lundgren version isn't being counted here.

Being the stupid person that I am, I actually thought that this more recent effort might be of similar substance. Of course, this did nothing but affirm my dumb-headedness.

The first movie focused a lot less on violence than it did on Frank's inability to cope with his tragedy. Much of it centered on his family relationships, then his attempts to forge new relationships with his neighbors. His activities against Howard Saint, while featuring some bloodshed, were of a more cerebral nature, as he gradually eroded Saint's organization from within.

This second movie is almost(?) pornographic in its violence. More explode than in the entire Scanners franchise. People being blown to bits, cut into pieces, etc. is supposed to be interesting, I guess. Not only that, Frank is basically a moron.

About once every 20 minutes or so, the movie attempts to show some humanity on Frank's end, usually with about ten seconds of flashback to his family, Ray Stevenson (who really mails it in) staring woefully at someone who reminds him of his family, or some sad sounding music. Did I mention what happens to MicroChip? Probably best not to.

Anyways, the result is a bunch of people getting blowed up real good with a couple of "Let's all go to the lobby" moments inserted to make it look like someone tried to manufacture a plot. I should have anticipated this. Why bother making something that even vaguely resembles a real movie when you can cater to the base urges of the masses by depicting slaughter?

The first movie was good because it wasn't about slaughter. It was about the person of Frank Castle and his reaction to the bad things that happened to him. The comics are the same way. Frank is only interesting when someone talks about who he is, rather than what he does. The latter is a consequence of the former. When folks try to portray what he does as being identical to who he is, the door is opened for things to suck. Punisher: War Zone kicked the freaking door open, lobbed in a crap grenade, then laughed while it splattered all over the audience.

Anyways, avoid this movie. It is awful. Oh, and the ending is blasphemous (in the literal sense), but hopefully, even if you began watching this cinematic turd, you had the good sense to turn it off before you got to the blasphemy part.

The Glories Of The Martyrs

Thanks to The American Catholic for this. I don't have Showtime, but these clips might convince me to get The Tudors from Netflix.

The Martyrdom of St. John Fisher:





The Martyrdom of St. Thomas More:




May these witnesses for Christ grant us their prayers.

The Catholicism of Alfred Hitchcock

Thanks to Haskovec for finding this article in the TimesOnline. I for one have always enjoyed Hitchcock's work. I readily admit, though, that, even knowing he was Catholic, I only pegged a couple of his movies as having big Catholic themes to them. I Confess is, of course, the easy one. I've never understood why this movie isn't more popular or at least semi-well-known. The other one, strangely enough, was The Birds. Basically, evil comes looking for you in even the most innocuous of forms, and there isn't squat you can do on your own to extricate yourself from it. You need the assistance of the Divine to be saved. In other words, what happens at the end of the film.

Anyways, the whole article is quite interesting. Here's a bit to whet your appetite:


Born into a devoutly Roman Catholic family in the East End of London in 1899, Alfred Hitchcock was the nephew of a priest, and according to McGilligan, continued to go to Mass for most of his adult life. He would invite priest friends onto film sets, gave money to Catholic causes and even donated a vineyard to a community of Californian priests.

"For Hitchcock Catholicism was something he was born with, as others might be born with red hair. It did not phase him" claims John Russell Taylor, Hitchcock's first and only authorised biographer (Hitch: the Life and Times of Alfred Hitchcock, 1978). "He was certainly esctatic when his daughter Pat married a nephew of the Catholic archbishop of Boston. I don't know how devout he was, but he certainly remained a Catholic."

Interviewed in 1973 for the magazine of his Jesuit alma mater St Ignatius College, Hitchcock shied from defining his faith explaining: "A claim to be religious rests entirely on your own conscience, whether you believe or not. A Catholic attitude was indoctrinated into me. After all I was born a Catholic. I went to a Catholic School and I now have a conscience with lots of trials over belief," he said. Claiming his Jesuit schooling had developed his "reasoning powers" but also "a sense of fear", Hitchcock would relate a celebrated incident where he had to choose the exact time for a beating, according to the Jesuit system where the master who ordered a punishment was not allowed to personally inflict it. This incident, Hitchcock alleged was "in a minor way" like going through a form of execution.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight was a very fine effort. Everything you've heard about it is probably true. The cast is great. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the best performances I've ever seen. The movie is probably a bit long, though. Nolan and Goyer deserve a lot of credit on this one because it's the story that really makes the whole thing go.

There have been some efforts, mostly recent, to paint Batman as little more than a high-tech paranoid whackjob whose ethics are derived from a sort of cobbled-together personal code that he imposes upon himself, rather than a guy driven by a morality outside himself that he is subject to by nature. This former characterization is largely due to a botched attempt by modern writers to follow-up on Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.

Why does Batman refuse to kill? Because killing is wrong. Why is killing wrong? Is it because Bruce has simply concocted a moral code stating that he shouldn't do it? No. It's because he acknowledges rules higher than himself. No matter how much he might want to kill a given criminal, he will not do so, nor come up with a rationalization that would give him permission to do so, nor attempt to hold himself out as some sort of "higher law." He is not the Nietzschean overman, as so many attempt to claim.

The Dark Knight does a good job of bringing this forward. The crux of the story in TDK is that Bruce does submit to authoritative values that are above him. He expects others to follow those values as well and must adapt when confronted by a villain who doesn't just have a different set of values (like Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins) but who has no values at all. The plot then takes the natural turn into a game of chicken between the three (yes, three) main characters who each take turns escalating the conflict to see who is going to flinch first. The Joker, of course, is not bound by any limits whatsoever and therefore will never flinch. Dent tries it Bruce's way, then flinches and takes the path that there is only value in the "fairness" of chance. He even admits this isn't really some sort of higher law, but rather all that he's left with. Only Bruce acknowledges a true higher moral order and consistently adheres to it.

The other significant element that TDK brings up but that has gone by the wayside in many modern Batman portrayals is the central role that sacrifice plays in what Bruce does. He lost his girlfriend in Batman Begins, sure, but he's faced with the reality in TDK that folks can still come after him personally even if they don't know who he really is. How do they do that? By picking apart his soul which is so devoted to the higher cause he has pledged himself to. Batman's sacrifice is therefore not strictly limited to the "I'll never live a normal life" sort of whining that is so often bandied about as the real burden he must bear. The real sacrifice is carrying the cross of his virtue. His choices get people killed all the time, and he has to live with it. Alfred's takes on this throughout the movie are excellent. It would be easy for Bruce to become The Punisher, but then he wouldn't be Batman. It would be even easier for him simply to seek self-justification and acknowledgment of his goodness. Instead, we have his sacrifice at the close of the film. Simply marvelous stuff and highly recommended for all over the age of, say, 15.

Coming soon: Why Batman is Catholic and an exploration of the religious faith of other super-heroes.

I saw the new Hulk movie.

It was a remarkable act of reparation for the prior abomination from Ang Lee. The previous effort spent what seemed to be about 5 hours on a mixed variety of origin stories, none of which were ever touted as the real reason Banner was all of a sudden changing into a monster. That left about 10 minutes for an actual discussion of what it meant for Banner to undergo this ordeal. Oh, but that was only after 2 hours of Nick Nolte playing a crazy, homeless version of Absorbing Man.

This new effort basically dealt with all the origin issues in the opening credits. Thumbs up already. It then proceeded on the wonderful course of the nature of Bruce's struggles and how they effect those around him. It is this element that provides a marvelous Catholic allegory on the monastic life. I'm sure I'll get some criticism for allegedly seeing Catholicism where it isn't (such as my view of Iron Man as a story about semi-pelagianism), but just hear me out.

Consider the dilemma faced by Bruce Banner. He must withdraw from essentially everything that feeds his passions. This was portrayed well in the TV version by the weekly closing with Bill Bixby back to hitch-hiking and the haunting piano music. If Banner declined to do this, he would condemn both himself, as well as those he loves and numerous unnamed innocents, to a path of destruction. Suppressing his passions is necessary for his survival. I must mention here that there is even a scene in the movie showing Banner as a celibate. Well done stuff, I thought.

The monastic withdraws into solitude for the exact same reasons. The temptations of the world, the flesh, and the Devil feed the passions of the soul, leading into sin, which is synonymous with destruction. The Church has always been emphatic about the nature of sin as a communal offense rather than merely an individual transgression, so the monastic finds himself in an analogous situation to Bruce, who disrupts everything around him when he succumbs to the rage of the Hulk.

However, this is not to say that the passions are evil in themselves. It is clearly the disordered passions which lead to sin and death. There is a line in the new movie in which Banner says that he does not feel he can control the Hulk but that he does think he can "aim it." Such is the case with our passions. The unchecked passions will ultimately lead us into sin. Having a fallen nature sucks. However, we can direct those passions and consequently overcome them by focusing them toward a virtuous end.

These scenarios lead to the same conflicts. Bruce is pursued by those he flees, whether it's Ross, or Betty or The Leader or whoever. He wants the solace of isolation, but he can never find it. Each moment is a struggle to contain the monstrous force within him, and nobody is really doing him any favors along the way. The monastic may somehow divest himself of elements of the world, but the flesh and the Devil will not let him go. Even the world will come searching, as evidenced by the multitudes who sought the wisdom of the Desert Fathers.

On a different note, both Banner and the monastic are faced with a singular problem. Their battles are utterly beyond their abilities to win alone. The movie might (I really don't know if it does) slide away from this a bit at the end, but the basic story is that Banner is impotent when he tries to take on the Hulk by himself. The monastic is painfully aware of his reliance on the grace of God to keep the angry seeds of temptation at bay. This is true by the simple fact that Satan will be doubly resolved to break him.

The picture above is of the Temptations of St. Antony. Replace the images with Banner surrounded by his enemies, and you have a good idea of where I'm going with this whole shpiel. Anyways, the bottom line is that the Hulk is a story about struggle with self and the lengths one must go if one is to truly conquer self for the sake of salvation (not just for the individual, but the world as well). This new movie effort tells this story extraordinarily well.

Go see the movie. Then read The Life of St. Antony by St. Athanasius.

Movie Review: Iron Man

Yeah, yeah. It's not directly related to the Church, but I have to mix things up every once and a while. Besides, comic books are probably the most advanced theological treatises out there considering that all the wacky problems posed by theologians really don't get played out in any other genre on such a regular basis.

I was convinced this movie would suck and that much of the suckage would be due to the casting.

I was wrong. This movie was very good and much of it was due to the casting. Downey played Stark quite well (though Tony was never this big an a-hole till he got hooked on the booze). I must also give a huge tip of the hat to Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane. This is the second Bridges movie that I have actually enjoyed. The first, of course, was Starman, but that was during Carpenter's infallible streak, so it's tough to know how much credit Bridges deserved there.

Favreau managed the dialogue here in marvelous fashion. Just when I thought it was about to veer into full-blown Swingers territory, he pulled back and reset things back into actual plot.

A few items: There were many very nice homages and revamps in this. The Mandarin and the "Ten Rings" were innovative takes I thought. The initial suit served as a nice shout out to Ultron fans, and we even got a tease for Rhodey's future out of it.

Jarvis- what a neat concept.

The story was a good meshing of the real origin, Stane's play for Stark International, and a bit of the Armor Wars thrown in for good measure. I thought the post-credits bit was freaking awesome. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, there is at least one gaping plot hole that I won't mention but just made the movie look sloppy at a rather crucial juncture.

I am very disappointed that my kids will have to wait for the DVD so that I can "edit" a couple of scenes. The stuff with the reporter and the stewardesses was completely uncalled for and seemed an almost deliberate insertion to prevent it from being too "kid-friendly." If you want to show that Stark is a womanizer, take the Batman Begins route and just show him out with some women and acting like a jerk. There was no need for those scenes in Iron Man.

Finally, my recommendations. The best run on Iron Man was that of Micheline and Layton, which includes the above-mentioned Armor Wars story. Go buy it now and enjoy. It is very much an insight into Tony's personality and why his hunger for redemption never really goes away. I will admit that I've always like Tony more in a team setting (Avengers) because it really drives home the Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian aspects of his book and character. He'll never be perfected like, say, Steve because Tony has attempted to reach that perfection by his own efforts and therefore is bound up in his ego and need to be self-reliant and in control. Steve is the opposite. He is who he is because of a gift (ironically granted by the sacrifice of his creator's life) and, as a result, he is not susceptible to the flaws I just mentioned.

Anyways, both the movie and the book are worth checking out.