Nine

Nine is a film directed and produced by Rob Marshall about Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis). I did not really enjoy it, but given the criticisms I have made in recent posts, I found the following interesting. Although Contini leads a debauched life, this is never left unquestioned. He is questions by others, he questions himself and he seems to even repent, as he seeks to get his wife back. You see how corruption in his youth has led to his current life. You also see corrupt priests who miss the opportunity to tell Contini the alternative to the empty hollowness of his life, which makes me wonder about shyness about telling the Gospel to people who really need to hear.

Radical Orthodoxy, Steven Shakespeare

I have been reading “Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Introduction” by Steven Shakespeare for a book group.I think a quote by Gavin D’Costa can help sum it up, namely that R.O. is a “church theology with no accountability to any real Church”..John Milbank describes the Church as “first and foremost neither a programme nor a “real society”, but instead an enacted, serious fiction”. I admit there is an elaborate explanation that is supposed to make this statement less outrageous and anti-Church. I could not follow it and I also did not feel it was worth taking the time and effort to hear the subtleties of why he thinks it is ok to call the Church “a fiction”. I have read 182 pages of the book and feel this is already more than enough of my time spent on R.O.Ok, so I am speaking as a “lay woman”. R.O. if it needs a hammering, will need a hammering from the big guys. The D’Costa quote does that more effectively than this blog post will do.. R.O. sets itself up as something complicated and Shakespeare’s book is praised for making it clearer. This already hit alarm bells for me. Isn’t the Gospel, the heart of Christianity, supposed to be something that can be grasped by mere children? Rather, isn’t the spirit of the anti-Christ supposed to be something sophisticated and complicated that will deceive many? However, Shakespeare’s book starts by speaking of R.O’s links with philosophy, so I accepted that I might find some of the book heavy going, without this causing undue concern at first. So here are some thoughts. R.O. seems to reject anything that is not explicitly Christian and knocks the idea of the idea of there being seeds of the Gospel in the world (p16). For instance it says that Economics feeds off the doctrine of “death and scarcity”. p27 there is a question about whether death was inevitable. It is a question that interests me. I have heard some say that there would have always been a death of the body- it is the death of the spirit that was the result of the fall. Not sure about the answer to this question. p29 there is a quote from Julian of Norwich saying that God cannot be offended and does not need to forgive since he cannot be offended. He just goes on giving as he does in creation. I really think it needs to be borne in mind that not everything that Saints say is infallible. If sin crucifies Christ, it looks to me that it offends Him and far worse, it kills Him. Nonetheless, the call for the Church (bear in mind, the Church R.O. refers to is fairly difficult to pin down) to be a forgiving community is welcome. “The devil can sing halleluia, but he can’t forgive.” There are a number of anti-Catholic swipes in the book. Although the book, on the surface, tries to be neutral and academic. Some comments of the book, however, come out of the heart of anti-Catholic propaganda. There is a fairly offensive quote (not Shakespeare’s own, but he chose it) about Mary (my criteria for offensive is: if someone said that about your sister or your own Mother, would you feel like smacking them? The quote used satisfied that criteria.) I am deliberately not referencing it. You’ll know it if you read it!. The first anti-Catholic swipe is a criticism of Vatican II for openness to modernity and human rights (admittedly I took this as a compliment). As with most of these criticisms, it is not backed up with a quote or example. p101 Millbank says that the social teaching of John Paul II leads to “soft fascism”. A fairly offensve accusation. On p68 there is a criticism that concentration on the Eucharist lead to neglect of the community as the body of Christ. Again, there were no examples to illustrate this. I wondered if this came from an observation of what we need to work on today. p95 Milbank lays into the authority of the papacy as a failed response to modernity. R.O. also disagrees with the Protestant replacement of its own interpretation of the Word. On p 168, Reno says that for R.O. “Authority shifts out of the particularity of word and sacrament into a supervening theory or concept”. Although R.O. purports to neither be liberal or conservative, Milbank does not see a problem with sex outside marriage or homosexual cohabitation.. To me this feels like R.O. is in fact “liberal” (I don’t like labels but here we go), but by pretending to be something other, can pretend to be a third way and then gang up 2 against one against real orthodoxy. Shakespeare comments that Milbank’s comments are “refreshing” making it clear where he stands of these issues. I should explain that I was drawn to read the book by the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Orthodoxy which said R.O. put itself up against some forms of liberalism that had adopted the word “radical”. I also had a half hope it might have some small link to Chesterton’s great work, “Orthodoxy”. That was a mere romantic notion. In particular, I was most disappointed by Milbank’s denial of the difference between male and female and the suggestion that they might be social constructions. In my view this is at the heart of liberalism. In contrast is http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html John Paul’s letter on the dignity and vocation of women. To finish with some positives. I found the book heavy, so maybe there are more positives than I found. I was not prepared to dig too hard. Making it to the end of the book was an achievement for me! I liked the notion that R.O. welcomes Post Liberalism in that, Post Liberalism points out where secularism has substituted God with Progress or Change. Post Liberalism then questions the new God of Progress or the triumph of the proletariat and the establishment of a utopian state (p50- p51). R.O. is keen to suggest that the modern world worships the God of Power. In uncloaking the replacement God, post liberalism leaves a gap. This gap can be filled by Nihilism, R.O. seems to argue that in revealing that something has been taking the place of the real God, it then leaves people open to the real God. Questioning and looking at the roots of secularism is one of the current big tasks, methinks. I want to continue looking at this, but not on the R.O. bandwagon. One of Milbank’s interesting and challenging questions is p139 about “conservatives” who when confronted by the messiness of divorce etc etc in real life, are far more tolerant than their theology suggests. Is this tolerance or, in fact, utter weakness and isolation in the face of an aggressive secularism that fearlessly declares its own values? maybe this is why p91 “secularism can tolerate any amount of private faith and superstition. What it cannot tolerate is a community which seeks to to embody an alternative in a material and secular way”. Such a community is very much what we need and thanks to R.O. for pointing it out.

Sherlock Holmes 2009

I saw this on Sat. The first problem is that I found Danny Davis Junior’s diction unclear.. I am not sure if that was a fault with the audio at the cinema. However, I could understand everyone else fine. The second problem is that I found the movie just too dark. From the trailers I was expecting more of an action film. Not some “black magic” and “secret societies”. Wanted something a bit lighter. My recommendation, wait till it comes on TV and then watch it if there is nothing else on! Also, much better to watch the original series.

The Holiday

This was a pretty average, watchable film. I would only watch it if you really have nothing better to do, so including spoilers in my thoughts. Kate Winslet is stung by unrequited love, Cameran Diaz has been stung by someone else. They have a house swap and meet Jack Back and the gorgeous Jude Law respectively. Cameran Diaz has a one night stand with Jude Law on the first night (and we’re all supposed to think “how romantic”, might be an interesting twist to have one of these films where someone catches an std this way. She even visits Jude Law, finds out he’s a Dad, gets on well with the daughters and there is a bizarre moment when the daughters offer to push the beds together so she can stay over. I remember Jonathan Ross reviewing this as a mediocre film. I agree Jack Black played his part as a funny, although straight man, well.. That was interesting to see. There was also the happy message of giving people causing heart ache a kicking out of your life/ heart and finding someone else.

Burn After Reading

This was a dark, but funny film. All characters in the film played their parts really well, even those with small roles. The lawyer, the plastic surgeon, John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney…. I don’t think any of them could have played their parts better. My cousin attributed the success of the film to the Coen Brothers’ direction. Frances McDormand as Linda Litzke want plastic surgery, but has not got the money. Then a disk turns up with binary data- could it be some top government secret? Will the Russian Embassy takes it? Osbourne Cox (John Malkovisch) has lost the disk and he is not happy when he gets an anonymous call asking for cash in return for the disk. This synopsis does not do the film justice. As with most films it has to come with a “health warning” nowadays. I am aware that this could be greeted with rolling eyes and a “p- leeeese!” But I was thinking, when the films are relentless in promoting sleezy morality, why should I be less tireless in mentioning that I disagree with it? Now, I am not talking about the somewhat gruesome shock killing in the film. It was dark, but not ebing promoted…. Linda goes on an internet date (a funny part of the film). She goes to cinema with the guy, the whole film roar with laughter at the film… while he does not react, remains serious and unaware that he should pretend to get the joke. Time to say, “sorry just got to nip to the loo” and then not return. Nope, then end up sleeping together!? Just nuts. But because the film is tireless in promoting casual sex, then there is a sense that you should shut up and just say, “great film” and omit to mention anything. I mean, even someone who saw np with that lifestyle would have legged it.. And of course there were other examples plus a cacophony of f- words, which when used by John Malkovich was actually quite funny.

Ship of Fools by Fintan O’Toole

I only read the first and the last chapters of this book (taking a tip off Mortimer Adler). It was a gift to one of my cousins and I started reading it as I came back to the house half way through a movie they were watching (Babel) and it was too late to catch the thread. The first thing that interested me was how different the Irish story is to that of the English. I had imagined it was the same story everywhere. Bertie Ahern (ex Irish Taoishe) had been touring the world giving lectures about the Celtic Tiger. More recently he has quietly droppped these talks (!) The rise of the Tiger was attributed to a few factors O’Toole says that the econonmy grew quickly post 95 because it had been growing so slowly before that global boom of the 1990’s. America invested more in Europe during the 1990’s than in previous 4 decades “Feminism” – more women working because of more contraception- more women available to work because of lack of contraception before eg in 86 ten workers supported 22 too young/old to work. In 99 the ratio had lowered 10:14, in 2005 10:5. This was also aided my emigration in the 1950’s- the elderly were (hopefully) being cared for elsewhere EU subsidising Ireland #8.6 billion between 87 and 98 The next stage was incompetence in dealing with the boom, Charlie McCreevy statement summed it up “When I have the money I spend it, when I don’t have the money I don’t spend it”. Poor budgetting, over doing public spending. Also, investing in an artificial property boom, building hotels and other unneeded buildings. The last chapter stated that had Ireland not been rescued by membership of the EU, it would have suffered the same fate as Iceland. The last chapter seemed to repeat the worldwide story of corrupt bankers, businessmen and foolish politicians who did not see things coming. The simple story of people spending money they do not have. An interesting book, but wont get the time to read all of it. Want to hear the story for UK. O’Toole does also make some bland comments about wanting to see the authority of the Church eroded, to be replaced by “civic authority”. O’Toole actually describes this jump as something that had been missing for too long. My comment is not to enter into a division of Church and state vs otherwise. If a whole book is arguing that the state has blundered, “been a ship of fools” and created a devastating mess for Ireland, then it is highly stupid to slip in a comment, without arguing a case, (but instead by presenting it as an “obvious fact”), that the state should be the arbiter of morals for the public. He slips this comment in, so it will be subliminaly accepted by the reader, rather presenting a decent argument for it. An argument is much needed given the books sets out to show what eijeets this same civic authority has proved itself to be in dealing with the financials of Ireland.

The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga

I am not recommending this book, so no apologies for spoilers. What most interested me in the White Tiger was the, sometimes scathing, social commentary. “Democracy what an f (they could have used a lot of dashes in this book) joke” was an oft repeated sentiment. Illiterate beggars told to put their finger print to a blank election card. Buck the system and get killed. A servant’s master knocks someone down, the servant is told to take the blame. The family is proud for their son to have “taken the hit” (poor pun unfortunately intended) for a big shot. Also, there was a criticism of religion in general because of a particular abuse of religion noticed by the author. In particular a hindu God of servitude (the name escapes me and a quick flick thro the book did not help) that encourages subservance to a corrupt regime. It is also amusing that Balram writes the book as a letter to the prime minister of China. Therein, in these short paragraphs lies all I really gained from the book. It starts by being funny, but is actually quite dark and the descriptions of the murder are a little too well described for me. Balram’s unrepentant attitude harkened back to another better book I have read recently- Rebecca. The same chill runs through both entirely different books. I was left wanting to read something a little more edifying. Enough of reading about the dark side and the fall of souls into corruption

The Lake House

Some would say the Lakehouse is unrealistic, because of the time dimension. Keanu Reeves is in 2004, Sandra Bullock is in 2006. They write letter to each other and fall in love.

To me the time gap thing is not the most unrealistic part of the film. The fact that there could be some wormhole allowing letters to go from 2004 to 2006 is entirely plausible compared to the other element of the plot.

If I received anonymous love letters from some guy I had never met or seen, I would feel utterly confident that he would be some weirdy I would want to have nothing to do with. The chances of him being a Keanu Reeves would be so small as to be impossible. I could imagine the time lapse thing might be possible though….

Books I have read recently…(5)

Because of my holiday I read the Groovy Greeks by Terry Deary. It was very good. I also read a “Very short guide to the Classics” by Mary Beard and John Henderson. That book irritated me because it kept on and on about Bassae, a place I would not visit.

I have just finished “Round Ireland with a Fridge” by Tony Hawks. Really enjoyed it- very funny. The fridge steals the show! A couple of lines does not do justice to the time I spent with this book.

Was disappointed by “The Courage to be Chaste” by Benedict Groeshel. I had hoped it would deal with what chastity means for unmarried couples. This was one area it said it would omit. Should have done more research before buying. Two things caught my interest though. One was the one temptation Groeshel described as diabolic- “Get it over with, what difference will one more episode make and then you will feel more at peace with God or at least ask for repentance (p 90). more a paraphras than a quote.

The other thought I liked was that when prayer becomes “the pearl of great price”, then people will want to give up having a heart like a sewer to gain that pearl. Of one girl it says she had no desire to threaten her newly found happiness by returning to a debauched lifestyle.

The key reflection I took from Groeshel was that personal devotion to Jesus helps people grow in virtue particularly when that devotion is focussed on the Eucharist. Groeshel suggested devotion to the Eucharist is necessary for the chaste life. He sited the example of a Protestant Clergyman in the grip of adultery (and i suppose the adulteress!) who found Eucharistic adoration gave him the strength he needed to quit. It all goes to show, you can’t confuse the roots and the fruits. No chaste life style (fruit) without Jesus (the root, the source, the alpha, the omega, the beginning the end the well spring of eternal life:)))

Read Christian Brotherhood by Joseph Ratzinger. Forgotten a lot of it now, but was intrigued by the questions surround who is a real brother and who is a false brother.

Read some of Meister Eckhart, found it hard going. Then discovered Groeshel quoted him in his book and took this as some small reward for my pains.

Films I have watched recently…

Hello my neglected blog. I do not have time to write a detailed article about the films and books I have read recently, so I am just going to write a couple of lines on the films and books I have watched recently…. as a way of reminding myself what I have seen.

 

District 9. This was a truly excellent film. The start was hilarious. It was a take on the Fly (which I have yet to see). Sharlto Copley as Wikus van de Merwe, had been picked out of obscurity and played his part brilliantly.

 

Surrogates. A good film, but not in the same league as District 9. Part of my problem with it was that the humans stay all day attached to a machine while their surrogate goes walk abouts. The humans should look awful and be incredibly stiff (when you get out of bed you need a bit of a stretch) when they get up. This problem was not addressed. It had some very clever twists and turns towards the end.

 

Sex and the City. This film was best for those who followed the original show. I never did, so I missed the references back to the original thing and it was praised for being faithful. It also contained porn, which at other periods which would be classed as obscene. However, it is almost impossible for anything to be shocking now. Other than that it was a fairly watchable sitcom. It perpetuated the same as usual myths about glamourised casual sex. It also contained a bit of common sense. Miranda nearly lets go of her husband for cheating “just once” as it keeps saying in the reviews. Just once is once too many and can let you catch AIDS or get someone pregnant. The point that was that she expected her husband to be the  greatest example of faithfulness, while she was only sleeping with him once every six months. The major underemphasised point was not that “it was just once”, but that it was at least half her fault that the “just once” occurred.

	Sarah Jessica Parker	…	Carrie Bradshaw
	Kim Cattrall	…	Samantha Jones
	Kristin Davis	…	Charlotte York
	Cynthia Nixon	…	Miranda Hobbes

 

 

UP was great, heartwarming clever and beautiful. PIXAR stuff is really good quality (apart from Monsters vs Aliens!)

Final Destination – the original. Enjoyed it. It was a bit gory in places, but was worried it was going to be a lot worse from what I had heard. Clever little sick twists.

 

Frost Vs Nixon. My friend is a fan of Michael Sheen and now I understand why. Sheen made a better Frost than Frost himself.

 

I think that is it for the films I have seen recently.