CUTAWAYS: AWARDS – LET’S JUST CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF

99% of the time this is not a political commentary blog, it’s just not the focus of what I do here. But sometimes current events just get under my skin and I have to let the frustrations out, albeit in my own warped fashion. As human beings we have no authority to make judgments on another person’s soul, but as Christians we are absolutely required to address harmful actions and philosophies where we find them,whether other people like it or not. Carrying out this responsibility is, in fact, considered a work of charity, part of what has been traditionally called The Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy. As explained in the Catechism, “The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently.” So, when I saw Speaker Pelosi’s appearance on television over the weekend, I found the philosophy she was spewing forth so potentially harmful that I felt compelled to address it with a post I entitled The Vomiting Nun Award.

Now for those of you who read the comment threads, you are by now aware of the small controversy surrounding that particular post. Some saw nothing wrong with it, while others felt it could potentially be seen as demeaning to those who have chosen the consecrated life. I did my best to adequately address those concerns in an update to that post, but to avoid future misunderstandings, that’s probably the last we’ll see of the Vomiting Nun for the foreseeable future.

That being said, there will still be times I feel it necessary to remark on the politics of the day. And even though Catholicism is at odds with ALL of the political parties in this country over various policies, right now it’s the Democrats who seem especially heinous in their rapidly expanding anti-life agenda. What was that today, a $335,000,00 million payout to STD programs (which has to include contraception) under the guise of economic stimulus? So now, teaching kids to put condoms on bananas is going to cure our economic woes? Please, gentle readers, before I get back to movies and catechetics where I belong, bear with me just one more time as I offer up the following (slightly altered) movie clip which properly expresses my personal feelings over what’s going on in congress.

I suppose the Catholic B**** Slap Awards are completely out of the question?

CUTAWAYS: THE 2009 VOMITING NUN AWARD

According to Encyclopedia.com, “there are now almost 40 award ceremonies on TV every year, from the Billboard Music Awards and the Screen Actor's Guild Awards to that most demographically resonant of statuette events, the Teen Choice Awards.” But you know, even though it’s pretty crowded out there already, I’ve still kind of wanted to institute an award of my own. It’s just a pop culture kind of thing to do. The trouble is, I didn’t really know what to call it or who to give it to.

Until I saw the following 40 second video clip…

So procreation is behind our economic woes and must be stopped? I think I’ve seen this plot in a few movies over the years. It never ends well. Unless you like the taste of Soylent Green that is?

Poor old Nancy, she just can’t stop herself can she? But her continued returning to the same old well did give me the answer to my awards dilemma. It reminded me of Proverbs 26:11 which tells us, “Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.” And that, in turn, reminded me of a quick scene from The Amityville Horror (the old, good version) which inexplicably causes me to giggle hysterically every time I see it. I think it’s the over the top acting involved. Irene Dailey, the nice lady who plays Sister Helena in the movie, was actually a well respected stage actress who never managed to land a foothold in Hollywood. Because of that, I suppose, she just had to make the most of whatever little screen time she could grab, and in this clip in particular, she gives it everything she’s got, turning a simple retching scene into an onomatopoeic masterpiece.

So, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in honor of your incessant habit of appearing on television to trash Catholic teachings while at the same time publicly heralding your own “ardent practicing” of your religion, I hereby bestow upon you the newly minted, entirely un-coveted first annual B-Movie Catechism Vomiting Nun Award. This clip’s for you…

UPDATE

I have been (charitably) called to task by one of my regular readers whose opinion I value over the fact that this post may come across as offensive or disrespectful to those who have chosen the consecrated life. I deeply apologize if that is the case.

The in-movie context of the above clip, for those who may not have seen the film, is that Sister Helena is so overcome with nausea by the atmosphere of evil in her niece's new house that she must flee its presence. It seemed to fit with what I was commenting on here, but I can see where the context isn't communicated in the abbreviated clip I provided. The humor I've always found in the scene has never in any way been related to the fact that the character is a nun, but because the actress seems to have chosen to interpret the scene using a phonetic reading of the script. Every time I watch the movie, that BLAUUUUGH! just knocks me right out of the film and causes me to start giggling. I've never denied there's something wrong with me.

So now I'm torn. Do I take the post down? Do I leave it up with this explanation as an example that I don't work under a charism of infallibility here? What does everyone think?

OUTTAKES #025

CUTAWAYS

In movie terminology a cutaway is “a brief shot that interrupts the main action of a film, often to depict related matter or supposedly concurrent action.” In B-Movie Catechism terminology, Cutaways is our brand spanking new companion piece to Outtakes where we’ll be presenting and discussing brief video clips from some of our more… outlandish weekly viewings. (Note: The B-Movie Catechism cannot be held responsible if watching these clips tempts you to rent or buy these movies. Endanger your sanity at your own risk.) Our inaugural clip comes from the nearly impossible to describe 1976 opus, APE.

Obviously, what you have here is a blatant attempt by the South Koreans to cash in on Dino De Laurentiis’ remake of King Kong using a monkey costume they picked up for a few wons at Party City. But APE goes far beyond being a mere rip-off. This is one of those films bad movie lovers hope for every time they press play, a movie where, scene after scene, you sit in gaped mouthed disbelief at what you’re eyes are seeing. Did APE really just wrestle a quite real, but also obviously quite dead, great white shark? Yes. Did APE really just stomp on some doll houses while giving the middle finger to a news helicopter? Yes. And did APE (in the above clip) really stumble across the filming of a chop socky flick for no good reason whatsoever? Heck yes! Now if you guessed from this scene that APE was originally filmed in 3-D, well, give yourself a cookie. But if you somehow guessed what those guys plan on doing with that battering ram, then please tell me, because they never show you in the movie and I’d like to know.

APE jumps around a lot like that, often introducing random plot points and characters who appear for one scene only to never show up again. But then again, who am I to complain as the same thing happens in Scripture all of the time. The book Bible Legends by Lillian S. Freehof & Howard Schwartz reminds of us of Serah bat Asher, a woman who left Egypt with the rest of the Jews (Gen 46:17) and is still around three hundred years later when Moses takes the census (Num 26:46). As far as Canon is concerned, Serah is just another one of those gazillion names which pop up amongst the various genealogies scattered throughout the Bible. But that doesn’t stop people from wondering about her and her unusually long life, especially in the Midrash where the Jewish Rabbis seemed to have thought about her a lot. Over the years, according to Bible Legends, Midrashic stories about Serah have placed her at the feet of Jacob singing to him, giving Moses directions to the tomb of Joseph, and even living well into the 1100s where she either died in a synagogue fire or was assumed bodily into Heaven. Not bad for just two mentions in the Bible, huh?

Neither Christians nor Jews are obligated to believe in these extra-Biblical musings, of course. Which is a relief because, The Catholic Church having formally recognized approximately 11,000 saints (and counting), there are a fair number of questionable tales out there. As noted in the 1939 Catholic Encyclopedia, by the Middle Ages, “it had unfortunately happened that the stories of the saints were supplemented and embellished by the people according to their primitive theological conceptions and inclinations, the legend became to a large extent fiction. The age of the Reformation received the legend in this form... [however] on account of the importance which the saints possessed even among Protestants, especially as the instruments of Divine grace, the legends have remained in use to this day, particularly in sermons.” But why, especially when we know some of the details are, shall we say, exaggerated? Father Pat McCloskey, O.F.M. believes it’s because “Saints remind us of the communion of saints, the belief that we are all called to holiness, to share life with God. Saints and angels used their freedom wisely and inspire us to do the same. They are holy because they cooperated with the grace of God, wherever that led. Saints help us by encouraging us to respond as generously as they did.”

So, for the parts of stories which hold truth and inspire us, we should give thanks and pay heed. As for those parts which sometimes make us shake our heads in exasperation (I’m looking at just about every part of you APE), well, we can always blog about them can’t we.

SMILES, EVERYONE… SMILES!

Our good friend Xena has passed along the news of the death of actor Ricardo Montalbán. Now in all probability, Ricardo Montalbán will be remembered by most people for his portrayal of Mr. Roarke, the mysterious host of Fantasy Island on ABC’s hugely popular late 70’s TV series. American audiences will also likely call to mind his roles as the villain of the week in just about every show ever worth watching during the 60s and 70s, one of the most notable being his turn as the imperious Khan Noonien Singh on Star Trek. And, of course, all of us MSTies can never forget his distinctive overdubbing work as the English voice of Claudius in the West German production of Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark.

But my first exposure to Mr. Ricardo Gonzalo Pedro Montalbán Merino was sitting in a darkened theater as a little boy watching a bunch of damn dirty humans gun down the peace loving, time-tossed talking chimps from 1971’s Escape from the Planet of the Apes. (Yeah, I teared up you filthy pink hairless monkeys. Viva La Apes!) Ricardo played the role of Armando, the kindly circus owner who takes in the orphaned child of Cornelius and Zira. He reprised the role the following year in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, in which we find him doing his best to present the good side of human nature to the now grown Caesar. When Armando is tortured and killed by the authorities after refusing to hand over his ward, Caesar effectively looses his restraining conscience and in his fury instigates the ape revolt which will bring about the Planet of the Apes introduced in the first film.

Out of everything I’ve seen him in, I like to imagine Armando was the character most like Ricardo Montalbán in real life. You see, I took a small interest in Mr. Montalbán’s off-screen doings when in 2002, just after my return to The Church, he received the first annual Spirit of Angelus Award, an honor given “for a body of film work of surpassing quality complemented by a faith lived with integrity and generosity.” At his acceptance speech, he noted that his Catholic faith was the most important thing in his life, followed closely by his marriage. It wasn’t just talk. He remained happily married to actress Georgiana Young for 63 years (63 YEARS!) until her passing in late 2007. On the Church side, in 1998, he was recommended by his Bishop for membership as a Knight in the Order of St. Gregory the Great, an award given by the Vatican to acknowledge an individual's particular meritorious service to the Church.

A few days ago we rightly gave honor to Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on the news his death. Ricardo Montalbán’s passing isn’t likely to stir up as much bandwidth around the Catholic blogosphere as the good Father’s did, but we wanted to make sure he at least got his due recognition here. As much as we labor to separate the wheat from the chaff in the world of B-Movies, it’s very gratifying to occasionally run across the real deal. Godspeed, Ricardo. “How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God,… to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.” As Mr. Roarke would have said, “Smiles, everyone… smiles!

SHORT FEATURE: DIZZY DISHES

That’s quite an imagination Little Audrey has there. A wee bit on the literal side, though. Must be a Calvinist. Famous Studios basically came up with Little Audrey to replace Little Lulu, a character for whom they no longer wanted to pay the licensing rights. Unfortunately for them, Audrey never really caught on with audiences, and was only marginally more successful in Harvey Comics where she played second fiddle to the likes of Richie Rich and Casper The Friendly Ghost. Why the lukewarm reception? Well, according to Walt Disney Comic’s writer Don Markstein, “What set Audrey apart from most of the Harvey characters was that she didn't have a quirk. Little Lotta was a compulsive eater, Richie Rich was fabulously wealthy, Hot Stuff was a demon from Hell… Audrey just couldn't stand out in a crowd like that, and she wasn't as good a character as Lulu in the first place. She faded from view more quickly than the other Harveys.”

To be fair, Audrey actually did have one distinguishing quirk, but it’s a pretty obscure one which Famous Studios didn’t do too good a job of bringing to the forefront in their cartoons. According to the book The American People  By Benjamin Albert Botkin & Louis Filler, before the animated version appeared in the 1940s, Little Audrey actually existed as a folk-lore character “about whom thousands of nonsensical short stories have been told. Sometimes Little Audrey parades as Little Emma or Little Gertrude, but she usually is recognizable by a catch phrase – she “just laughed and laughed”. The amusing incident is typically a catastrophe. Little Audrey sees the humour in any situation.” As an example, the authors offer up a typical Little Audrey tale. “Little Audrey and her date were sitting on the sofa when all of a sudden the lights went out. “Oh” said Little Audrey’s boyfriend, “it sure is dark in here. I can’t even see my hand in front of me.” Little Audrey just laughed and laughed, ‘cause she knew all the time that his hand wasn’t in front of him.” Ba-dum-dum.

Bad jokes aside, the tales of Little Audrey appear to have circulated during the Great Depression as one way of helping people maintain a sense of perspective during hard times. Of course, there are times when cartoons and jokes just aren’t enough, and when that happens, nothing seems to beat that old time religion. That’s because, as The Catechism (quoting Sacrosanctum Concilium) reminds us, “at its core the piety of the people is a storehouse of values that offers answers of Christian wisdom to the great questions of life... This wisdom is a Christian humanism that radically affirms the dignity of every person as a child of God, establishes a basic fraternity, teaches people to encounter nature and understand work, provides reasons for joy and humor even in the midst of a very hard life.” So don’t come looking for any of that clinging bitterly to religion around these parts. Around here, we’ve got joy, joy, joy, joy, down in our hearts. And when all is said and done, and we look back on the hard times, I think we’ll find most of the time we just laughed and laughed.

STAND UP, YOUR FATHER’S PASSING

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder and editor of the monthly journal First Things, 1936-2009, Resquiat in Pacem.

OUTTAKES #024: NEWSREEL EDITION

COMING ATTRACTIONS: DOUBLE FEATURE: EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS & MARS ATTACKS!

Well, as next month marks the start of our third year here at The B-Movie Catechism and the next review, by chance, happens to be our 50th, it seems like a pretty good time to have another double feature. Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers is a no-brainer, but what’s Tim Burton’s mega-bucks mega-flop Mars Attacks! doing in these parts? You’ll just have to wait and see.

THE STAR WARS HOLIDAY SPECIAL

THE TAGLINE

“A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…”

THE PLOT

It’s Life Day, the most important holiday on the Wookiee’s home planet of Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca, on the run from the Empire since helping the rebellion blow up the Death Star, hasn’t made it home yet. Chewie’s family (wife Malla, father Itchy, and son Lumpy) wait in quiet desperation for his return while doing their best to avoid the incriminating questions of the imperial storm troopers who have invaded their home searching for clues of the rebel’s whereabouts. With the aid of local trader Saun Dann, the Wookie family manage to sneak a few calls to Chewie’s pals Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia while keeping the Empire goons distracted with various entertaining gadgets. After some narrow escapes from stock footage imperial star destroyers, Han and Chewie finally arrive at the house where Han is forced to knock a trooper off a flight of stairs to his death. (Don’t worry about your young impressionable kids, the trooper swung first.) Saun Dann provides a convenient cover story which allows everybody, including the just arrived Luke, Leia and the droids, to join with Chewbacca’s family in the celebration of Life Day.

THE POINT

I’m about to say something so heretical, so sacrilegious, so potentially blasphemous, that it may mean my excommunication from the ranks of sci-fi geekdom forever. But I have no choice. You see, I have watched the Star Wars Holiday Special and what I have to say is this… I really and truly wish with all my heart that George Lucas had written this show.

I know, I know, please forgive me. I know George is the guy who wrote dialog the likes of "Hold me, Anakin! Hold me like you did by the lake at Naboo!", thereby assuring a pair of potentially tragic Shakesperian-type lovers would be viewed simply as a couple of twits. I know he’s the guy who actually wrote the word “YIPPIE!” for his child actor to yell out, thereby assuring anyone over the age of five would want to bludgeon the poor kid to death. And yes, I know he’s the guy who wrote every grotesque word that came out Jar Jar Binks’ mouth thereby insuring a major character in the Star Wars universe would always be viewed as a semi-retarded Rastafarian wannabe. I know Lucas is the guy who wrote ALL OF THAT… and yet, still, I wish he had written The Star Wars Holiday Special. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

I’m willing to take this unholy stand because, even though Lucas’ own literary lapses are legendary, I can’t remember a time he’s ever, I repeat EVER, written anything as mindbendingly screwy as some of the stuff you see in The Star Wars Holiday Special. (And, yes,  I’m counting Captain EO.) Now to be honest, Filmfax magazine does claim that Lucas was somewhat involved in the first rough draft of the script. But having little interest in an idea forced on him by 20th Century Fox, Ol’ George made the decision to leave everything beyond that point in the capable hands of Smith-Hemion Productions. And that’s probably where everything went straight to hell because, alas, Smith-Hemion was not a company known for its writing. What Smith-Hemion WAS known for was producing shows like the Tony Awards. Have you ever listened to the jokes on one of those things and wondered who in the name of all that’s holy wrote them and thought they were remotely funny? Well, it was these guys.

Which at least explains a good chunk of what’s wrong with The Star Wars Holiday Special. For those fortunate few of you who have never seen it, let me explain. What the nice people at Smith-Hemion Productions did was take George’s outline and twist it to fit their own special niche. The show quickly morphed from Lucas’ vague concept of “a sweet and sentimental vision of a holiday season" into a full blown 1970s style variety show complete with aging yet familiar television faces like Art Carney, pedestrian comedy skits, and dinner theater style musical performances. The end result of it all was… well, not exactly what Star Wars fans were hoping for. In a May 2002 interview with Maxim magazine, Lucas briefly commented on the special. “Right. That's one of those things that happened” he said, “and I just have to live with it.” Of course, by living with it he means sealing it up inside a vault never to be seen (officially) again.

But rather than try to bury The Star Wars Holiday Special (as Lucas has attempted to do), maybe we should try to praise it just a bit instead. For one thing, no matter that it wasn’t the “sequel” we were waiting on, the show was still the fix we were all looking for that brisk November of 1978. After all, Star Wars had finally ended its astonishing 44 week theatrical run in March and it would be another year and a half before The Empire Strikes Back hit the big screen. We faithful were starting to feel a tinge of desperation to see our favorite rebels again and The Special gave us just that. There was Luke Skywalker (whose recent injuries from a car accident required him to wear more makeup than a roomful of transvestites at a Tammy Faye Baker lookalike contest), there was Han Solo (a mortally embarrassed looking Harrison Ford who used to pretend this show never happened until Conan O’Brien ambushed him one night with some found footage), there was Princess Leia (well on her way by this time to a much publicized alcohol and cocaine addiction), and there were even all of the lovable supporting characters like C3PO and R2D2 and, of course, Chewbacca (all just happy to have a gig in between films). Say what you will, but at least all the original actors were there, walking around… and saying things… annnnd singing.

Okay, in fairness, Carrie Fisher was the only Star Wars cast member forced to sing. And its not like there isn’t precedent for that. What about those Lord of the Rings stories? Hobbits and kings alike break into song all of the time in those things, so why not Princess Leia? (Sigh.) Because in Middle Earth it just doesn’t seem out of place for people to communicate tales of heroic struggle and loss through song. In the Star Wars universe, however, it… it… in the Star Wars universe, the freakin’ fugitive Princess of Alderaan and de facto leader of the rebel alliance doesn’t just spontaneously burst into song because she’s overcome with emotion while attending a holiday wing-ding thrown by a bunch of overgrown lhasa apsos, okay, she just doesn’t! And almost nothing that happens in The Star Wars Holiday Special has any business being near Star Wars either. An interminably long Cirque De Soleil type performance by The Wazzan Troupe in the Wookiee’s living room. No. A post-Maude Bea Arthur singing a cabaret tune to a bunch of aliens at the Mos Eisley cantina. No. An imperial guard completely and utterly mesmerized by a Jefferson Starship video. No. Harvey Corman playing four different roles, including a multi-armed Julia Childs type chef named Gormaanda. No, no, no, and no. Chewie’s dad Itchy lustfully leering at Diahann Carroll as she sings and (blecch) comes on to him. NOOOOOO!!! (As Luke would say.) I have to believe, as goofy as some of the things George Lucas has personally written may be (I’m looking at you midochlorians), even he wouldn’t have put some of this crapola down on paper.

Now amidst all that dreck, there are a couple of redeeming moments. The Nelvana produced cartoon which introduces the character of Boba Fett was actually pretty cool (despite such artistic choices as Han Solo’s nightmarishly elongated face), the art direction was still top notch (the Wookiee architecture resurfaced in Episode III), and it was kind of neat to get a recipe for Wookiee-ookies (released soon after in The Star Wars Cookbook: Wookiee Cookies and Other Galactic Recipes), but in the end there just wasn’t enough good stuff to counterbalance the overriding wrongness of the whole production.  After this debacle is it any wonder Lucas became such a stickler for protecting his franchise (at least from everyone but himself). Having already waived his fee as director in lieu of owning the licensing rights to Star Wars, Lucas took special care to procure all rights to The Holiday Special back from CBS and lock it away in that aforementioned vault. From there, as we previously discussed way back in our review of Final Exam: The Novelization, Lucas Licensing developed a continuity tracking database known as The Holocron in order to keep track of what is and what isn’t “Star Wars Canon”. And as of late, the Lucas legal team has been zealously pursuing any hint of copyright infringement, as in the recent court case against a London costume designer selling replicas of storm trooper uniforms.

As anal retentive as all of this sounds, it does give the fans who care about such things the utmost surety that anything they purchase with Lucas’ imprimatur stamped on it is, in fact, part of the authentic Star Wars universe. In those instances where something looks official but doesn’t quite gel with the rest of the canon, like say Princess Leia warbling “A Day To Celebrate”, Lucas has the final authority to have such things declared apocryphal (writings or statements of dubious authenticity). So even if you do somehow run across a copy of this so-called Special (and really, who hasn’t by now?) which happens to have Star Wars in its name, that doesn’t mean it’s really, really Star Wars. Not completely, anyway. Surprisingly, a lot of the non-singing stuff from The Special has found its way into canon as the Star Wars story has developed over time. But that’s Lucas’ call too. Over the years, the authority Lucas exercises over his franchise has been called a number of things (God complex, megalomania, hyperegotism, etc.), but as a good Catholic boy I tend to prefer the term “Magisterial”, as in the Magisterial authority held by the Pope and the Bishops.

Too far, you say? Perhaps I’m going a bit overboard in this review with my usage of religious terms like heretical, canon, magisterial, etc. when discussing Lucas and Star Wars? Well, let me refer you to a May 2008 article on Time.com which reminds us that “in three decades the franchise has spawned more than just massive revenues and legions of fans — it has also inspired a religion. Jediism, based on the teachings of the films, counts thousands of members worldwide.” Daniel Jones, co-founder of the first Church of Jediism in the United Kingdom states that “with the 2001 Census, now everyone recognizes Jedi as a religion. If the government says to us 'You can't do that because you're not a true religion," we can say 'Yes we are' because there's more Jedi than Scientologists in Britain.” All of which tells me two things. One, sci-fi writers with grand ideas coupled with poor writing skills seem to have the uncanny ability to inspire bizarre religions. And two, it’s more than appropriate to compare Lucas to the Magisterium. There are, however, a couple of important distinctions.

As the Catechism notes, we Catholics believe “Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church… The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." Over the years this Magisterial authority has allowed the Pope and Bishops, among other things, to make final decisions on what books belonged in the official canon of Christianity, which later writings or teachings were authentic developments of dogma and doctrine and which ones were just apocrypha, and even what doctrines and disciplines could be changed over time. That’s somewhat analogous to how Lucas handles his franchise. The big difference between the Church’s authority and the type Lucas wields, however, is that George is the creator of the little world he controls and can change or invent anything he wants to at his whim. The Church, on the other hand, is simply a steward of The Deposit of Faith handed down in Scripture and the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Changing it isn’t allowed.

Or even possible, really. Which brings up the second big difference between the two “authorities”, the dreaded and oft-misunderstood Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. As defined by the Catechism, “The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.” We can see this idea of papal infallibility starting to kick in throughout the New Testament, particularly in those instances where the newly formed Christian Church is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to force Gentile Christians to adopt Jewish ritual purity laws. Peter’s initial personal belief is yes, but the Holy Spirit works on him both through dreams (Acts 10) and a ticked off Paul (Galatians 2), and once it comes time to make an official declaration, the word is no, they do not. As Patrick Madrid chronicles in his book Pope Fiction, this process of the Holy Spirit safeguarding the Magisterium from corrupting the Deposit of Faith (sometimes hilariously, sometimes frighteningly) has continued throughout the ages up to today. Even Pope Benedict XVI, in the introduction to his brilliant book Jesus of Nazareth, is careful to acknowledge that the work represents his personal opinions and does not fall under the charism of infallibility.

There’s a lot more to papal infallibility than what’s presented here, but in the context of this review the important thing to note is that when individual Popes or councils of Bishops have held personal beliefs contrary to the Deposit of Faith and wanted to make some official changes, the Holy Spirit has always stepped in and prevented it from happening. Alas, for poor George, there is no such like charism at work in the Star Wars universe. While Lucas actually appears to have more authority with his canon than the Church does with hers, having the ability to alter it at will, he unfortunately has no guiding (ahem) force to keep him from screwing it up. How do I know? Well, you tell me, would anybody working under a charism of infallibility write Jar Jar Binks into their official Lexicon? I didn’t think so either.

THE STINGER

So tell me, Mr. Lucas, for all of your hand-wringing and bemoaning over the Star Wars Holiday Special and your promise to never officially release it to the public again, how do you justify your actions two years later in 1980 when you officially sanctioned THIS?

Way to safeguard your “canon”, George. Oh well, Happy Life Day everybody. Whatever that means.