Saturday, May 30, 2009

CUTAWAYS

Here’s a quick clip from Star Pilot a.k.a. 2+5: Missione Hydra (1966) in which director Pietro Francisci teaches us the fine art of body language. See if you can guess who amongst this merry gathering will cause trouble later in the film and who will become fluent in the universal language of looove.

So, how’d you do? Not too hard to figure out, huh? I think it’s fair to say that the director of Star Pilot wasn’t exactly aiming for subtlety in this scene. Ah, but it’s only funny because it’s so true, right? Even in the Old Testament itself, at least according to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, you can find five examples of the kind of googly eyed love at first sight moment like we see in this clip; Adam and Eve, Rebecca and Isaac, Jacob and Rachel, David and Avigail, & David and Bathsheba. Now, I think I might argue a little with the good Rabbi over including David as I’m not quite sure what he was feeling was “love” the first time he saw these women, especially the buck naked Bathsheba. Oh, I’m sure he felt “something” alright. But love? I guess I’m just a skeptic. Still, even if you toss those out, that still leaves us with a few good Biblical examples of love at first sight.

Good examples or not, though, Rabbi Ginsburgh advises us to approach these stories with caution. “One should not expect to be struck with an intense feeling of predestination when he first meets his predestined spouse.” he notes. “As a rule, the couple's love experience grows and develops as they nurture it together throughout their lives. Nonetheless, every rule has its exceptions, and thus we find these examples in the Torah of the intense experience known as love at first sight… Every exception tells us something about the rule that we would not otherwise have known. In our case, the exceptional experience of love at first sight is a graphic manifestation of the intensity and romance that developing love does eventually achieve as well. The converse is also true: if the experience of love at first sight is real, it will eventually achieve the stability and rootedness of developing love. Instances of love at first sight are thus instructive even for the majority of couples, who do not experience such intensity at the start of their relationship. Rather than feeling that their love is somehow deficient or unromantic, they should view examples of love at first sight as enlightening portents of the intensity into which their love should -- and hopefully will -- develop.”

Sounds like someone’s been reading their Catechism. Okay, maybe not, what with him being Jewish and all, but hey, we’ve always said that “when she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." So, it should be no surprise to find that the Catechism agrees with the Rabbi’s assessment that whether it starts off as a slow boil or as a blazing fire, a good marriage always leads to growth. "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."

So with all that going for them, maybe Bellsy & Luisa and Phena & Whatshisname actually do have a good chance at being more than just four space ships passing in the night. Now, if they can just keep that spark going so that twenty years from now, after a few kids and careers and interplanetary crises and such, when they’re sitting across the space breakfast table from one another and look up into each other’s eyes.. the camera will still zoom in just like it did in the beginning. That would be sweet.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

NEWS FLASH: LUNATIC LOSES AGAIN, CELEBRATES MORAL VICTORY!

The winners of the  2009 Cannonball Awards have been announced and as we predicted.. we didn’t win squat! But with 2% of the vote for Best Visual Treat, 8% of the vote for Best Hifreakinlarious Blog, and a whopping 13% of the vote for Best Under Appreciated Blog, The B-Movie Catechism claims complete and total moral victory!!! I mean, come on, a blog that is currently in the midst of reveling in the cinematic jewel that is Gymkata manages to place in the top five? That’s a monster win, my friends, a monster win!

Still, I suppose we should congratulate those blogs who actually got more votes than us in their respective categories, although surely their first place finishes must be hollow and meaningless next to the supreme moral victory that is ours.

First up is the award for Best Visual Treat which goes to Holy Cards for Inspiration. Micki runs an excellent site over there, although some (and by some I mean me) might think that since her site promotes EVERYBODY IN HEAVEN, it’s conceivable that some friends in high places might have influenced the vote just a bit. (I myself tried to appeal to Simon Templar, “The Saint”, but apparently fictional TV rip offs of James Bond don’t have the same pull as real people living in the presence of God.)

And then there’s Margaret, a.k.a. Minnesota's Mom, who garnered enough popularity to win the award for not being popular enough (eh, we’re Catholics, we eat paradoxes for breakfast) and take home the cup for Best Under Appreciated Blog. Again, another excellent site, although some (and by some I mean me) might question the strategy of scheduling the birth of your child to coincide with the final week of voting. She’s posting photos from the hospital room fro crying out loud. (I myself was going to post some baby photos, but anyone whose seen It’s Alive knows they probably wouldn’t have gotten the same reaction.)

And last, but not least, is the award for Best Hifreakinlarious Blog which goes to our pal LarryD over at Acts of Apostasy. Larry is a frequent commenter around these parts, so we don’t want to rag on him too hard… although… there are some (and by some I mean me and Matthew Archbold and Red Cardigan and so on and so forth) who felt it was best to pull for Larry to win this one because, well, what else does he really have going for him? (I myself was going to campaign just as hard to win this category, but considering I’m in the middle of writing a review of Gymkata, I figured my dignity was in enough danger.)

So our hearty congratulations to these fine champions, as well as the winners in all of the other categories. We only hope that their measly first place trophies are compensation enough when compared to the massive moral victory which is ours and ours alone.

Monday, May 25, 2009

CUTAWAYS

Some folks on YouTube keep begging for more Pandemonium (Give us our DVD release already MGM!), and since I never get tired of the movie, here’s another clip.

B-fans out there might recognize David McCharen, the guy playing the chicken patient, as he popped up in a number of early 80s releases doing his bird shtick before moving into voice work. Given my tastes in entertainment, it should be no surprise that Mr. McCharen is one of the first things that came to mind the other day after I began listening to the LibriVox recording of Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton and heard the following passage.

“To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell [Asylum] at all. In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dullness of life…

If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”

Chesterton, being the smart fella he is, expounds on this argument to savage the philosophies of materialists, pantheists, and best of all, those who “believe in themselves”. (Incredible. Was “just believe in yourself” already a mantra in Chesterton’s time?) Anyway, feel free to check out what more G. K. has to say about madmen in the Librivox link above, or you can read it here.

Oh, and on the off chance that any materialists, pantheists, or anyone who just believes in themselves happens to have stumbled across our dark corner of the internet here, well, we don’t want you to feel too slighted, so here’s a little song just for you.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

SHORT FEATURE: ATHLETES’ WIVES GONE WILD

While doing a little research for the upcoming review of Gymkata (Tell me, what sane person researches Gymkata?), I got curious about whatever happened to the movie’s star, Kurt Thomas. Turns out that after being inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame, Kurt and his wife opened up the successful Kurt Thomas Gymnastics Training Center in Texas. Good for him. Other athletes… well, their private lives haven’t gone as well.

A couple of thoughts come to mind after watching this video.

One: If, like myself, you had no idea who Anna Benson was before seeing this, and you feel compelled to Google her… might I suggest leaving Safe Search on.

Two: This illustrates yet another reason Protestants should have held onto those deuterocanonical books. I’d venture a guess that these guys would have really benefited from a heaping dose of Sirach before walking down the aisle. “An evil wife is an ox yoke which chafes; taking hold of her is like grasping a scorpion. There is great anger when a wife is drunken; she will not hide her shame. A wife's harlotry shows in her lustful eyes, and she is known by her eyelids… [however] A wife's charm delights her husband, and her skill puts fat on his bones. A silent wife is a gift of the Lord, and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul. Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home. Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand, so is a beautiful face on a stately figure. Like pillars of gold on a base of silver, so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart.”

Now, not to worry, ladies, while Sirach is definitely considered an inspired book, stuff like the being silent isn’t necessarily to be taken literally in every instance. And that being the case, it’s probably not a good idea for all you guys out there to keep pointing out such verses to your wife or girlfriend. (Trust me, I learned this firsthand as a teenager.) It’s like the introduction to the Book of Sirach in The Catholic Youth Bible says, “In interpreting Sirach, you must take special care not to conclude that women are the source of most of men’s troubles!” Good advice. Still, is it just me, or does the use of the word “most” make it seem like the editors are implying “some”?

Friday, May 15, 2009

COMING ATTRACTIONS: GYMKATA

Sometime last year, in my review of Roller Boogie, I made this statement regarding roller skating champ Jim Bray. “For an athlete tossed in front of a movie camera for the first time, his acting is okay, nowhere near as bad as it could have been. One day, if I’m feeling masochistic, we’ll discuss Kurt Thomas in Gymkata and you will KNOW how bad it could have been.”

Thanks to a request by our old friend Che, that day has come. Egads.

(By the way, I was kind of shocked to look back and realize it took me over a month to deliver my last review. I have a new client at work who is going to keep me working through these rough times, but their time requirements are downright brutal. I’ll try and be quicker this time around, but I still won’t set any records. My thanks to everyone for sticking around even though my posting has had to slow up a bit.)

WARRIOR OF THE LOST WORLD

wolw03

THE TAGLINE

“In another time... in a world ruled by tyranny and violence... only one man can stop the nightmare.”

THE PLOT

While attempting to avoid certain death at the hands of pursuing Omega law enforcers and post-apocalyptic punkers, The Rider inadvertently drives his talking Supersonic Speed Cycle through a secret doorway into the lost world of The Outsiders. Once inside, The Rider is informed by The Enlightened Elders that he is the prophesized savior who has come to defeat the Omegas and their eeevil leader Prossor. To accomplish this, he is told, he must sneak into The City to rescue Prof. McWayne, leader of the New Way. Unimpressed by the prophecy or the notion of doing something for the greater good, but rather impressed by the body of McWayne’s daughter Natasia AND the gun she shoves into his… motivational region, The Rider gives in and agrees to the mission. Overcoming the dangers of one immobile snake, three squeaking tarantulas, some oatmeal faced mutants, and a legion of Omega soldiers who couldn’t shoot the nose off their own face, The Rider succeeds in getting McWayne back, only to have Natasia captured in the process. To ensure greater success the second time around, The Rider decides to recruit an army from the various gangs living in junkyards outside The City, which he accomplishes by first single-handedly beating the living crap out of all of them. With this impressive force backing him up, The Rider launches a final assault on the Omegas and frees The City, only to find a brainwashed Natasia once again pointing a gun at him, albeit aiming a bit higher this time. Can The Rider find a way to fulfill the prophecy and save Natasia, or will Prossor and the Omegas triumph in the end?

THE POINT

In her essay Apocalypse And Dystopia In Contemporary Italian Writing published in Trends in Contemporary Italian Narrative 1980-2007, Gillian Ania, Senior Lecturer in Italian at the University of Salford, contemplates possible reasons for what she sees as a rise in “end of the world” themes in Italy’s literature during the last part of the twentieth century. “Particular dates (such as the end of a millennium) certainly seem to bring out apocalyptic sensibilities, and human beings, despite refuting the significance of such boundaries rationally, can be infected on the one hand by a sense of decay and cultural decline, and on the other by a search for renewal. [Frank] Kermode nevertheless stresses that “apocalypse can flourish… quite independently of millennia”. Historical events, indeed, exert a far stronger pull and apocalyptic literature is more aptly classed as “crisis literature”, presenting or illustrating a crisis (experienced or perceived) as well as giving an alternative picture of reality.” Well, okay. Ms. Ania sounds like a smart, reasonable person, so I’m sure there’s some valid points in what she suggests. But around these parts, we think there just might be one other teensy little factor at work in the current Italian obsession with the apocalyptic.

Mel Gibson.

Now hear me out; I’m not just kicking a guy when he’s down. Just do the math. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior hit theaters in 1981, after which it took the Italians somewhere around 15 minutes to start cranking out blatant rip offs of the movie at the rate of about one every… oh, 15 minutes. In fact, there were so many Italian produced rip-offs of The Road Warrior in the 1980s that there’s little to conclude but that the whole country had developed some sort of obsessive national man-crush on Mel Gibson. (Must have been that tight leather outfit.) All of which means that the last few generations of Italians have grown up on a steady diet of films chock full of post apocalyptic desert wastelands, armored dune buggies, authoritarian dystopias, and fetish wearing nuclear mutants. That’s GOTTA do something to the psyche of a future writer. (I rented as many of these things as I could get my hands on and look what happened to me!) And if you peruse Ms. Ania’s works cited list, I think you’ll find it bears my theory out. Almost every author she mentions started writing after 1985 with the majority of them not really getting going until after 1990. The math works out. So, with all due respect to Ania’s insightful analysis, I purport that it was most likely Mel Gibson and his leather pants, or at least their vu compra knockoffs, which really seeded the minds of late twentieth century Italians with visions of Armageddon.

wolw05

Irrespective of whichever one of our theories turns out to be correct, however, I believe there is one thing Ms. Ania and I could probably reach agreement on; watching the blatant Road Warrior rip off which is Warrior of the Lost World is enough to screw with anybody’s head. Why so? Well, As Ania sees things in her essay, today’s Italian apocalyptic authors are “writers who revere the ‘lessons of history’ and scry the future, partly as a way of externalizing their personal fears, distaste and disenchantment, and partly as a warning to society.” If that description can be applied to the apocalyptic filmmakers as well, then the creators of Warrior of the Lost World are externalizing some pretty freaky internal fears.

First off, they seem really concerned that the only real advancements in technology will come in the area of sound design. Everything in this movie (cars, guns, computers, etc.) looks like it was either made in the exact same year as the movie was filmed, or decades earlier. But it all SOUNDS really futuristic. The motorcycle Supersonic Speed Cycle hums and whirrs, the plastic machine guns laser rifles pwew pwew, and the ColecoVisions futuristic super computers all bloop and beep busily. Heck, the Atari 400 mindboggling artificial intelligence attached to the Speed Cycle even talks. And talks. And talks. And by that I mean the thing’s whiny synthesized voice obsessively repeats everything two or three times in a row until it gets to the point you wish that you could bodily kill a machine in a gruesomely slow manner just for the sheer joy in hearing it screech out, “I’m dying! I'm dying! I’m dying!”… But I digress. The point is that the film makers appear to be warning us that the future will sound really neat, but look like total crap.

wolwdorks

They also seem suspicious that automobile safety will not sufficiently improve in the days to come. In the future envisioned by Warrior of the Lost World, sentient motorcycles will somehow veer straight into clearly visible rock walls (where’s K.I.T.T. when you need him?), speeding autos still won’t have enough momentum or maneuverability to make it out of the way of dump truck sized Megaweapons creeping along at 5 M.P.H., and cars will unwaveringly steer themselves over the sides of cliffs, even if no such cliff appears to have existed 10 seconds earlier. Worse still, all vehicles will explode upon the slightest contact. Even eye contact. For a mobile society like ours, the times ahead appear dark indeed.

Worse than those two problems, however, is the coming breakdown of society into smaller and smaller cliques of people who have no individuality outside of their group identity. This is most noticeable in the scene where the Rider attempts to recruit his army from the various gangs living on the outskirts of town. None of them are even given a name in the credits, each being referred to only by their gang affiliation. You have pot-bellied rednecks Truckers, beefy guys in karategi pants Martial Artists, feral lesbians Amazons, weenies in army surplus fatigues Mercenaries, geeks Geeks (huh?), and a solitary dwarf whose individual worth is so unimportant that the Rider simply picks him up and uses him as a weapon to pummel someone with. (Long time nerds will remember that a properly wielded dwarf can do a respectable 5 or 6 points worth of HP damage.) And it’s just as bad inside the city where the population can easily be categorized into three basic groups based entirely on their uniforms. You have the robed Elders, the black suited Omega Guards, and the Workers, who apparently emptied every post-apocalyptic Wal-Mart within 100 miles of Dickies coveralls. To compound the loss of personal identity, the Omegas have made it illegal for anyone to show intense emotion within the city. So dedicated is the cast to portraying the devastating effects of this particular requirement that they continue to follow the statute throughout the course of the movie, showing an almost inhuman lack of range of emotions, regardless of whether their characters are in the city or not. (Lesser thespians would surely have succumbed to the temptation to act, but not these professionals.)

wolw22

But by far the most blood chilling thing the makers of Warrior of the Lost World see in our collective future is the notion that our freedom might be illusionary. You see, after all of the Omega forces have been crushed and the eeevil Prosser has been shot dead and The Rider and Natasia do a little obligatory snogging (ewwww), we are treated to a bizarre scene in which Prosser’s body is wheeled into a lab, cut open and revealed to be (dom dom dommm) a robot. So, even as our heroes traipse merrily about celebrating what they perceive as their newfound freedom, the real Prosser remains alive and well and claiming that he is somehow the true victor. It’s never explained how, but that’s what he says. Natasia’s cryptic last words to The Rider hint that she may realize this, but everyone continues on as if all their problems have been solved. It’s a sobering commentary on the future of humanity.

That’s a lot of fears packed into one movie. And at the source of it all is something so obvious that it’s easy to overlook at first. These future movie worlds, especially the post-apocalyptic ones, almost never have religion. As Ms. Ania writes, “Critics have variously categorized literary apocalypses, dividing them into religious or secular, Christian or anti-Christian, high or popular, ancient or modern (or postmodern), demarcations that can be helpful in assessing patterns or models. Of particular relevance… is the system defined by John R. May (and used by Zimbaro for her classification of apocalyptic literature) wherein the two broad categories are religious and secular. The first subdivides into traditional (Judeo-Christian, following Revelation) and primitive (less structured, and beginning with some kind of paradise); the second into three: anti-Christian, humorous, and the apocalypse of despair. The religious grouping offers hope at the end, the secular the absence of hope.” So whether the future is one where the veneer of religion is used by those in power to help keep the masses under control (Zardoz) or, like most of the Road Warrior knock-offs, one where religion has been abandoned altogether (Blood Of Heroes), a Godless future is a dark and fearful one indeed.

[A quick note: I have the inescapable feeling at this point that someone out there in Internetland will be tempted to try and counter that last statement with Star Trek. Please spare yourself the embarrassment. It should be common knowledge by now that the series is at its best when it sticks to interpersonal relationships and general pronouncements on the near indomitable nature of the human spirit. It’s at its piss-poor worst when it tries to shovel secular humanism down the viewer’s throat. If you haven’t caught on to that yet, I suggest you pop in your (likely unopened) copy of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, then sit down and be silent. Even Star Trek without God sucks.]

wolw28

While most of the fears touched on in Warrior of The Lost World are things to be concerned about (I certainly don’t want my own car throwing itself over suddenly appearing cliff sides), it is the failure of the characters to recognize the shallowness of their so-called freedom which places the movie squarely in the atheistic camp of '”the apocalypse of despair.” As Ms. Ania notes, “We began by stating that apocalyptic texts were traditionally intended to both console and challenge, yet it is clear that modern presentations do not have this dual capacity. Writers today offer little consolation, theirs is more a kind of ‘resistance/protest literature’ against a society in which physical wellbeing and myriad ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ have been gained, but at the expense of individual maturity, wisdom, and ideals such as honesty, loyalty and common morality.”

Interestingly enough, as we’ll see in a second, Ms. Ania’s statements on what constitutes true freedom are remarkably similar to the teachings of the Church on the subject. But what she doesn’t do, at least not in this essay, is make the connection between the kind of society the atheists are fraught over and the fact that it is their lack of belief which so often leads to those societies in the first place. The Catechism, however, has no such problem bridging the two. “Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude… Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom… By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself (Ania: individual maturity), disrupts neighborly fellowship (Ania: ideals such as honesty, loyalty and common morality), and rebels against divine truth (Ania: wisdom)."

wolw30

Perhaps all of this seems like a stretch, but I think it shows through most clearly in the central protagonist of Warrior of The Lost World. The Rider is ostensibly a hero because he overthrows (or at least thinks he does) a dictatorship. But, as he keeps telling everyone throughout the movie, his actions aren’t really directed toward anything, not towards Natasia, not towards the good of society, and certainly not towards God. He’s just going through the motions. (A gun in the crotch may get a person moving, but it doesn’t really inspire true belief.) That’s why, after the snogging (is that a country song?) The Rider, imprisoned within himself, simply takes off and leaves Natasia behind, his uncompleted (and unexplained) “mission” taking precedence over any loyalty he may feel to Natasia and her people. Because his actions aren’t really directed towards the greater good of a common morality, they can’t ultimately result in a true freedom for the people of the city. And that’s why I believe the film makers felt compelled to throw in the scene with Prosser, if for no other reason than to accentuate this truth. At least I hope that’s why. Because the only other possible explanation is that these guys truly thought there was going to be a sequel to this train wreck of a film, and that… that’s just madness. I don’t want to go there.

THE STINGER

One of the interesting things that popped out at me while reading Gillian Ania’s essay was the overall tone that suggested academia readily accepts the notion that the atheistic view of the future is dismal compared to that of religion. But as it turns out, that’s just me buying into the notion that all college and university professors are Godless heathens when in fact, according to a 2007 study by the Harvard Divinity School, only 23.4 percent of them are. In contrast, 35.7 percent of the respondents claimed “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it.” while everyone else camped out in the wishy-washy middle ground of belief in some kind of undefined higher power. In defense of my surprised reaction, however, I will point out that the study has no statistics on which group has the biggest mouths and gets the most press coverage.

Monday, May 11, 2009

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU... AWESOMENESS!

Rarely do I pimp new movies around here, preferring to stick to the, um... classics. But, dear friends, how can I resist sharing with you this trailer which is starting to pop up on various sci-fi blogs. Yes, it's...

MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!


I know, I know. I'm well aware that The Asylum is the company which has given us such direct to DVD stink bombs as Transmorphers, Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers, and AVH: Alien Vs. Hunter. (And those are just the ones I've watched!) But this is different. This is...

MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!

The title alone almost brings tears to my eyes. And its got Lorenzo "Snake Eater" Lamas and Deborah Gibson in it. Yes, that Deborah Gibson. I met my wife when she was 16 years old and she had a Debbie Gibson poster on her wall and now, 20+ years after watching her shake her love (Debbie, not my wife), I actually get to see...

DEBORAH GIBSON VS. MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up. I know that when the Catechism states "simple and faithful trust, humble and joyous assurance are the proper dispositions for one who prays the Our Father." it's not talking about stuff like this. I know that the "humble and trusting heart that enables us 'to turn and become like children'... is accomplished by the contemplation of God alone, and by the warmth of love, through which the soul, molded and directed to love him, speaks very familiarly to God as to its own Father with special devotion." I know that.

But Holy Cats! This has a giant shark jumping into the sky and grabbing an airplane! Worldly creation or not, it couldn't possibly let me down. Could it?

Sunday, May 10, 2009

CUTAWAYS

A new client has had me working day and night for the last month and a half, so blogging (and sleep and relaxation and smiling) has been sporadic at best. Perhaps the mental numbness this has brought on explains how I was able to sit through the entirety of 1989’s Beware: Children at Play. Here, let me share some of the pain…

Still, despite the bad acting, the bad dialog, the bad haircuts, the bad… well, everything, besides all of that, I couldn’t help but notice a nugget of truth in this scene. As we see here, it almost never fails that when you put two or more intellectuals (even wannabees like me) together in an enclosed space, they’re bound to get so caught up in the wonder of their own intricate arguments (gratuitous use of Shakespeare is a sure sign things are getting out of hand) that they often forget the simple, but decidedly more urgent, things which need to be attended to.

And Christians are no more immune to this than anybody else. That’s why it’s always been nice to have people like the 14th century monk Thomas à Kempis around to help us keep things focused where they need to be. “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity” he queries in the third paragraph of The Imitation of Christ, “if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.”

Ow! But if you can handle that kind of direct to-the-point style, then get thee to a computer (ah crap, Shakespeare reference) and pick up The Imitation of Christ either to read online or download to your mp3 player. Yeah, it was written over 700 years ago by Thomas as an instruction manual for incoming novices to his order, but it’s still invaluable today for cutting through the clutter. I’ve got a couple of different translations in pocket sized format just right for adoration and my car library. (What, doesn’t everyone have a car library?) Now if you can’t handle that brand of disciplined spiritual instruction, I suppose you could always check out one of the more recent “Spiritual” best sellers out there like say The Secret or The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. But personally, I’d rather watch Beware: Children at Play two or three times before subjecting myself to that. I like my crap to at least have entertainment value.

Friday, May 01, 2009

THE ANNUAL RITE OF ELECTION, SORT OF

Long time readers may remember this touching scene from around this time last year…

010 02

010 04

… and so on, and so forth.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The newly rechristened Catholic New Media Awards are up and running, and much like last year… this blog doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning. Nor should it in any sane world. Was there ever any real possibility that I would actually get more votes than Father Z at What Does The Prayer Really Say? I mean (1) he’s much more informed than I am, (2) he’s much more prolific than I am, and (3) he doesn’t feel compelled to insert rubber monsters, ray guns, or spurting arteries into every one of his posts. (Personally I feel that last one is a serious defect in the good father’s writing style, but I concede that the majority might disagree.) So why should the results this year be any different?

However, to give the little guys like me a chance during awards season, everybody’s favorite blunk drogger over at The Crescat started The Catholic Cannonball awards as a way to have “blog awards for us "minor" bloggers... a blog award not dominated by the usual suspects.” And as it happens, The B-Movie Catechism is indeed up for a few Cannonballs this year. Now personally, I’m not giving it too much thought. I’m happy just to use this blog as a part of working out my own salvation with fear and trembling while providing a few smiles to my fellow Catholic bloggers along the way. In fact, I wasn’t even going to bring the awards up.

But there’s Tor to think of.

tor1 

It just pains me to see the big guy so sad. So why not go ahead and pop on over to The Crescat on May 3rd when the voting starts and give Tor some love. He knows we probably won’t win this one either, but we gotta get more than 0.003% of the vote, don’t you think? The B-Movie Catechism; where 0.005% of the vote is a moral victory.

CUTAWAYS

Don’t watch this If you’ve never seen Chinese Super Ninjas, because it will spoil the end. Also, don’t watch this if you don’t like seeing blood. No, really. I’m talking about fire-hose-spraying, whale-blowhole-spouting geysers of blood. It’s fakey looking, but still, you’ve been warned.

Now, some of you may be asking just what the heck I was thinking posting that clip? But it wasn’t what I was thinking (as I’m rarely accused of doing THAT), it’s what I was reading. Namely, the Bible. As you might recall, I’m still making my way through Holy Scripture using The Coming Home Network’s guide to reading the Bible and the Catechism in a year, and I was reminded of this scene when I happened to run across this tidbit from 2 Maccabees 14.

A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a man who loved his fellow citizens and was very well thought of and for his good will was called father of the Jews. For in former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and for Judaism he had with all zeal risked body and life. Nicanor, wishing to exhibit the enmity which he had for the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him; for he thought that by arresting him he would do them an injury. When the troops were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they ordered that fire be brought and the doors burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword, preferring to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth. But in the heat of the struggle he did not hit exactly, and the crowd was now rushing in through the doors. He bravely ran up on the wall, and manfully threw himself down into the crowd. But as they quickly drew back, a space opened and he fell in the middle of the empty space. Still alive and aflame with anger, he rose, and though his blood gushed forth and his wounds were severe he ran through the crowd; and standing upon a steep rock, with his blood now completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them with both hands and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again. This was the manner of his death.

So, let me get this straight. To avoid capture, our hero first stabs himself, then throws himself off a building into an angry mob, and finally rips out his own guts and flings them at his enemies…

That. Is. So. COOL!!! I’d totally pay to see a movie with that scene in it. Those guys from 300 look like such total weenies in comparison to this Razis fellow. Still, much like our super ninjas in the above clip, we’re stuck asking the question of Razis, “Why did you do it?” After all, even though the author of 2 Maccabees, in his rah-rah enthusiasm for the Jewish revolt, clearly sees Razis as a martyr, there’s no getting around the notion that his actions ultimately represent a suicide, which as we all know was a big no-no in Judaism. St. Thomas Aquinas certainly doesn’t buy wholly into the martyr idea when he writes in the Summa, “It belongs to fortitude that a man does not shrink from being slain by another, for the sake of the good of virtue, and that he may avoid sin. But that a man take his own life in order to avoid penal evils has indeed an appearance of fortitude (for which reason some, among whom was Razias, have killed themselves thinking to act from fortitude), yet it is not true fortitude, but rather a weakness of soul unable to bear penal evils, as the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7) and Augustine (De Civ. Dei 22,23) declare. (Summa Th II-II Qu.64 a.5)”

Now a number of protestant scholars have pointed to the story of Razis as one of the reasons 2 Maccabees shouldn’t be included in the canon of Scripture, insisting that because the human author doesn’t explicitly condemn the suicidal nature of Razis’ actions, it somehow implies God’s approval of suicide. But if that’s the case, then other books would have to go also. (The story of Samson comes to mind.) So, what we have to do is look for some other reason this particular story is noteworthy in the Biblical narrative to see if there’s a good reason for including it in the canon.

And sure enough, there is one, at least according to C. D. Elledge in his book Life After Death in Early Judaism. “One of the many odd, but important, contributions that 2 Maccabees has made to the history of ideas is the notion of a graphically physical resurrection from the dead. This is not simply an assumption of the work, but a deliberate emphasis of at least two different episodes of the narrative. The episode of Razis expresses this in the clearest and most economical terms. This Jewish older, when persecuted for devotion to the law, attempts to end his own life by jumping off a building. When this fails, he eventually takes his own entrails in his hands and casts them out of his body at his persecutors, "invoking the master of life and spirit to return these things to him again' (14:46). In this case, Razis dies with prayers that the very entrails that he loses in death will be returned to him by the One who has supreme power over life and death.”

So, maybe it’s just me, but it would seem having a book in the Old Testament which nails down a pre-Jesus expectation for a bodily resurrection is just a wee bit more important than haggling over whether or not the author let Razis off too easy for his decision. But then again, what do I know? I’m the guy who thought it was a good idea to put Chinese Super Ninjas on his religious blog.