SHORT FEATURE: PEACE ON EARTH

You did it, you finally did it, damn you all to hell! You Maniacs! You blew it up! And now the whole world has been left in the stinking paws of a bunch of damned dirty… squirrels? Well, that’s how Hugh Harman and the folks at MGM saw it back in 1939, anyway, when they released this cheery holiday tale about the demise of the entire human race. Hey kids, you better watch out, you better not cry, because you’ll probably all be meeting God before the morning light comes. Merrrrry Christmas!

Oh well, you have to give the little yard rats some credit. At least they picked a Good Book to base their new society’s philosophy on. Gotta love the whole “swords into plowshares” mentality of using the army helmets for habitats. Still, we don’t really need to wait until the vermin rule the world for we humans to learn the same lessons. Under the ‘just war” section of the Catechism it clearly states that “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition… "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.” Pondering this point led Pope Benedict to offer his personal thoughts that, even though national defense is a moral imperative, “given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

In the end, the best way to avoid the dilemma of such a decision is to (ironically) launch a preemptive attack. You see, a lot of people mistake Christian pacifism like the Pope’s for mere passivism. But as the Catechism explains, “Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” In this mindset, war is actually just a symptom of a much bigger problem. That’s why Jesus didn’t ride into battle brandishing a sword, but rather spent his time curing the sick and feeding the hungry. While there may be, regretfully, times when war is unavoidable, Jesus showed us the face of the real enemy which must be fought every day. So, in this season of Peace on Earth and goodwill towards man, let’s all prepare to go to war, shall we? Let’s keep up the good fight now so that we can avoid as many battlefields as we can, especially that one which leads to the possible dark future where the honneeks inherit the Earth.

(Honneek, by the way, is the word for squirrel in the language of the Delaware tribe. THAT’S how far I’ll go for a bad pun.)

THE B-LIST: SING, SING A SONG

Way, way back when we first discussed the slasher movie craze of the early 80s, we covered a lot of the tropes and clichés and possible subtexts to be found in the literally hundreds of such movies produced during that period. What we didn’t mention was the music. Now, we’re not talking about the immediately recognizable scores such as John Carpenter’s Halloween or Harry Manfredini’s Friday The 13th. No, we mean the fantastically weird theme songs which sometimes ran over the end credits. A few, like The Fat Boys’ Are You Ready For Freddy actually ended up being released as singles, but for genre nuts, the real gems are the obscure ones which you only heard if you hung around in the theater while most everyone else was making a beeline for the parking lot. What follows are excerpts from some of the most memorable…

APRIL FOOL’S DAY (1986)

This little diddy might sound like an odd choice to close out a horror movie, but from beginning to end April Fool’s Day is chock full of practical jokes (dark, dark jokes, but jokes just the same), so this tune fits right in with the tongue-in-cheek goings on.

MADMAN (1982)

As the unlucky counselors in this cult classic find out, Madman Marz is much more than just a tale told to scare the kiddies. However, that is how they’re first introduced to him, as nothing more than a legend to be recounted while sitting around the campfire. Listening to this, you can almost hear the s’mores sizzling.

MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981)

Forget the noisy, crude remake, the original MBV is much loved by fans for its authentic settings and realistic, likable cast (none of whom burst into a dwarf’s room butt naked). This folksy number perfectly captures the feel of the rundown blue collar mining town which provides the backdrop for Harry Warden’s dirty deeds.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME (1981)

Melissa Sue Anderson spends much of this movie confused and tortured, and then it gets worse for her towards the end. The movie finishes on a particularly downbeat note for her character, which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is more than adequately reflected in this song.

DON’T GO IN THE WOODS (1981)

This movie is legendarily bad. Nuff said.

I have to admit, as cheesy as some of these songs are, I really miss them whenever I give in and watch a modern slasher. A lot of the generic indie rock and heavy metal pieces you get at the end of today’s movies (and some of the old, let’s be fair) are tolerable enough I suppose, but you can tell they were just slapped on because that’s the song style popular with the intended demographic. What makes these old songs, even the corny ones, so much better is that they actually feel like a part of the movie, intimately connected with the story you’ve been watching. Even for dumb slasher flicks, It makes for an all around more immersive movie going experience.

In a way it’s like the stuff we’re supposed to hear at mass. As the Catechism points out, “Song and music fulfill their function as signs in a manner all the more significant when they are "more closely connected… with the liturgical action," according to three principal criteria: beauty expressive of prayer, the unanimous participation of the assembly at the designated moments, and the solemn character of the celebration. In this way they participate in the purpose of the liturgical words and actions: the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.” Needless to say, there are arguments to be made that much of contemporary liturgical music doesn’t meet these standards.

With all the other problems ongoing in The Church right now, the state of liturgical music might not seem high on the list. But In his autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977, the future Pope Benedict XVI wrote “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: in that it is a matter of indifference whether or not God exists and whether or not He speaks to us and hears us. But when the community of faith, the world-wide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence?”

The Pope wasn’t speaking solely of music, of course, but it was part of his discussion. Music matters. As we noted in the examples above, the proper song in a movie can make for a more memorable experience. The proper song in a mass can bring a person to God.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

Ahhh, nothing like watching the Wolfman and Igor TCB and dig it to Amos Moses is there? It seems the upcoming review for Voyage Of The Rock Aliens has put us in the mood for some aural delights around here. Fortunately, there happens to be a few to be found out there in cyberspace which match up with our particular interests, and we thought we’d share them with the rest of you.

First up, we have renowned Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft’s self described three point sermon on screenwriting. This is a short 30 minute speech delivered to a roomful of film students given with the hopes of helping them to understand the role their religion can play in their chosen profession. He also gives them some pointers on writing good screenplays which I hope at least 90% of them follow. Why not 100%? Well, we have to keep some of them writing bad movies, otherwise we’d be out of business here.

Which isn’t to say we don’t appreciate good writing when we see it. Or hear it for that matter. Over at the Forgotten Classics podcast the Happy Catholic is smack dab in the middle of a reading of The Uninvited which, if you’re not familiar with the title, was made into an excellent movie back in 1944 with Ray Milland. There are differences between the book and the film adaptation, of course, but this is one of the few cases where both are worth the time spent with them.

I haven’t read the Twilight books or seen their adaptations, so I can’t say if the same holds true for those works. Luckily, Father Barron over at The Word On Fire has taken a peak at the films, and he’s put his brief opinion on the current vampire craze up on YouTube. Now all you fans of smooth skinned shirtless adolescents need not fret, the good father doesn’t take any potshots at the movie, but rather discusses some of the possible reasons a secular culture has become so entranced with nosferatu.

If you’re not among the cult of the modern day vampire, however, and would prefer something with a little more teeth to it, then you might try hopping over to the Catholic Under The Hood podcast where Father Seraphim takes a look at what Catholics have believed about werewolves over the centuries. Hair raising? Maybe. Interesting? Definitely.

And finally, I would be remiss if I did not point out that The Flicks That Church Forgot podcast is back up and running. Put together by Peter Laws, a Baptist minister across the pond, the show covers pretty much the same ground we do around here, just without the lengthy quotes from the Catholic Catechism. Hey, nobody’s perfect right? Still, the good minister is taking a shot at dragging Christian meaning out of the 1988 cheese fest Slugs this week, so I have to give him his due.

Well, that should be enough to give everybody’s Ipod a good work out for awhile. And be sure to stay tuned here over the next couple of weeks as the hits will just keep on coming.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: VOYAGE OF THE ROCK ALIENS

Coming up next, our first ever musical! Why, oh why do I do these things to myself?

SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM

THE TAGLINE

“The Black Prince of Shadows Stalks the Earth Again!”

THE PLOT

When last we saw the good Prince Mamuwalde, he had willingly accepted doom in the light of the rising sun rather than face an eternity without his bride. Sadly, Mamuwalde’s rest is short lived as the eeevil voodoo-Houngan wannabe Willis resurrects the vampire to use against his recently deceased mother’s followers after they wisely chose the beauteous Lisa as their new Mambo instead of him. Things don’t go as planned for Willis, however, as his would-be slave quickly becomes his master. Done with that annoyance, Mamuwalde turns his attention to investigating the circumstances which led to his resurrection, discovering in the process not only Lisa, but also an obscure voodoo ritual which she might be able to use to free him from the shackles of vampirism forever. Both frightened for her people and sympathetic to Mamuwalde’s plight, Lisa agrees to aid the prince by arranging the elaborate exorcism. Unfortunately, the ceremony is disrupted by a group of bumbling policeman led to the scene by Lisa’s worried boyfriend, an act which ignites Blacula’s blood rage. With her one opportunity to bring peace to Mamuwalde gone and the body count rising, the newbie priestess is left with no choice but to use her burgeoning talents to try and destroy the monster instead.

THE POINT

In 1992 one of the world’s most celebrated directors, fresh off of frightening the entire world with his daughter’s acting in The Godfather III, decided to continue on in the horror vein (pun intended) and released what was being touted as the most faithful adaptation of the novel Dracula ever put to film. Having just finished reading the book a second time, I was psyched, ready to see a Dracula movie which finally addressed not only the issue of Victorian sexuality (all the adaptations have managed to fit in the sex angle), but also touched on the subtexts of science versus religion and xenophobia, all the while telling a good adventure story with stalwart, heroic characters fighting a ruthless monster. So, yeah, it’s safe to say I hated Coppola’s movie right away. Don’t get me wrong, if you skip any comparison to the original book, the film has a few strengths of its own (visuals, Tom Waits) and has slowly grown on me over the years. A little. But with all the additions the film made to the story (really weird for Coppola, a director well known for slavishly sticking to his source materials), it’s not Bram Stoker’s Dracula. If it’s anything, it’s Francis Ford Coppola’s Blacula.

Go ahead, call me crazy. Again. (I’m pretty used to it by now.) But hear me out at least. In Coppola’s movie, a noble foreign prince cursed with eternal loneliness, chances across the reincarnation of his one true love. The prince becomes consumed with his desire to reunite with his beloved, but his unholy thirst forces him to occasionally transform into a demon and kill, an act which repels the person he so desperately longs to be with. Eventually the woman’s old soul reawakens and she overcomes her terror enough to see the man beneath the monster, but too much bloodshed has occurred and society demands retribution for his sins. Inevitably, the lovers are torn apart and, realizing his soulmate is forever beyond his reach, the prince willingly accepts death. Whew. Dramatic, huh? But the thing is, none of that stuff was actually in Bram Stoker’s novel. It was, however, the entire plot of the first Blacula movie. And when you throw in the fact that both movies contained some outlandish costuming choices (okay, so people in the 70s really wore the stuff you see in Blacula, but still) and both movies featured a powerful lead performance hamstrung by a ridiculous supporting cast, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Coppola didn’t give proper credit to the real inspiration for his movie. Ain’t that just like whitey? Can’t even give a brother his due!

Okay, okay, so odds are that Coppola didn’t really steal his love story angle from Blacula (that was probably just Oldman and Ryder making sure their parts got padded), but after recently sitting thorough a blaxploitation monsterthon (both Blacula films, Blackenstein, Abby a.k.a. The Blaxorcist, and The Thing With Two Heads) I’m not really in the frame of mind to give THE MAN the benefit of the doubt. (And technically, I am THE MAN!) So why have that reaction you might ask? Well, as Prof. Harry M Benshoff, writing in the Winter 2000 issue of Cinema Journal, explains things, blaxploitation horror films were those “made in the early 1970s that had some degree of African American input, not necessarily through the director but perhaps through a screenwriter, producer, and/or even an actor. The label “blaxploitation horror films” thus signifies a historically specific subgenre that potentially explores (rather than simply exploits) race or race consciousness as core structuring principles… Central to these films reappropriation of the monster as an empowering black figure is the softening, romanticizing, and even valorizing of the monster… a specifically black avenger who justifiably fights against the dominant order – which is often explicitly coded as racist.” So yeah, regardless of your own skin color, watch enough blaxploitation horror films and you’re likely to come away a bit suspicious of anybody who’s low on melanin.

Except it’s not quite that cut and dry with Scream Blacula Scream because, if you pay attention, you’ll notice there’s hardly any white people in the movie at all. Sure, there’s the obligatory bigoted white detective who is more than content to write off the slayings as just some crazy black voodoo types offing one another, but his character seems to be there simply because its a blaxploitation movie, which sort of requires that there be at least one obnoxious white guy in a position of power. Besides him, the only other non-black person of note in the movie is an early victim of Blacula played by 60s starlet Barabra Rhoades who says almost nothing and appears to serve little purpose beyond being eye candy. (And even that’s superfluous considering Pam Grier is in the movie. Oh, what? Like it was only black guys buying tickets to see Coffy?) With so few white faces in the film, the typical blaxploitation subtext of racial animosity doesn’t really take center stage in Scream Blacula Scream. But if that’s not what’s going on, then what is?

Well, to figure that out, you have to start with the character of Blacula himself. Prof. Benshoff proposes that, “In addition to suffering from racial discrimination from whites, Blacula is also an anomaly in the predominantly black community. While his skin color renders him the same, his noble African background positions him as the Other amongst contemporary black Americans.” And you do get to see this play out a number of times throughout the movie as Mamuwalde is confronted by the usual assortment of pimps, hustlers, and winos one finds scattered throughout blaxploitation flicks, encounters which always end with the prince sprouting his monstrous Blacula eyebrows and sideburns and laying waste to the offenders. The best such scene, for me at least, occurs when the newly vampirized Willis emerges into the parlor dressed in his finest polyester… um, I don’t know what it is (you look at the above picture and tell me) and strolls to the mirror to admire himself, only to learn to his utter dismay that nosferatu don’t cast reflections. Willis immediately begins shuckin' and jivin' Mamuwalde, trying his histrionic best to convince the prince of the importance of a man being able to see how good he looks before he goes out for the night. (Please, somebody who knows, tell me the costume designer didn’t really think that suit looked good and meant the whole thing as satire.) Mamuwalde will have none of it, of course, and gives Willis the verbal lashing he so richly deserves, if not for his bad taste in clothing, then at least for being such a narcissistic dodo.

But pimps, hustlers, and winos are not the only contemporary black Americans that Mamuwalde clashes with (thankfully, otherwise we’d be back in Stepin Fetchit territory); there’s also the members of Lisa’s congregation who all appear to be relatively normal (at least as normal as people dressed in 70s fashion can be). And it’s not Mamuwalde’s noble African background which causes friction with that group, but rather Blacula’s anger and rage, an attitude in direct contrast to their seeming contentment. In fact, it’s the low key personalities of the voodoo practitioners which brings about one of the consistent (and I believe unfair) criticisms of Scream Blacula Scream. There seems to be a lot of reviewers out there who believe that the character of Lisa is too reserved and timid to be played by Pam Grier. But I think that’s just pigeonholing an actress who has the range to properly play a role in the way it HAD to be acted. For instance, in what has to be the best scene of the movie in terms of atmospheric horror, Lisa, who has been sitting vigil over her best friend Gloria, stares in mute terror as the dead woman sits up in her coffin and beckons for Lisa to come to her. (Sadly for modern audiences, while the atmosphere remains, any true horror to be found in this scene goes completely out the window as soon as it becomes evident that the ghoulish Gloria is a dead ringer for a strung-out Whitney Houston.) Blacula bursts in to save Lisa, but his appearance and demeanor end up frightening her just as much, perhaps even more, than that of Gloria. The scene is pivotal in that it establishes the fact that while Lisa will agree to help Mamuwalde, she is fearful and wary of his bestial side and does not really see the vampire as a kindred spirit. This simply could not have been communicated as well had Ms. Grier gone all Foxy Brown, knocked out Gloria’s teeth, and punched Blacula in the groin.

 

Buried as it is beneath all of the usual B-movie horror trappings such as fakey looking fangs, badly animated vampire bats, and (where can I get one) Blacula voodoo dolls, this conflict between the various members of the black community is what provides the real subtext to Scream Blacula Scream. It’s pretty much accepted that Mamuwalde’s vampirism is an explicit metaphor for slavery what with his being symbolically shackled by Dracula and given the slave name of Blacula (Which never really made much sense as it is unlikely Dracula and Mamuwalde would have been speaking English. Still, I guess it can be overlooked since the Romanian word for black is negru and Negrula just doesn’t quite have that same ring to it.). And since his captivity is still in place as the 70s roll around, Blacula himself could be seen to represent the seething anger over the lingering effects of slavery and the ensuing years of discrimination following emancipation. This could go a long way towards explaining why Blacula never directly attacks the pimps, hustlers, and winos until they first assault him. From a blaxploitation perspective, these are the very same people most suffering from the same systemic evils as Mamuwalde himself, so he cuts them some slack until they cross the line.

It’s different with Lisa’s people, however. Even though the voodoo cult immediately welcomes Mamuwalde, it is on them the vampire begins to feed when his irresistible  blood lust takes over. One possible explanation for this could be that, as Griffith University’s Dr. Amanda Howell points out, blaxploitation films often “focus on urban neighborhoods transformed into ghettoes by the widening economic gap between poor and middle class blacks and between blacks and whites”. According to Columbia University’s Amistad Digital Resources for Teaching, it was these “disparities between black city residents and those who lived in the affluent middle-class suburbs [which] finally produced a series of urban uprisings that drew their energy from the alienation and anger of the unfulfilled promise of equality under civil rights. While depicted as riots by the media and government, these uprisings very intentionally targeted the economic sources of oppression in their communities--department stores, downtown storefronts, etc.” In that context, it would be easy to read Blacula’s actions against the seemingly well-to-do voodooers as representative of those class-based inner-racial  hostilities many poor urban blacks felt during that period.

But even if that’s what the filmmakers were getting at (assuming they actually were trying to get at anything beyond people’s wallets), Mamuwalde himself doesn’t see his own actions as righteous. Rather than use the systemic bigotry which brought about his condition as an excuse for his violent behavior, the prince instead wishes to be purged of his demons, which, in the context of the movie, can only come through Lisa’s religion. Until he can do that, Mamuwalde knows that he will never be the black avenger the ad campaigns claimed him to be, but instead just another monster who ultimately brings harm to the very people he is supposed to be avenging. In this self-awareness, Mamuwalde is actually drawing on the wisdom of that part of voodoo which comes from Christianity. If you don’t believe me, then ask modern day voodoo priestess Miriam Chamani. In an interview with the Christian Research Journal she admits that most of her followers retain some sort of residual Christianity in their hearts. “There was something instilled in us through those institutions that we cannot deny, and we found something [there] that made sense.”

And what makes sense in this case is the 1984 Instruction On Certain Aspects Of The "Theology Of Liberation" published by the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith under the guidance of a guy you may have heard of named Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The document notes that “the acute need for radical reforms of the structures which conceal poverty and which are themselves forms of violence, should not let us lose sight of the fact that the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the 'moral potential' of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man. For it will only be in the measure that they collaborate freely in these necessary changes through their own initiative and in solidarity, that people, awakened to a sense of their responsibility, will grow in humanity.” Or, in essence, you can’t expect a twisted, broken system to be fixed by twisted, broken people.

Which raises some interesting speculations regarding Mamuwalde. Had not Lisa’s well meaning, but ultimately blundering, non-believer of a boyfriend interrupted the ceremony and denied the prince his salvation, what would Mamuwalde have done after the curse of Blacula had been lifted? (Assuming he didn’t crumble to dust that is, you know, what with his being a few centuries old and all that.) Some modern day black theologians worry that this is the point at which many people begin to do absolutely nothing. Anthony G. Reddie, writing in a 2007 issue of Black Theology (natch), worries that “by emphasizing the hyper-spiritualized nature of Christ’s saving work, White Christianity has been able to replace practice with rhetoric… In effect, Christian discipleship is reduced to those who are able to say the right words and identify with Jesus’ saving work; but with little accompanying need to follow his radical, counter-cultural actions. In short, White Evangelicalism has taught us all to “worship Christ” but not to “follow him.” Collective prophetic action has been replaced by private piety.”

While Mr. Reddie is primarily addressing a problem he perceives in certain protestant churches, it is one we all have to watch out for. Once we ourselves have been freed from whatever forces were enslaving us, the temptation is always there to get as far away from them as possible, leaving those still in chains to deal with the situation on their own. But as the 1984 Instruction points out, that kind of thing is a big no-no. “We are not talking here about abandoning an effective means of struggle on behalf of the poor for an ideal which has no practical effects. On the contrary, we are talking about freeing oneself from a delusion in order to base oneself squarely on the Gospel and its power of realization.” In short, we first find salvation for ourselves so that we may then properly bring it to the rest of the world. Or to paraphrase the old Funkadelic song, we free our minds so that our asses will follow.

THE STINGER

Having spent quite a bit of time with blaxploitation movies these last few weeks, I feel I must confess a small prejudice of my own. You want to know what I always hated about black people? I mean really, truly, not kidding at all, despised? The Jheri Curl. Now before you go sicking Blacula on me, please give me a minute to explain. You see, one of my closest friends in high school was black, so naturally, when it came time to head off to Atlanta to attend college, he was one of the guys who moved up with me to share an apartment. Which was great except for the fact that this was during the mid-80s, and nobody was bigger in the mid-80s than Michael Jackson. And Michael Jackson wore a Jheri Curl. That meant a lot of guys like my roommate decided to wear a Jheri Curl too. In all honesty, it wasn’t that big of a deal during high school, the only real annoyance being the occasional oily stain on the interior roof of my car. A bit of an ick factor, for sure, but nothing that couldn’t be handled. That first blustery January morning in Atlanta, however, when I was the second person into the shower, and my bare naked foot sunk into an ice cold puddle of thick, slimy curl activator… well, let’s just say I wasn’t attending church at the time and didn’t handle that so well. And thanks to class scheduling, I was almost ALWAYS the second person into the shower. Suffice to say, I learned to freakin’ hate the Jheri Curl. Still do. So if that earns me a visit from Dracula’s soul brother, so be it. Here I stand, I can do no other.

INTERMISSION: YOU BIG DUMMY

Yes, this is yet another post full of excuses for not blogging regularly, but at least I’ve got a doctor’s note this time. I was having some bad symptoms which required an impromptu visit to the cardiologist this week to get poked, prodded, and run through the wringer. Or treadmill, if you want to be literal about it.

Now, not to worry, it’s not THE BIG ONE or anything like that. In fact, my heart actually tested above average for my age, something I could have told the doctors BEFORE they started inserting the needles if they had bothered to ask. (After all, in Whoville they say that when I came home to the Church my small Grinchy heart grew THREE sizes that day!) Unfortunately, I do seem to have developed a case of severe reflux coupled with borderline acute exhaustion. So, I’ve been busy these last few days trying not to be busy. And trying to figure out how to live without caffeine. Guess which one’s been harder?

Anyway, the blog will continue (can’t disappoint my tens of fans), but it will probably still be in fits and starts for the next two or three weeks while I settle into my new routine. And my new (sob) diet. You know, for a guy who harps on the Catechism all the time, I don’t see how I missed the paragraph which states, “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them.” What a big dummy.

CUTAWAYS: QUEEN KONG

Well, whatever plague my son brought home from school this time has finally run its course, but I have to say I didn’t appreciate having my recent blaxploitation horror marathon continuously interrupted by bouts of projectile vomiting. Still, the combination of the two did bring to mind this scene from Queen Kong. (Yes, Queen Kong.)

Yow! I guess good roles for black actresses really were pretty scarce back in the pre-Cosby show days, huh? Maybe Halle Berry wasn’t being blubberingly self-indulgent after all when she won the Academy Award for best actress exclaiming, “it's for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened. Thank you. I'm so honored. I'm so honored. And I thank the Academy for choosing me to be the vessel for which His blessing might flow.”

Okay, so maybe there was a wee bit of self-indulgence in that speech. But it’s hard to blame her too much. You see, even though a purely black cinema can trace its origin all the way back to 1916 when the Lincoln Motion Picture Company, the first movie company organized entirely by black filmmakers, began producing films which “proved a revelation to those who have never seen our folks in anything but comedies”, it never really garnered much attention outside of the basements of black churches. Instead, Hollywood filled its productions with stereotypical racial characterizations along the lines of Lincoln Perry’s Stepin Fetchit, a bug-eyed trickster who feigned ignorance and laziness in order to avoid having to do anything his white bosses demanded of him. In a 2006 NPR interview, film historian Mel Watkins noted that while many black viewers were in on the joke (kind of like the ladies in the Queen Kong clip) and considered Perry’s character subversive, “black leaders were putting pressure on Hollywood to rid the screen of the stereotype he was responsible for creating.”

Unfortunately, when things finally did begin to change for blacks onscreen during the civil rights movement, collective guilt over past insults resulted in something of an over-compensation on the part of white film makers. As John Silk wrote in Racism and Anti-Racism in American Popular Culture, “the major new black stereotype to appear in the nineteen-fifties and sixties [was] that of the impossibly noble and virtuous superhero – the ‘ebony saint’.” (Those so inclined may insert their own political jokes here cause I ain’t touching it!) So you can see the problem black actors had with their prospective roles as the 1970s approached. You could play a Pickaninny or a Poitier, but precious little in between.

Now you don’t need to know that woefully inadequate history of pre-70s black cinema to enjoy blaxploitation movies like the upcoming (very soon, I promise) Scream Blacula Scream, as they contain enough of the usual tropes of drive-in fare (car chases, kung-fu, etc.) to satisfy just about any B-movie fan. I mean, on the level of pure spectacle, it really doesn’t matter if it's Don “The Dragon” Wilson or Fred “The Hammer” Williamson doing the fighting, just as long as somebody’s punching somebody else in the face. But the backstory does help some if you want to understand these movies’ significance to later generations of black film makers. After all those years of stereotypes and missteps, it was the blaxploitation movie which finally ushered in a period where not only was there movies about black people and black issues from across the social spectrum, but they were movies which people of all colors were actually willing to pay to see. I think it’s safe to say that it was the Pam Griers of yesteryear who kicked opened the doors (literally) and made it possible for the Halle Berrys of today to have the same opportunities as white actresses have to choose to ruin their careers by making a movie like Catwoman.

As a Catholic, the slow evolution of the black image in Hollywood gives me a little hope that one day we could see the same for The Church. Cause we’re not seeing a lot of it right now, that’s for sure. As Deacon Paul Jarvis wrote in the St. Thomas Standard, “Hollywood culture (and the media in general) is toxic to people of deeply held and lived Catholic faith.  And because of this, those who write the twisted and silly stories about twisted and silly nuns and priests basically write from nothing… This lack of experience merely perpetuates the cartoonish Catholic stereotypes endemic to our historically anti-Catholic nation. What seems to be needed are creative practicing Catholics who can make it in Hollywood and, in spite of Hollywood, make a difference…  We need Catholic scriptwriters who will not only exclude insipid stereotypes from their scripts (think Sister Act), but actually call attention to them when they somehow slip into a script.  They ought to make a big stink about them, in fact.  We need creative Catholic risk-takers who will conjure up imaginative, faith-inspired stories that resonate with all readers and viewers – while challenging them at the same time.”

I agree with all of that. But I’d also like people to actually watch the movies those “catholic risk-takers” make. Considering what worked for blaxploitation, there has to be some Catholics out there with the wherewithal to make a movie that contains all of the things Deacon Paul called for, and yet still has plenty of time for scenes where somebody gets their face kung-fued. Under the proper requirements of just war theory, of course. Come on, guys, I know you can do it. I have faith.

YOU WIN SOME…

That handsome fellow up there is a picture of me earlier this morning after I finally got around to listening to last Friday’s Catholic Answers Live featuring an interview with Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester. The ever gracious Mr. Miller was very complimentary about my efforts here and I just wanted to thank him publicly for his kind words. I have to admit, it went to my head a little bit…

…until later this afternoon when I read Stefan McDaniel’s featured article at First Things which seems to suggest that we bloggers represent the end of all intelligent discourse on the planet, completing the mental death spiral begun by television decades ago. Okay, so it’s actually an essay applying Neil Postman’s theory of the Typographic Mind to the blogosphere and has some interesting points worth arguing about, but golly gee whillikers Mr. McDaniel, way to deflate a guy.

THINGS TO COME: ACT OF GOD

Reaction to my admittedly negative take on the trailer for the upcoming documentary Oh My God was quite mixed with some agreeing with my observations and others thinking I was a bit to hasty in dismissing the film before seeing it. Which is great, that’s part of the fun of talking about movies in the first place. But when The Happy Catholic chastises you for being too harsh*, well, maybe it’s time to lighten up a little, at least for one post. So as a token of good will, I offer everyone this trailer for yet another soon to be released documentary, Act Of God, a film which which explores the psychological and spiritual effects that being struck by lightning has had on seven different people. And this time around I promise to be a minimum of 50% less curmudgeonly. At least for one post.

Now obviously this film takes a more how-brow approach to the subject matter than our typical fare around here as there appears to be no mention of the well-documented power of lightning to reanimate the dead and/or grant super human abilities. But even without that, the movie looks interesting anyway. And what I especially like about the trailer for Act Of God is that, unlike that other trailer I was maybe, possibly, perhaps a wee bit too hard on (see, I’m trying to play nice here), it does not immediately strike me over the head with what I perceive as a predetermined agenda. I’ve been watching these things long enough to know that almost no documentary is ever entirely fair or lacking in manipulation, but I like how it appears that the documentarians just cut on the cameras and let their subject’s do the talking.

And it should be fascinating talk indeed as the responses seem to range from one guy who sees the event as nothing but a cosmologically random occurrence, all the way to another guy who interprets what happened to him as a singular act of God worth changing his entire life over. I’m really interested in seeing if I automatically gravitate towards the more spiritual interpretation because of my Catholicism. As Catholic educator David Bennett points out, “a sacramental worldview, rooted in God's revelation to humanity, especially in the Incarnation, is experiencing God acting within the world in which we live, the world in which God chose to dwell for the sake of our salvation. As such, a sacramental worldview, perhaps given completely only through God's grace, allows us to perceive deeper meaning to what appear to be everyday symbols and events.” That being the case, how much more so then would I be tempted to see God in such a statistically unusual event as being struck by lightning? Still, maybe the skeptic will win me over.

So what about this one folks? Sound like a good night’s viewing or will you just wait until it shows up on the Weather Channel?

*By the way, Julie, your use of the word ‘extreme’ implies that I am an extremist. While this may indeed be true, as a nod to these more genteel times, I would prefer that in the future you utilize the phrase ‘catechetical zealot’ :)

INTERMISSION: LET’S ALL GO TO THE LOBBY… AGAIN

After responding to Pseudo Peter Rodger or Colonel Bat Guano or whatever his name was, it dawned on me that I’ve been inundated recently with requests from real people to promote stuff they’d like you to check out. None of it is remotely related to mad scientists or giant insects or anything like that, but in the interest of fooling people into thinking I might be well rounded, I’m going to pass the information along anyway. So let’s step out into the lobby for just a second and see what treats I have to offer you.

First up is Bible Freebies, which at the very least meets our budget requirements around here. (You can’t get more low budget than free.) They recently added me to their blog directory, so I wanted to make sure I reciprocated the favor. Sometimes I’m not exactly sure what it is I provide people around here, but it is most assuredly free, so I guess that’s good enough to get on the list. Be sure to check out their site for free CDs and software and such.

If you’re in the mood to pay for something, however, then I’m sure The Priests would appreciate your patronage. I’m ashamed to admit that, despite their record breaking debut CD, I’d not heard of The Priests before receiving their email, but better late than never I suppose. Here’s the clip for their upcoming album of traditional pieces.

Be sure to grab The Priests’ CD the week it comes out, though, as the boys in black have some stiff competition the following week from a guy some of you may have heard of called… The Pope. No, seriously. Alma Mater, Music From The Vatican is a work of eight specially commissioned works featuring the voice of Pope Benedict XVI, the Choir of the Philharmonic Academy of Rome conducted by Monsignor Pablo Colino and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Here’s the promo.

Well, hopefully you all found something to peak your interest, but the lights are dimming and it’s time to head back inside the auditorium. Can’t keep Blacula waiting for too much longer.

OH MY GOD: THE NAVEL GAZING FOLLOW-UP POST THAT WAS TOO LONG TO LEAVE IN THE COMMENTS SECTION

For filmmakers everywhere the final moments of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001) must have been like seeing there darkest fantasies come true. In case you haven’t seen the movie, that’s the part where the titular characters use their newfound wealth to traverse the globe and beat the living snot out of every single film critic wannabe who ever posted something negative about their movie on the Internet.

In real life you could never approve of those kinds of actions, of course, but you can easily understand the feelings behind them. Take Peter Rodger, the writer/director of the upcoming documentary Oh My God, for example. Here’s a man who spent three years of his life putting together his first major film, a project which must have entailed a lot of physical, emotional, and professional investment, and what’s one of the first things about his movie he runs across on the Internet? Some anonymous guy (some day I’ll have to explain the reasons I don’t use my real name) on a B-level Catholic movie blog who hasn’t seen the film yet, but who still managed to find some things he saw in the trailer to complain about. I’d imagine that could get under a person’s skin. And that’s why it was only mildly surprising to see a post show up in the comboxes this morning by someone claiming to be Peter Rodger (it’s the Internet, so I want to make it clear that I have no way of verifying in this instance that it was indeed the man himself) expressing unhappiness over my concerns. He wrote:

“You really should go see the film. It might open your eyes a bit. The filmmaker.”

Unfortunately, that’s all he wrote. And with only that little bit to go on, I have to say I was left with the same impression as that of commenter Scott W. who noted that “Modern progressivist thinking has devolved to "agree with me or shut up!" for some time now. To wit: lots of pop-culture ephemera proposes to enlighten us rubes with Some Great Insight That Has Eluded Man For Ages.” That may sound like a harsh interpretation of one sentence, but I hope Mr. Rodger understands that the entertainment industry here in the United States is overflowing with narcissistic nitwits harboring an open contempt for what they view as the unenlightened masses. We’re kind of used to being looked down upon by our celebrities.

But maybe it’s different down under. In an attempt to be charitable, let’s suppose that Mr. Rodger’s comments were a spur of the moment gut response meant to express disappointment rather than condescension. If so, then his declaration that “it might open your eyes a bit” could simply mean that his film will actually address the small list of concerns I had upon viewing the trailer. Maybe the film really will accurately portray each individual religion’s teachings on God rather than just parading a long line of freakish nutcases who practice their own twisted take on the various belief systems. And maybe the film really will transcend the perceived bias in the trailer and ultimately point out, as commenter Rick hopes, “that we are wired for God or as St. Augustine puts it, "Our hearts are restless until they rest on Thee my Lord." That would be nice, even if happens unintentionally.

And if that is indeed the case, Mr. Rodger (if it really was you), then please feel free to let all of us here know that’s what your note meant and I’ll happily pimp your movie some more. If not, well, at least you already got some publicity out of all this anyway.

P.S. Phil, my man, if you were gonna drag Hugh Jackman and Baz Luhrmann into your film, couldn’t you have snagged Nicole Kidman as well? Her and my wife share some facial features so she’s the only actress I can openly praise without getting the stink-eye.

THINGS TO COME: OH MY GOD

I had started out calling my feature on trailers for upcoming movies “TRAILER TRASH” because… well, it’s the most obvious name there is, isn’t it? Unfortunately, it’s so stinking obvious that a few other blogs are already using it. So we’re switching to “THINGS TO COME” instead, which has a much more cozy eschatological feel better suited to this blog anyway. And since the title has a nice, new churchy ring to it, the first trailer should as well. Here’s the trailer for the upcoming documentary from newbie director Peter Rodger, Oh My God, which seems to be getting one of those “end-of-the-year limited release just in time for awards consideration” type of things.

I would really love for this movie to turn out to be a true exploration of the different teachings on God around the world and how people internalize them and live them out. Unfortunately, a few things in the trailer and that I’ve found around the Internet seem to indicate that’s not the direction this documantary takes.

1. I like Hugh Jackman, especially his story about how his adopted son hits on girls with the opening line “Hey, my dad's Wolverine.” And I also understand that lots and lots of other people like Hugh Jackman, so it’s good marketing to feature him in your movie. And a small, but notable chunk of the people involved in this are part of the Australian film industry, so Jackson obviously made himself available to help out his countrymen. But man oh man, for a film about exploring the idea of God around the globe, this trailer is pretty darn top heavy with Hugh Jackman.
2. The marketing materials for the film on Rotten Tomatoes contain this paragraph: “Rodger's quest takes him from the United States to Africa, from the Middle East to the Far East, where such fundamental issues as: Did God create man or did man create God?, "Is there one God for all religions? and If God exists, why does he allow so much suffering? are explored in candid discussions with the various Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists the filmmaker meets along the way.” That’s fine on a cursory viewing, but did you spot it? Yep, it’s the old canard of separating Catholics from Christians. Never a good sign that the filmmaker understands his subject matter.
3. Take a look at the complete cast list submitted to IMDB. While the aforementioned P.R. materials appear to guarantee that adherents from all of the major religions are represented, there are precious few listed who would appear to have any real teaching authority. I spot Yitzchok Adlerstein, a well known Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, and Tim LaHaye, Protestant minister and author of the Left Behind series. That’s all Rodger could come up with in his three year track across the globe maing this movie? Where are the bishops, the mullahs, the bhikkus, the swamis? Cripes, where’s Oprah!?! I understand that the director has stated that his movie “is not about religion and the tribes in which people eke out their lives (no condescension there at all, huh?); the film is about what God means to people.” But the fact is, while I appreciate hearing the opinions of the common man and woman in the street (as well as some Hollywood folk, a world famous magician, and a few international recording stars, including an ex-Beatle), with all due respect, it seems a vacuous exercise without having the actual teachings of the various religions to hold those opinions up to for perspective. I’m sorry if I’m being a jerk, but how is 90 minutes of subjective claptrap going to contribute anything of value to understanding how the idea of God shapes the world?

All that being said, keep in mind this is just a trailer. My initial reactions to it may end up being hastily formed and completely unfounded. Oh My God could well end up being an inspirational work of sublime genius. And even if it doesn’t reach those heights, I have to admit I do appreciate the (assuredly unintentional) hilarity of the fact that the only really angry person in the trailer appears to be the atheist. But for right now, based solely on the preview, I’m just not feeling any excitement at the thought of watching Oh My God. What about you guys?

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

We haven’t done a Now Showing posting for awhile now, so some of these links may have a bit of dust on them. They’re not dead yet though (and even if they were, that’s not a problem here), so enjoy.

Let’s start with a little He Said/She Said. First up is Christian filmmaker Dallas Jenkins over at the Big Hollywood blog who asks a question we ourselves have often pondered, “Why are Christian Movies So Bad?” His answer includes the notion that “good art should always put story and character above message… [therefore] most Christian films aren’t going to be very good because they have to fall within certain message-based parameters.” Maybe. For Sister Mary Martha’s part, she would rather light a candle than curse the darkened theater. Over at her place, instead of heaping on more criticisms, Sister discusses what she actually likes about religious movies. Her number one reason: “I like all Bible movies for the hats.”

Despite her somewhat lenient criteria, however, even the good sister might have a hard time finding something to enjoy in the upcoming film Agora, a movie that, as the Catholic News Agency is reporting, “civil rights organizations are denouncing… for promoting hatred of Christians and reinforcing false clichés about the Catholic Church.” Having not seen the film (no American release date yet), I can only take the word of critics who are complaining that the film takes more than a few liberties with history, recasting  the Neoplatonic 4th century Hypatia of Alexandria as a brave Dawkins-style atheist martyred by science-hating Christians for her insistence on teaching empirical investigative methods. Most sources indicate that while Hypatia’s killers were (inexcusably) Christian, their motives were entirely political; no religion or science involved at all. Again, that’s just the advance word, so the movie could turn out to be okay, but for some odd reason in this Dan Brown infested world, I just don’t trust it to get the facts straight. (Maybe it’s things like Penn & Teller. You think?)

Perhaps it’s pretentious propaganda like Agora that is part of the reason I watch the kinds of movies that I do. The people who make B-movies rarely try to hide the fact they’re crap. Take the SyFy Channel’s Craig Engler for example, discussing his company’s penchant for churning out low budget schlock like Man-Thing and Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus. “The joke title we always talk about wanting to make is Sharktopus (half shark, half octopus!).” he noted recently on Twitter. “It's more fun to say out loud than to read.” He’s right. Shark-toe-puss. I would totally watch that without a minute’s hesitation.

Speaking of goofy titles, Fr. Philip Neri Powell took in Zombieland last week, and along with a few laughs, it also caused him to ruminate on zombie, as well as Mayan, apocalypses. Unfortunately, as The Curt Jester points out, we may not need to wait a few years to see such sights as THE ZOMBIES ARE ALREADY AMONG US!

And on that cheerful note, I’ll leave it with you until next time.

THE B-LIST: BABY LOVE

If you participate in the comments section around here, then I’m sure the eloquent (and yet still non-blogging) Xena Catolica needs no introduction. But just in case you missed the good news, she and her husband have recently, in their words, had a “new alien beam out of the mothership!” Translated for my Protestant readers, that’s what John Cleese would describe as “bloody Catholics filling up the bloody world full of bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed!” For our part, since it’s kind of our shtick around here, we’ll just go with the Catechism and say they’ve been blessed with “a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage"… a human person.”

As we are more than familiar with the singular joys of having a new baby in the house, we thought it would be nice way to celebrate and honor this gift by providing the happy couple with a list of good movies to keep them entertained and awake during those late night feeding sessions. But since we don’t watch GOOD movies around here, we’re gonna have to give them these instead. So, for everyone’s viewing pleasure (or maybe not), The B-Movie Catechism proudly (or maybe not) presents the following short list of movies dealing with the arrival of a new bundle of… something. But even though this collection of not-so-cuddly nippers aren’t exactly your typical adorable tots, their mommies still love’em, fangs and all. And more important, even though the filmmakers would probably deny they intended it, all of these movies end up being shockingly anti-abortion. Take a look.

IT’S ALIVE (1974)/IT LIVES AGAIN (1978)/IT’S ALIVE III: ISLAND OF THE ALIVE (1987)

I can’t explain why, but If I had to single out one image from my childhood which qualifies as a true Kindertrauma, it would be the picture of that crib with a claw hanging over the edge from the ad campaign for It’s Alive. It was unbearable. I had to leave the room whenever the commercial came on. So imagine my surprise years later when I finally watched It’s Alive and found a pretty solid little B-movie with a surprising amount of heart in it. Sure, it’s a low budget schlock fest about a mutant killer baby, but Larry Cohen (The Stuff) manages to give the whole thing a Frankenstein twist (It’s Alive!, get it?) and turn your sympathies to the child before the credits roll. The movie ends with the father, who spends most of the film trying to kill his own baby, finally manning up, accepting his duties as a parent, and rushing to save the life of his son. Failing to do so, he spends most of It Lives Again in a courtroom battling for the right for these children to be allowed to live, albeit in a controlled situation. He gets his wish in Part III when the surviving mutants are transported to an island of their own so they can have a chance at life. On the surface it’s all ridiculous, but underneath it’s pretty strong stuff when you realize the first movie came out barely one year after Roe v Wade. And although Cohen tries to keep his cred with the pro-abort crowd by making sure to present the victims points of view as well, it’s pretty clear he ultimately sees the potential killing machines as human. If you have any doubts, then just watch the opening sequence of Part III as one of the mortally wounded infants drags itself into a church and desperately tries to reach the baptismal font before it dies. It just goes to show that when Jesus said "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", he meant the ugly ones too.

PROPHECY (1979)

With a $12,000,000 budget (pretty hefty in 1979), Prophecy probably doesn’t really qualify as a B-movie, but you sure can’t tell the difference once the guy in the rubber mutant bear suit starts stomping around on screen. Set in the Maine woods where a lumber mill has been poisoning the local lakes with methyl mercury, Prophecy eschews the humor of earlier environmental horror movies like Frogs, and earns its laughs the old fashioned way… by epically failing to convince viewers to take it seriously despite its ponderous subject matter. I’m not gonna lie, I adore most everything about Prophecy, from its over-dramatized social conflicts to its creepily deformed baby animal puppets. Heck, I even get a kick out of Robert Foxworth’s obligatory concerned white liberal afro. The whole thing is a blast (literally, in the case of the infamous sleeping bag death scene). And the good Catholic boy in me can’t help but respond when the ever fretful Talia Shire digs in her heels and commits to giving birth to her unborn child despite the fact that she’s ingested some of the mercury poisoned fish AND her socially conscious husband has spent the first half of the movie railing over the cruelty of bringing children into this world anyway. You go girl! Plus, any movie with Armand Assante playing a Native American activist participating in a chainsaw fight can’t be all bad, can it?

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 5: THE DREAM CHILD

I have to be jumping the shark here, right? After all, wasn’t The Dream Child nothing more than another cheaply produced quickie attempt at dragging a bit more cash out of a slowly dying film franchise based on the concept of a supernatural wise cracking serial killing child molester? Yes, it was. But for all its faults, Nightmare 5 also has one of the most bizarrely pro-life storylines of any B-movie I can ever remember seeing. Having had his butt handed to him by the previous film’s Dream Master, Alice, a severely weakened Freddie Kreuger attempts to use the only door open to him to reenter our world… the dreams of Alice’s developing fetus. Seriously. And not only does Alice have to enter the dream world of her unborn child to battle Freddie, but she actually ends up talking to the boy, who it turns out is really looking forward to being born if only mommy can stop the bad man from corrupting his soul. SERIOUSLY! Planned Parenthood must have crapped themselves over the thought that teenagers would be sitting in front of movie screens watching this. And that idea just warms my heart.

Well, that should be a good starting point for anyone’s list of pro-life B-movies. Suggestions for others are most welcome. Also, AS ALWAYS, any movie recommendations found on this blog should be taken with tongues firmly planted in cheeks. The B-Movie Catechism cannot be held responsible for any mental scarring resulting from the actual viewing of these works of art.

And in all seriousness, our congratulations and best wishes to Xena and her family on the arrival of their new gift. Whatever you do, don’t let him grow up to be like me.

OUTTAKES #029

Because I know someone is gonna want to know, the stills with the nuns come courtesy of (I kid you not) Cleopatra Wong (1978). Oh, and before the complaints start rolling in, please just let me say… I LIKE NUNS! I APPRECIATE NUNS! I just sometimes loose patience with the select few who  belong to the “We’re gonna change the Church” crowd. After all, as a convert, I came to the Church because of its power to CHANGE ME, not the other way around. Grrrr.

SHORT FEATURE: DOWN IN DIXIE

Van Beuren Studios was a short lived cartoon house during the 30s who did their best to capture some of the gleeful insanity of  rival Fleischer Studios output. You can be the judge of whether or not they succeeded. What they did manage, unfortunately, was to propagate the broad stereotypical images of blacks that the was so prevalent in mainstream productions during Hollywood’s “golden age” of cinema. The pickaninny imagery alone is cringe inducing enough in these more racially sensitive times, but Van Beuren took things a bit further. Like other cartoons in Van Beuren Studio’s Aesop Fables series, Down In Dixie has become infamous for its bizarre take on the characters from the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. As Christopher P. Lehman explains in his book The Colored Cartoon, what makes these Van Beuren shorts so insidious is that they “significantly altered the abolitionist sentiment of the book to present the message that slaves accepted, even liked, the ‘peculiar institution’, just not their cruel owners.” Now Black History Month wasn’t promoted as much when I was a kid as it is these days, but even so, I’m willing to bet that’s not exactly how the slaves really felt. “Also” Lehman goes on to note, “the novel’s religious references, which had served to enhance the author’s abolitionist views, disappear on film.”

Which is kind of an odd statement really, because even today, you can still find the occasional critic who believes that Christianity has always approved or turned a blind eye to slavery. (Of course, such a stance only works if you ignore the facts of history and the dictates of common sense, but what the hey, that philosophy has paid off big time for Dan Brown, so why not go with a winning formula.) The problem seems to be, at least for the aforementioned critic, verses from the Bible like the one in Ephesians 6:5 where it states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ.” But as Mark Brumley points out, “while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).”

Which is not to say that Paul, or any true Christian since, has believed that the systemic injustice of slavery is to be ignored. As Mark Brumley’s article from Catholic Culture and Rodney Stark’s from Christianity Today detail, the Church has had a long history of fighting slavery and has always taught, as the Catechism states, that “the seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason—selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian—lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.” It’s simply that if such injustices are to be combated, then the best way to start is to convert the hearts of individuals so they will recognize them as objectively wrong. Christianity’s first order of business has always been, and must always be, the salvation of souls, and it will instruct individuals how to move towards that goal no matter what position they find themselves in, be it as master or slave.