Tuesday, January 26, 2010

BMC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: DORORO

Dororo
  • Kou Shibasaki
  • Kou Shibasaki
A female warrior who was raised as a man joins a young samurai's quest to recover 48 of his body parts from 48 demons and to avenge her parents death.
68% liked it

Unrated, 2 hr. 19 min.

Director: Akihiko Shiota

January 24, 2010: Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C)

You just don’t get plot descriptions like that in American films, do you? Movies like Dororo require a copious amount of suspension of disbelief, especially for us literal minded western audiences. But once you accept the very fairytale conceit that a newborn infant resembling a giant Tic-Tac with a mouth can survive with no internal organs, then the rest of the film is clear sailing. And, I might add, a blast to watch, what with it’s generous heapings of wire-fu and monsters straight out of Japanese folklore. Jorōgumo, daitengu, and hanyō, oh my!

But this is no mere chop-socky flick. Based on the mega-popular 1960s manga by the legendary Osamu Tezuka (Japan’s Walt Disney), Dororo touches (lightly) on the lasting physical and mental scars wartime can bring, especially to children. As Hyakkimaru struggles to understand how his warlord father could have made a pact to provide his unborn son’s body parts to demons in exchange for victory in battle, it’s hard not to imagine the questions the post-war generation had for their elders. In Dororo, like many other Japanese tales that originated in the 50s and 60s, Hiroshima and Nagasaki lie just under the surface.

Dororo also addresses (again, lightly) concerns of a more personal nature. For instance, it seems kind of odd that the hero would even bother trying to reclaim his stolen body parts. After all, the mystical limbs and organs provided to the infant by a kindly sorcerer effectively transform Hyakkimaru into a superhero, a type of proto-Wolverine  who can pop off his forearms to reveal two kitana blades. So why would he want to get rid of the upgrades? My best guess is that it has something to do with the Shinto religion’s emphasis on the purity and wholeness of the physical body as a reflection on the state of the soul. This is subtly illustrated in the film in the way the hero’s desire for revenge lessens over the course of the story. You see, in Shinto, to seek revenge, even for a reason as understandable as Hyakkimaru’s, shows a deficiency in the soul. So it’s natural that as the hero repairs his body, he likewise repairs his soul, and the need for revenge dissipates.

I couldn’t help but recall Hyakkimaru’s plight as I pondered this week’s reading from I Corinthians in which St. Paul explains how we each make up a part of the body of Christ. The Catechism explains that “the comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body.” Unfortunately, it seems like God, much like the hero in this movie, is always having to track down the stray parts of his “body” in order to bring them back into the completeness of unity.

There is an important  difference, of course. Hyakkimaru’s search for the parts of his body reflected something missing in himself; God’s search for His reflects something missing in us. As James Cavanaugh, writing in the Denver Catholic Register, notes, “God does not “need” us in the sense that he is somehow dependent on us or incomplete without us. But God does desire us. More precisely, God desires to give himself to us. C.S. Lewis said it beautifully, “In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled; only plenteousness that desires to give.”

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

BMC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: ANGELS’ BRIGADE

Angels' Brigade (Angels Revenge) (Seven from Heaven)
    Six sexy women, and a teenage girl, devastate a right-wing militia before doing battle with ruthless drug pushers.
    16% liked it

    PG

    Director: Greydon Clark

    January 17, 2010: Second Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C)

    Jiggle TV (a real term) consisted of tamely titillating shows from the 70s like Charlie’s Angels which, as the Encyclopedia Brittanica explains, “inherited a television culture that was more open, and tolerant than ever before… [and] tended to feature young, attractive, often scantily clad women (and later men as well).” In other words, the writing played second fiddle to the wardrobe (or  lack thereof). In terms of ratings, it was a massively successful formula. In terms of quality… well… 

    Angels’ Brigade appears to have been a feeble attempt to duplicate the success of Jiggle TV on the big screen, but one has to wonder why as movie-going audiences in 1979 were already lining up to see much more explicit stuff like Blake Edward’s “10”. Obviously one reason was that Charlie’s Angels alone was still pulling in about 18 million viewers a week. But the other reason was probably because you couldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) take the kids to go watch Bo Derek drop her drawers. Jiggle, relatively speaking, was more kid friendly.

    And make no mistake, Angels’ Brigade is a kid’s movie. None of the ladies are ever in any real danger (there’s one easily shrugged off flesh wound), the deaths are violent yet bloodless, and the villains are cartoonish. (Gilligan’s Mr. Howell as a racist right-wing militia commander?) Most telling is the fact that the Brigade itself is presented more like G.I.Joe action figures rather than as a collection of real individuals. I can’t remember their names, but I CAN remember there’s an kitana-wielding Asian lady who knows kung-fu, a street tough black chick who rides a motorcycle, and even a fashion model whose specialty is (honest to God) jiggling.

    On this last point, the movie basically dips into G.I.Joe PSA territory as one character lets us know (and knowing is half the battle) that while individual talents are important, they reach their highest fruition when combined with the talents of others and put to use for the greater good. Oddly, it’s rather reminiscent of this week’s second reading from 1 Corinthians in which St. Paul goes over the various spiritual charisms, those graces such as prophecy and discernment which the Holy Spirit distributes “individually to each person as he wishes”.

    As Pope Benedict XVI notes, while the gifts are individual, “what is important… is that all the charisms cooperate together for the building up of the community and that they not become instead a motive of laceration... Obviously, to underline the need for unity does not mean to hold that one must make ecclesial life uniform and flat according to one way of operating… [but] everything should concur to build the ecclesial fabric in an orderly way, not only without deadlocks, but also without flights or tears.” Basically, it’s the same call the ladies of the Angels’ Brigade heeded, only we Christians are expected not to jiggle as much while doing the same.

    Thursday, January 14, 2010

    SHORT FEATURE: THE DONNIE & MARIE STAR WARS SPECIAL

    I know I just tortured everyone with the French Fried Star Wars post, but just to show you what a cruel S.O.B. I can be sometimes, I’m gonna follow it right up with this.

    For those of you who managed keep your heads from imploding, I think the lesson here is obvious. Just because you CAN insert popular musical forms into a particular setting doesn’t necessarily mean you always SHOULD.

    It was that very train of thought which led the soon to be Pope Benedict XVI to write in The Spirit Of The Liturgy, “Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Lo­gos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (~Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and he leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship).”

    From that statement he went on to basically trash “modern so-called ‘classical’ music” (“an elitist ghetto”), pop music (“a cult of the banal”), and rock music (no more than an “expression of elemental passions”). But do these kinds of personal reservations from the pope necessarily exclude the use of popular forms of music in liturgy or insinuate that chant should be brought back as the go-to option for music at mass? Well, while such a move would hardly break my heart given my own taste in liturgical music, the actual answer appears to be… no, not really. In his book, Cardinal Ratzinger also pointed out that we have to take into consideration “the cultural universalization that the Church has to undertake if she wants to get beyond the boundaries of the European mind. This is the question of what in­culturation should look like in the realm of sacred music if, on the one hand, the identity of Christianity is to be preserved and, on the other, its universality is to be ex­pressed in local forms.”

    Reflecting on this tension in his Chirograph on Sacred Music, Pope John Paul II wrote that “It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy. In this perspective, in my Letter to Artists I wrote: "How many sacred works have been composed through the centuries by people deeply imbued with the sense of mystery! The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God"

    Monday, January 11, 2010

    BMC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN

    House of Frankenstein
    • Gleen Strange as Frankenstein
    • Boris Karloff and John Carradine
    After escaping from an asylum the mad Dr. Niemann (Boris Karloff) and his hunch back assistant (J. Carrol Naish) revive Count Dracula (John Carradine), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) and the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange) in order to extract revenge upon their many enemies.
    52% liked it

    Unrated, 1 hr. 11 min.

    Director: Erle C. Kenton

    January 10, 2010: The Baptism of the Lord (Year C)

    “All the Screen's Titans of Terror - Together in the Greatest of All Screen Sensations!” So proclaimed the posters for House Of Frankenstein, heralding the fact that for the first time ever, Universal’s unholy trinity of classic monsters would share a single screen together. Sort of.

    The problem is that the movie plays more like two short stories thread-barely stitched together rather than as a complete film. Dracula is revived by the eeeevil Dr. Niemann, but is dispatched halfway through the film when he proves uncontrollable. Only then does Niemann move on to Castle Frankenstein where he thaws out The Wolfman and The Monster. From there the movie follows the lycanthropic Larry Talbot as he mopes around while the comatose Monster lies strapped to a table. Only near the end do things pick up as Larry wolfs out just in time to take a silver bullet and the monster wakes up long enough to drag Niemann into a pool of quicksand.

    Don’t get me wrong, if you’re a fan of the old Universal Monsters, there’s still fun to be had in House Of Frankenstein. There’s all the requisite foggy moors and full moons. And its hard to deny the charms of a movie where a homicidal lecherous hunchback gets tossed out a castle window. But ultimately, the film leaves you feeling just a tad bit gypped because the three monsters, while technically in the same movie, are never all onscreen together at the same time.

    If you really want to see three big names come together and see it done right, look no further than this week’s reading on the Baptism of Jesus, an event which marks the first explicit appearance of the Holy Trinity in scripture. As Pope John Paul II described it, “At the centre of the scene we see the figure of Christ, the Messiah who fulfils all righteousness. He is the one who brings the divine plan of salvation to fulfillment, humbly showing his solidarity with sinners. His voluntary humbling wins him a wondrous exaltation: the Father's voice from heaven resounds above him, proclaiming: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"… The Holy Spirit descends on Jesus as the power of superabundant love. Referring precisely to Jesus' Baptism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:  "The Spirit whom Jesus possessed in fullness from his conception comes to "rest on him”'. Jesus will be the source of the Spirit for all mankind". The whole Trinity is therefore present at the Jordan to reveal this mystery, to authenticate and support Christ's mission and to indicate that with him salvation history has entered its central and definitive phase.”

    As a former actor, JPII seems to have recognized the epically cinematic nature of the scene. “It involves time and space, human life and the cosmic order”, he exclaimed, “but first of all the three divine Persons.” Now that’s a tagline for a movie poster!

    SHORT FEATURE: FRENCH FRIED STAR WARS

    While we’re still on the subject of musicals (I’ll get that review of Voyage Of The Rock Aliens out soon, I promise), I might as well post this video which is currently making the rounds on the Internet.

    I can declare war on France for this, right? It has to be covered somewhere in Just War Theory. If not, it should be. And do we need any more proof than this video that dancing IS NOT appropriate for all subject matter.

    That’s why Pope Benedict XVI, then writing as a Cardinal, explicitly stated in his book Spirit Of The Liturgy that “Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an ap­pearance. Before the Passion, Christ had abandoned the body that in any case he had never really assumed. Danc­ing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, be­cause, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different pur­poses—incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy— none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attrac­tiveness fades quickly—it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation... Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. None of the Christian rites includes dancing.”

    Anybody who argues otherwise should be forced to watch this video one time for each bead on the rosary as penance. Oh crap, wait, we’re against torture aren’t we?

    Wednesday, January 06, 2010

    DEAD LETTER OFFICE

    ghost mailbox

    I just wanted to drop a quick note and beg a little forgiveness from all those who take the time to leave comments here. I rely on Blogger to inform me whenever someone leaves a note and I just discovered yesterday that it hasn’t been doing so for almost three weeks now. I’m pretty sure I’ve found the glitch and corrected it, but I still have to backtrack and try to find all the comments I missed and didn’t respond to. If I overlook one or two, please don’t take it as a snub as hearing from all you nice folks is one of my favorite things about doing this blog. Please keep commenting, somebody has to keep me honest.

    Tuesday, January 05, 2010

    BMC MOVIE OF THE WEEK: NEW YEAR’S EVIL

    New Year's Evil
      In this horrific slasher outing, a punk rock disc jockey has a really bad night when a nutcase begins calling her every hour on New Year's Eve to inform her of his latest murder victim.~ Sandra Brennan, All Movie Guide
      20% liked it

      R, 90 min.

      Director: Emmett Alston

      January 3, 2010: The Epiphany of the Lord (Year C)

      “Call me eeeevil!” That’s how the killer in this movie actually says the line while speaking through one of those cheapo voice processors you can pick up at WalMart. Terror inducing? Hardly. Unintentionally laugh inducing? Oh yeah.

      Marketed as yet another holiday themed slasher movie, New Year’s Evil plays like more of a traditional thriller with the police trying to apprehend the taunting Eeeevil as he murders one victim every time midnight strikes in a different time zone. His final announced target is an aging MTV-type VJ, which allows the proceedings to be generously interspersed  with all the excessive 80’s style clothing and hairstyles a person could want. And like any slasher/thriller worth its salt, there’s the obligatory BIG REVEAL of the killer’s true identity. (WARNING: Here there be spoilers!) In this case, the reveal is kind of bizarre as Eeeevil turns out to be the VJ’s husband who feels the woman’s intense focus on her career is driving their teenage son insane. And apparently he’s right as the final shot shows the young man donning his father’s mask, intent on finishing the job dear old dad started. Take that all you ladies who have to work outside the home. Guess the makers of New Year’s Evil didn’t take to heart the previous year’s Dolly Parton opus Nine To Five.

      If these kinds of shocking reveals appeal to you, then this is your week at mass. As the Catechism notes, “The great feast of Epiphany celebrates the adoration of Jesus by the wise men (magi) from the East, together with his baptism in the Jordan and the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee.” Each of these events, in some form, reveals the messianic nature of Jesus to all the peoples of the world. What makes the Epiphany shocking, both to non-Christians and (sadly) those Christians who subscribe to religious pluralism, is that “ALL THE PEOPLES” part, the idea that Jesus is the way and the truth for the whole world. For those folks, the Epiphany is as outrageous as any reveal ever put to celluloid.

      Now as Christians, we don’t discount the elements of truth to be found in other faiths. Commenting on the 2000 Vatican statement Dominus Jesus, Father John  Lombardi notes that “God's Life, Teaching and Way is not exhausted through the Catholic Church: an infinite God can never be explained by a limited entity even though it is divinely inspired. Thus, some of God's grace (esp. spread by the Holy Spirit) manifests outside the Catholic Church's domain.” But, the good father continues, “since the Catholic Unity, established upon St. Peter and continued today, in and through [the Pope] and the magisterium (official teaching office) is God's "normal" manifestation for the world and salvation of souls, we should want to propose Jesus Christ as the singular Divine Manifestation of God to the world.” Simply put, we Christians are kind of required to keep the shocks coming.

      (For my regular readers who might be curious as to what this is, I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that work and family commitments are going to keep my big, lengthy reviews down to probably one a month for the foreseeable future. That’s just not enough space to share with you all of the truly awful movies I see. So each week I’m going to bring you a brief look at some wretched piece of celluloid I’ve watched as filtered, however tenuously, through the readings for that week’s Sunday mass. Hope you enjoy.)