So, the other night I watched the famous John Ford and John Wayne classic, "The Quiet Man" for probably the tenth time. Starring Maureen O'Hara and John Wayne, the movie was released in 1952. It features an Irish born John Wayne who left Ireland with his parents as a child to live in America. The opening scene is of his return to his home country where he's come to reclaim his family's house and land. Having left to escape a dark past, he soon finds that there is no place in the world where we can go to escape our nightmares, and we must face what we have done and move on. And he discovers that although there are many things that aren't worth fighting for, love is worth fighting for.
This movie is so wonderful because it captures the heart of the simple life. I hesitate to say it captures the "quiet life." For there is not much quiet about the movie, except the big, tall John Wayne. Having been to Ireland, the movie seems to capture the spirit of the Irish people well. Talking, singing and drinking are the heart of the Irish people. They are a spirited people.
"The Quiet Man" is a wonderful critique of our overly complicated culture with its rushing about and busy-ness. It calls for a return to simplicity for it reminds us that relationships are the most satisfying thing in life. And it shows that these small things are the things which are really worth fighting for. The big things such as technology, money, power and fame are all vanities. But, a wife, home, family honor and even the local pub are all worth fighting over.
In this way, the movie would have been loved by the great GK Chesterton. A lover of the small things, Chesterton always pointed to how heaven and even God are to be found in the small, repetitive and seemingly dull aspects of everyday life. Starting from the nativity of the Incarnation, Chesterton developed his whole philosophy around the paradox of God becoming a poor and rejected Man.
In our own experience, we all come to know that the small things are the important things and we either change our lives to fit around this truth, or we try to stamp it down and silence it so that we can carry on with our addictions, whether they be to money, fame or any other worthless endeavor.
Even within our Holy Mother the Church, whose great and magnificent churches span the globe, and whose art has enlightened countless genius minds, it is all built around a very small and plain object of devotion. And this object, nea, this Person, taking the form of bread and wine, is the object of our highest worship.
So, gather the whole family sometime and watch this classic. It's appropriate and good for everyone and will leave you yearning to simplify and thank God for the small things.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thursday, May 21, 2009
"Terminator Savlation" fails to save the Terminator series
Fans of the Terminator saga will be happy to see a much better movie that "Terminator 3" in "Salvation." Yet, the lack of a solid plot, a sidetracked main character and too much concentration on flashy action sequences will leave many wanting to retreat from the theatre and watch the original or "Terminator 2." Sadly, even the stardom of Christian Bale could not keep this Terminator from terminating.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The recent obsession with super heroes and our sub-conscious
As of late, there have been so many movies based off of comic book heroes or men who are super trained (Jason Bourne, James Bond, etc.) to the point where they do super-hero stunts. Why is this? I believe it is a resurgence in the belief, or perhaps, the longing for belief in the supernatural.
During the turn of the 20th century, people, especially in America, had hope that science would deliver mankind into a "Brave New World." Yet, we have yet to see this happen. People still die from cancer, AIDS, car accidents, and wars. In fact, science has made it possible to kill many more people than ever before with the push of a button. I would never argue that science has not brought goods to this world, but if we are honest, the bads at least match up evenly with those goods. And I believe the sub-conscious in most people knows this. I believe movies have more to do with our interior desires; our subconscious. Therefore, when we find a movie that is very successful and touches some part of mankind, it is important to think about why these movies appeal to people.
For the most successful super hero movie, let's examine the most recent one titled "Dark Knight." Some would argue that the reason why the Batman character is so successful is because he has no super-hero abilities. I disagree with this. The success of the X-Men trilogy, Spiderman, etc. disprove this notion. People love Batman precisely because he is different. He may not be able to fly, but he has a super-human ability to be able to commit to fighting evil. And one could argue that his physical prowess and genius put him above the general public of Gotham which he has sworn to protect.
There are, of course, many reasons why "Dark Knight" was successful. The acting, plot and character development were superb. The genuine decay in character of "Two Face" is not only believable, but horrific and yet still pitiable. But, what I believe is at the heart of the movie is the metaphysical battle between good and evil played out physically, (for Catholics, perhaps sacramentally) in the characters of Batman and the Joker.
People want to believe in heroes, and people want to believe that the hero will beat the villain. And people don't want to just see a man defeat the villain, but an extraordinary man. They want a savior.
There are movies that do a great job of glorifying the "Everyman" and this is a noble undertaking, perhaps much in need during our time. But, if the heart of man wants to find something greater than himself, he wants to find that outside of himself. And this is ultimately what people are searching for: Someone to worship.
During the turn of the 20th century, people, especially in America, had hope that science would deliver mankind into a "Brave New World." Yet, we have yet to see this happen. People still die from cancer, AIDS, car accidents, and wars. In fact, science has made it possible to kill many more people than ever before with the push of a button. I would never argue that science has not brought goods to this world, but if we are honest, the bads at least match up evenly with those goods. And I believe the sub-conscious in most people knows this. I believe movies have more to do with our interior desires; our subconscious. Therefore, when we find a movie that is very successful and touches some part of mankind, it is important to think about why these movies appeal to people.
For the most successful super hero movie, let's examine the most recent one titled "Dark Knight." Some would argue that the reason why the Batman character is so successful is because he has no super-hero abilities. I disagree with this. The success of the X-Men trilogy, Spiderman, etc. disprove this notion. People love Batman precisely because he is different. He may not be able to fly, but he has a super-human ability to be able to commit to fighting evil. And one could argue that his physical prowess and genius put him above the general public of Gotham which he has sworn to protect.
There are, of course, many reasons why "Dark Knight" was successful. The acting, plot and character development were superb. The genuine decay in character of "Two Face" is not only believable, but horrific and yet still pitiable. But, what I believe is at the heart of the movie is the metaphysical battle between good and evil played out physically, (for Catholics, perhaps sacramentally) in the characters of Batman and the Joker.
People want to believe in heroes, and people want to believe that the hero will beat the villain. And people don't want to just see a man defeat the villain, but an extraordinary man. They want a savior.
There are movies that do a great job of glorifying the "Everyman" and this is a noble undertaking, perhaps much in need during our time. But, if the heart of man wants to find something greater than himself, he wants to find that outside of himself. And this is ultimately what people are searching for: Someone to worship.
The top five things that make a good epic
These are what I believe are the top 5 reasons epic movies are hits. I guarantee most people who disagree with me, will call them "simple". Like John Wayne said, if you don't see things as black and white, "why the hell not?"
1. There is a good side and a bad side. This is what "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Alexander" miss. The obsession with darkening heroes to make them more real only comes from believing that evil is more real than good. The deductionists who believe this also believe that "From towering smoke that fire can never burn and from tall tales that men were never tall." As Tolkien said of the great epic, Beowulf, the most important part of that tale was the evil of Grendel. When we blur the lines between good and evil, we resign ourselves not to peace, but to war with everyone and everything.
2. There is a battle between these sides. Of course, sometimes the battle is within ourselves or between spiritual realities (ie. "The Passion of the Christ") Nevertheless, some war has to happen because as the old westerns said "This town ain't big enough for the two of us." Good and evil have to fight.
3. There must be a hero who either dies or sacrifices beyond what others sacrifice. He has to love others and the cause for which he fights, more than anything. He has to inspire others by his words and example. Big, memorable lines from Leonidas, Wallace or Maximus strike a chord with the audience. Toughness in the face of adversity is inspiring. Defiance of evil even when it is more powerful, is awesome.
4. The general art of the picture must be done well. Good lines, cinematography, costumes, and most importantly, a POINT. There must be an Act I, II and III. This is also why movies like "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Alexander" suck (both done by notable "artistic" directors. Blah, they had no plot!)
5. Finally, and this is where my bleeding-heart conservatism will come out, it must be a comedy. I mean, the movie must have a good ending. Leonidas, Maximus, or Wallace may die, but the good conquers evil. And their sacrifice is that much more meaningful because they win. Only cowards like to see good win without a fight. Only relativistic liberals who, like Darth Vader, have become "more machine than man" love to see bad win out over good. Only they believe that evil is stronger than good. As Chesterton says, "Why do they vaguely think of all chivalry as sentiment and all sentiment as weakness?...It is their faith that the only ultimate thing is fear and therefore that the very heart of the world is evil."
1. There is a good side and a bad side. This is what "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Alexander" miss. The obsession with darkening heroes to make them more real only comes from believing that evil is more real than good. The deductionists who believe this also believe that "From towering smoke that fire can never burn and from tall tales that men were never tall." As Tolkien said of the great epic, Beowulf, the most important part of that tale was the evil of Grendel. When we blur the lines between good and evil, we resign ourselves not to peace, but to war with everyone and everything.
2. There is a battle between these sides. Of course, sometimes the battle is within ourselves or between spiritual realities (ie. "The Passion of the Christ") Nevertheless, some war has to happen because as the old westerns said "This town ain't big enough for the two of us." Good and evil have to fight.
3. There must be a hero who either dies or sacrifices beyond what others sacrifice. He has to love others and the cause for which he fights, more than anything. He has to inspire others by his words and example. Big, memorable lines from Leonidas, Wallace or Maximus strike a chord with the audience. Toughness in the face of adversity is inspiring. Defiance of evil even when it is more powerful, is awesome.
4. The general art of the picture must be done well. Good lines, cinematography, costumes, and most importantly, a POINT. There must be an Act I, II and III. This is also why movies like "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Alexander" suck (both done by notable "artistic" directors. Blah, they had no plot!)
5. Finally, and this is where my bleeding-heart conservatism will come out, it must be a comedy. I mean, the movie must have a good ending. Leonidas, Maximus, or Wallace may die, but the good conquers evil. And their sacrifice is that much more meaningful because they win. Only cowards like to see good win without a fight. Only relativistic liberals who, like Darth Vader, have become "more machine than man" love to see bad win out over good. Only they believe that evil is stronger than good. As Chesterton says, "Why do they vaguely think of all chivalry as sentiment and all sentiment as weakness?...It is their faith that the only ultimate thing is fear and therefore that the very heart of the world is evil."
Saturday, May 16, 2009
New Star Trek is a Victory for Old Movies
"Trekkies" are not the only people who will enjoy this newest edition in the "Star Trek" saga. The movie has everything that makes this type of film entertaining. The special effects go without saying. Yet, it does a much better job than the newer "Star Wars" trilogy at developing characters and plot and does not merely rely on special effects to carry the movie. And this is the point I would like to leave the reader with: Movies that develop plot and characters, with a bit of humor and believable drama, along with a great story are always what make great movies. CGI cannot replace acting any more than a robot can play a person. The human element is what people love more than anything. And this new "Star Trek" does a great job of developing the more subtle aspects of film while, of course, doing an incredible job with special effects.
Without getting into detail about the plot of the movie, the overall point is to tell the story of how the old beloved characters of the first "Star Trek" series come to know each other and forge friendships as the crew of the USS Enterprise. Chris Pine, playing Kirk and Zachary Quinto, as Spock, do an amazing job of copying the extremely unique personalities that were so strong in the old series. The other main characters do an equally good job of re-creating the old heroes of "Star Trek". Yet, it is the character of Spock, in particular, that stood out for me.
The movie focuses on the unique experience of Spock who was born of a Vulcan father and a human mother. The Vulcans are known for their precise logic and absolute control of their emotions. The battle within Spock is drawn out as he struggles with maintaining his human side while being true to his Vulcan logic.
The interesting facet of all this is how we can relate to Spock. He represents the struggle in us between our minds and our emotions. So many times, we know in our heads what is the right thing to do, but our emotions or our passions tug the other way. The desire to be able to completely control our emotions happens every time our heart is broken, or every time we give in to our emotions and hurt someone or in a state of passion betray our wives, husbands, family and friends.
Contrasting Spock's personality with that of Kirk, we see in Kirk, someone who goes with his gut. And ultimately Kirk's instinct makes him captain. The philosophy displayed here is that there is an intangible quality in humanity which allows us to overcome odds where logic would give us no chance. This intangible quality in Kirk allows him to take in limited information and intelligently come up with an answer for a situation that may logically have no answer. In other words, he has hope. There may be a small chance that there will be a good outcome in any given situation in our lives and what keeps mankind going is not the Stoic attitude of a Vulcan who just says, "Well, it makes no difference in the end" but the hopeful attitude of Kirk who says, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
Without getting into detail about the plot of the movie, the overall point is to tell the story of how the old beloved characters of the first "Star Trek" series come to know each other and forge friendships as the crew of the USS Enterprise. Chris Pine, playing Kirk and Zachary Quinto, as Spock, do an amazing job of copying the extremely unique personalities that were so strong in the old series. The other main characters do an equally good job of re-creating the old heroes of "Star Trek". Yet, it is the character of Spock, in particular, that stood out for me.
The movie focuses on the unique experience of Spock who was born of a Vulcan father and a human mother. The Vulcans are known for their precise logic and absolute control of their emotions. The battle within Spock is drawn out as he struggles with maintaining his human side while being true to his Vulcan logic.
The interesting facet of all this is how we can relate to Spock. He represents the struggle in us between our minds and our emotions. So many times, we know in our heads what is the right thing to do, but our emotions or our passions tug the other way. The desire to be able to completely control our emotions happens every time our heart is broken, or every time we give in to our emotions and hurt someone or in a state of passion betray our wives, husbands, family and friends.
Contrasting Spock's personality with that of Kirk, we see in Kirk, someone who goes with his gut. And ultimately Kirk's instinct makes him captain. The philosophy displayed here is that there is an intangible quality in humanity which allows us to overcome odds where logic would give us no chance. This intangible quality in Kirk allows him to take in limited information and intelligently come up with an answer for a situation that may logically have no answer. In other words, he has hope. There may be a small chance that there will be a good outcome in any given situation in our lives and what keeps mankind going is not the Stoic attitude of a Vulcan who just says, "Well, it makes no difference in the end" but the hopeful attitude of Kirk who says, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)