A Grief Observed

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 2.5 of 5

In addition to authoring the Chronicles of Narnia, C. S. Lewis also wrote a number of other good books about the various aspects of Christian life, and the major issues faced by Christianity in the modern age; most of which are even more problematic today.  Those books are enlightening, clever and informative.

This book, by contrast, is really more of a story about his own spiritual journey through a time of great difficulty for him; the passing away of his wife.  The book is therefore, not as instructive to serious students of theology, or to people trying to discern what the true Christian teachings about God, faith and the afterlife really are.  It does, however, paint a very vivid picture of what can go through the mind of a suffering Christian.

Chapter 1 is the chapter with all the insulting guesses about God.  When one suffers badly, one often does this.  Even very faithful people sometimes question whether God enjoys watching them suffer, or whether it's possible for God to be evil.  This diminishes through chapters 2 and 3, as Lewis continues to reflect on his loss, and to gradually recover from it.  Chapter 4 is clearly meant to end on a ray of hope.

I say "meant to," because I don't really believe that chapter 4 was written after the grief had passed.  Much of what Lewis suggests about souls, the afterlife and our relationship with God in this chapter is, I think, theologically-questionable.  In fact, I overcame many of these same questions and worries only very recently.

In a way, though, I think the fact that I can sympathise with Lewis on his journey of rediscovering the truths of the faith after a shattering tragedy makes it easier for me to appreciate what went into this book.  I just don't feel the finished product should be quoted as instructions on anything.

I've been in tough times, where I agonized over everything, and some of the stuff I wrote back then, I can barely stand to read anymore.  I think our worst writing comes out of the times when we suffer, and while I'm sure this book is a tremendous comfort to many people in their own times of suffering, I found it kind of tough to get through.

This may or may not be a reflection on the quality of the book, however.  Maybe I'm just not in the right kind of mood to appreciate it.  One thing's for sure; the issues raised in the various chapters of this book correspond very closely to the questions that I myself have worried over in the course of my own life; the issues that have gotten between me and the faith.

I guess that's a good point in favor of this book.  It seems to ask all the right questions.  I just wish it offered better answers to them.

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

This is the Disney version of the movie I'm reviewing; the one with Katherine Beaumont playing the voice of the curious, energetic, dinner-bell-shaped, delightfully-pedantic character of Alice.  I'm just going to say this up front; it has little to teach anyone morally or religiously, but in spite of this, I think this is one of the most fun movies I've ever watched.

In retrospect, in fact, there are a couple of really good ways to watch this film; both of which are very enjoyable.

Way number one is to look for the symbolism in the story, and believe me when I say that it is there.  The original Alice in Wonderland books were brilliantly-disguised pieces of social and political sattire, with the behaviors of the various characters poking fun at a number of trends which existed at the time, and much the same thing can be found here.

You can easily see corrupt, greedy elitists in the Walrus, hardworking, but still rather selfish ordinary people in the Carpenter, Dodo could be a parody of every foolish figure in public office who tries to solve problems by making them worse, and seems utterly oblivious to the cares of those he's hurting, etc...  Then, of course, the symbolism found in characters like the stuck-up, in-crowdy flower patch, the beatnik caterpillar and the Queen of Hearts are so easy to decypher as to be laughable.

On the other hand, you could just watch it the way that I nearly always watch it; laugh in delight as Alice uses her apparently-magic skirt to parachute down into Wonderland, grows and shrinks incessantly, and meets all manner of ridiculous things and people in the process.  In short, you could watch the movie just for fun; as a welcome escape from the world of men.

My favorite animated Disney movies of all time are Fantasia, Beauty and the Beast, and this movie.  Each plays a special role and each does something different.  Fantasia tells no single, concrete story.  Beauty and the Beast tells a very definite story.  Alice in Wonderland is middle-of-the-roadish, in that it tells a series of mini-stories which last only a short time, and are rather disconnected from one another.  Weird things happen, the main character moves on, and more weird things happen.  This is the element of the movie that every child loves.

However, as an adult, I find something more in Alice than I do in Wonderland.  To be perfectly honest, I think the personality of Alice is as much of a draw for me as the land she explores.  Alice is very curious and brave; daring and bold, but not obnoxious.  Perhaps most distinctively, Alice distinguishes herself from other cartoon heroines in that she seems to have a raging obsession with formality, dignity and politeness, which I still find one of the most charming traits any protagonist could possibly have.

Speaking personally, I never saw Alice as an everyman type, or an avatar for the viewer.  Of all the amazing things in Wonderland, she, a child who's truly concerned with being polite, may be one of the most amazing.  Children may relate to her confusion at seeing so many strange things in the world, and her sense of wonder when she encounters them, but I think it would be too much to suggest that there is any child quite like her.

Any problems that I might have with this film stem entirely from its lack of any clear message or moral, and that's merely a personal bias of mine.  I also would have liked it to be longer, but I think that about most of the movies I really enjoy.  If you like odd characters, strange behaviors, weird situations, bizarre creatures, and just plain unusualness all around, seen with the eyes of a protagonist who's as dignified and polite as the world is strange, then what you're looking for can probably be found in Wonderland.

In fact, in a way, all of this is reminiscent of our own desired destiny; a journey onwards into a world of great wonders and fewer limits in terms of what is and isn't possible.

The Avengers

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

Well, I think I should make it clear right off the bat; this film is basically a superhero action movie.  Its moral and religious remarks are only infrequent, although pretty much everything Captain America says in this film is spot-on.  It doesn't have what you could call a personal core, with the characters learning major lessons individually, nor does it really have a moral core, where any kind of big lesson is learned at the end.

However, this much I will say for the movie; what it does, it does -exceedingly- well.

This movie is about the superheroes from several previous films (Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor, primarily,) gathering together into one area and joining forces as a team in the face of an even bigger threat than ever before.  Better yet, all the actors return to reprise their roles from the previous films (except for the actor who played Bruce Banner, unfortunately.)

Even better than this, however, each character's unique personality is given its chance to shine.  They all have their own issues to deal with as the threat approaches, but in the end, they put those differences aside; working together against an enemy too big for any one of them.  It's a classic story of good against evil.  I was particularly impressed to hear someone uttering the words "there's only one God" onscreen.  A minor victory though it may be, it's nice to hear once in a while.

Still, if you like "the Avengers," it'll be for one of two reasons.  Either it's because you know and love these characters already, and want to see how they interact and deal with problems together, or it's because you're a big fan of intense superhero action.  These are the major strong points, at which this film utterly exceeds all expectations.

I admit that I actually found myself laughing in delight when certain characters began using their powers again, and showing what they could really do.  I honestly think that every human being wants an honest thrill once in a while, and this movie contains a great many such thrills, wrapped up in a minor war in the middle of New York City.  There's even a surprise at the end, for comic book fans.

Will this movie take the place of Spider-Man 2 as the best recent superhero movie?  No; it's too far removed from real, moral lessons for that.  However, it was loads of fun to watch, so I'm not going to complain any more than absolutely necessary.

Hellboy

Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I know what you're going to say.  "What?  A serious, committed, deeply-religious reviewer like you, watching a movie called 'Hellboy?!'  What the heck is wrong with you?!"

Well, to be honest, I was talked into it by an article that I saw in a paper a while back.  A fellow reviewed the available Hellboy movies, commenting on their "strong, Catholic elements," and this thread has been floating through my mind ever since then, wondering just what it was about the films that was so Catholic or religious.

Well, as it turns out, there's not much.

A Catholic exorcist accompanies a commando unit at the start of this film to try to put an end to an evil ritual, designed to summon alien demons to Earth and bring about the end of the world, and as it turns out, the ritual is a success...  Sorta.

A little baby demon is hiding out in the wreckage of the ritual grounds, is adopted by the exorcist, named "Hellboy," and from then on, takes to fighting evildoing monsters and other demons who've gone astray.

The movie is reminiscent of "Van Helsing" in some respects, except that the main villain is less of a ham (a major improvement.)  The main character is essentially a demon exorcist with a kind of "lone wolf" mentality in his battles with other demons.  He's a gruff, easily-upset sort of fellow, but when you get down to it, he doesn't really want people getting hurt.

However, Van Helsing at least left the door open that its main character might be a virtuous warrior as well.  Hellboy definitely is not.

Don't get me wrong.  He's clearly the lesser of two evils.  The bad guys he's fighting are big, nasty eldridge abominations from planet X for the most part, but even Hellboy himself is shown stealing, destroying public property, using a necromantic spell, and killing at least one person.  The fact that he does all of this, while also saving the world from being devoured by ferocious, bloodthirsty tentacled creatures from beyond is a separate issue.

Like Van Helsing, the reliability of things like crucifixes in performing exorcisms is ratified in this film, and it's heavily implied that the Vatican carries on one of the few serious studies of these dangerous, supernatural beings.

Don't think I'm not grateful for the tip of the hat; making the good guys look like good guys for once.

Still, I'd be more grateful if some element of clear morality had shone through in the process, and it just doesn't here.  As far as I can tell, the deepest moral lesson in this film is basically "don't use your demonic powers to destroy the world," and you can only get so much mileage out of that.  When all is said and done, this is basically just a pretty decent action movie with a crucifix hung on it, and while it's better with it than without it, I was sort of hoping for more.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 4.5 of 5

Enjoyability: 5 of 5

To begin with, this is the 1951 version of the movie that I'm reviewing.  Not the remake.  The remake "starred" Keanu Reaves, and will probably not be remembered in 10 years.

This movie, however, will be remembered in another 50, because its settings, characters, story and message are so timeless.  I've heard people say they were simple, but there's often something very sobering and essential hidden within that kind of simplicity.

A saucer lands in Washington DC in the 1950s, and an alien being; Klaatu, emerges from it, claiming to come in peace, and saying that he has a message, which must be heard by every person on Earth.  After failing to convince the world leaders to gather and hear his message, he disguises himself as an earthman named Carpenter and goes looking for answers; trying to understand Earthpeople a bit better before he makes his next choice.

The relationships that Klaatu develops with the people he meets are interesting and fun to watch, and this is where much of the story takes place.  The ultimate necessity of his message being received, and his eventual departure from Earth, however, are always looming in the background; calling him back to his mission, because according to Klaatu, the very safety of the world could be at stake.

A lot of other interesting things, and a few exciting things happen in this film over the course of Klaatu's visit, but three elements in particular make me like this film a great deal more than other sci-fi films from this time period.

First, Klaatu's relationship with other human beings, and his love of goodness, intelligence and maturity helped me to like the character, and to sympathise with his predicament.  At no point does he fall into any of the cliches that often plague other sci-fi protagonists.  He's not emotionless, or cold, or frantic, or ruthless.  He doesn't, in fact, come across as anything but a very decent man, who's terrified that he may be forced to cross a moral line in order to accomplish his mission.  This is the first reason I liked this film.  I liked and understood its main character.  He's not eager to cause trouble, but neither is he a delusional hippie-type, who thinks that peace can be made by just singing or emoting together.  He wants peace, but he knows you need to sacrifice to get it.  I often feel like him in my ordinary life.

Secondly, Klaatu is himself religious, after a fashion; a rare thing in sci-fi aliens.  He doesn't refer to any specific religion.  His acknowledgment of "the almighty spirit" could even imply deism, but it's so brief, that it doesn't really imply anything, except, of course, that he's not an atheist.  This alone would earn another star from me.  In this culture, we often assume that if aliens exist, they'll all be super-advanced atheists with no God concepts of any sort, and to be honest, I've never found this image convincing.

Thirdly, Klaatu's message, and his speech to mankind.  Some might consider his ultimatum a bit harsh, though remember; it's not his to give.  Still, many people would say things like "Wait a minute!  That means we don't get to do whatever we want anymore!  That's dictatorial!  Boo!"  However, these people, I think, are missing the point.

The problem with dictatorships (and with democrasies, really,) has always been that no human being or group of human beings can be trusted to run them properly.  This, I think you'll agree, is not a factor with the form of government that Klaatu's people chose.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with Klaatu from the perspective of wanting unrestricted freedom must be a very wicked person indeed; especially if they've lived through any part of the last three decades.  Klaatu's message is, in many ways, more pertinent now than it was in the days of the 1950s, because we've seen the horrors that total freedom from all constraint and natural law bring; the endless abandonment of one another, the tyranny of our own whims, the debauchery and depravity of the frantic search for the next "fix" of illicit pleasure; it's all become an everyday occurrance as the 21st century dawns.  People don't deserve the chance to act irresponsibly, because when they do, they only hurt one another.  They need some authority figure to honor and listen to; someone they can trust to give them right guidance.  This truth is distinctly human.

This, I think, is the main reason I liked this film so much.  It doesn't just speak to the decent man, or the religious man.  It speaks to the human experience.

We've become so sensitive and touchy now; we humans.  We bark like dogs at anything that seems to present a "heavy-handed" or "unsubtle" message... as though we consisted of nothing more than feelings; to be utterly destroyed by the slightest pang of genuine sadness or guilt.  This is the real tragedy of the modern age; the raging, militant refusal to face our problems, so that the vast majority of people can't even appreciate simple pleasures like this film, which should be a stunning affirmation of human virtue and what's needed to preserve it.

But if you're on the other side of that moral line, you may find this movie burdensome and appalling, and that truly makes me sad.  If so, it's not that there's something wrong with the movie; but with the heart receiving the message.

The scope of the problem in the modern world is much bigger than it was in Klaatu's time, and we still don't have any concrete plan for solving it; less now than ever, in some ways.  The remnant needs a close encounter like this every so often to cheer them up and remind them that there's still a larger world; spared the ravages of evil and war, and if people who don't want to listen to that message don't want to hear it, then that's entirely their problem.

Treasure in Clay

By Fulton J. Sheen

Catholic-ometer: 5 of 5

Enjoyability: 4 of 5

I give this book a perfect score for faithfulness, but with reservations.  Bishop Sheen is one of the finest and holiest teachers of the faith in recent history, but I've begun to notice a strain in some of his writings recently; a strain of calling things "bad" without there being anything really evil about them.

I'm not talking about his tendency to disparage himself.  Every saintly person has had that.  I'm also not talking about his teachings on what's a sin and what isn't.  These, in virtually all cases, have been quite correct.  However, when he criticizes himself for "not fasting enough," or "driving a cadillac," one is tempted to put the book down and go read something lighter.  God never said that we should seclude ourselves from all Earthly pleasures, and he certainly never said that the pleasures themselves were evil.  If read in the wrong state of mind, words like these could easily endanger the soul of a budding Catholic; even tempting them to give up the faith with the words "I could never be Catholic.  It was all about suffering and pain."  It is possible to make too much of the victimhood to which all people are called in this life; especially when speaking to a mixed audience.

I say this right off the bat, because I want to get it out of the way.  For the most part, I really enjoyed this book.  As I said, it was a little heavy at times, but enjoyable nonetheless.  It's an autobiography of Bishop Sheen, I suppose, although even in this, I'm afraid that whether you like it or not will depend entirely on how you approach the book.

You could approach it as a fan of Bishop Sheen's work, like I did.  If you do, you'll find it to be a satisfying compendium of his best and most often-recited stories and experiences from his life, arranged in an understandable order.  Bishop Sheen wrote as he talked; with a good sense of humor, a strong element of charity, and a nice flair for the dramatic to keep everything interesting and fun to read, and this was, by and large, how I found the book.  Dramatic at points, uplifting at other points, and just a lot of fun throughout.  This is why I rate it so highly.

However, there's another group of people who might rate it a bit differently, and that's historians and biographers.  It didn't bother me, but I feel I should point out that this biography is not written in a linear fashion, nor with any sort of strong, narrative sense behind it.  It's written, not like a single story, but like several, told from different perspectives.  I was reminded of the gospel accounts of the life of Our Lord, in a way.  This may turn off certain historians, who are more concerned with dates and figures than with perspectives.

Bishop Sheen also reveals nothing terribly new in this biography.  He offers no explanation of what happened to his career in later years, or what the real story was behind his alleged falling-out with certain others inside the church.  He says that this is because of the obligation of charity, which I actually agree with, but thrill-seekers and rumor-spreaders will need to look elsewhere.

However, in the course of the book, he also makes one statement which I absolutely disagree with; and this is not a common thing.  I agree with the vast majority of what he said and wrote over the course of his life.

Bishop Sheen writes, in this book, that one should always avoid exposing sins that go on within the church.  Now, if what he meant by that is "when someone does something to wrong you personally, don't make a fuss over it, or insist on justice in this life," he's quite correct, and should be applauded for his mercy and self-control.  However, it's far too easy to take these words, and mutate them into the situation that we have today; priests in open rebellion against church teaching, abuses being covered up by higher-ups, chancery officials making backroom deals with lobbying groups who oppose church teaching to keep from "hurting their feelings," etc...  These kinds of things absolutely give more scandal to the faithful when they're allowed to fester, and furthermore, a great many saints of the church fought ecclesial corruption whenever they could (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux springs immediately to mind.)

These factors contribute to the imperfect grade I give to this book.  They may just be me, wanting everything about the faith to be clean cut, and getting a little antsy whenever some word or phrase seems likely to encourage doubt or loss of faith, but these things did sort of bug me, even while I was enjoying this book.  It was a good book; no doubt, and I enjoyed it a lot.  I just feel like I could have enjoyed it more.

Porco Rosso

Rated PG

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5

Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5

I probably wouldn't even have thought of watching this film, but somebody suggested it to me, so I figured it might be worth checking out.  It is Ghibli, after all, and they're usually pretty exceptional.  Still, I was a little surprised by just how much there was to enjoy.

Firstly, this film is not at all like Kiki's Delivery Service, Spirited Away, or other Ghibli films (in fact, really, no Ghibli film is quite like any other.)  It's more adult.  Not as adult as Princess Mononoke, but pretty adult nonetheless.  I'd say late childhood-early teens at the earliest.  There's a lot of adult references and remarks.  There's name-calling, the main character smokes, there's plenty of alcohol in this movie, and illegal arms trading...  All that stuff you see in adventure anime.

I loved it.  This film kind of reminded me of a cross between the story of Beauty and the Beast and Casablanca.  It takes place between the first and second world wars, and the main character is a fighter pilot, who retreated from Italy to get away from the fascists (and yes; they use the word "fascist" in context in this film.)  He was also somehow cursed, and now he has the head of a pig and is rather overweight.  However, there's no more information given about the curse than this.

There's action, adventure, high-flying air battles, drama, romance, suspense and great escapes in this film, as Porco is shot down by a rival and has to get his plane repaired, so that he can settle the score.  Porco himself is something of an anti-hero, but the film treats him with respect, and in the end, he...  Well, the ending is a bit ambiguous, but if you're a regular viewer of Ghibli films, you may have come to expect that.

If you're wondering whether this film is right for you, or for your children, just ask yourself this; would you sit your children down in front of Casablanca?  If the answer is yes, then this film should be fine for them as well.  I really don't think there is any film that makes a better comparison with this one than Casablanca.  They're both film noir, they're both drenched in 1930s terminology, speech patterns, character dynamics and scenarios, and they both contain most of the same things that modern adults don't like kids seeing.  Guns, cigarettes, liquer, etc...  No foul language in either case, but that was expected in the 30s.  This movie isn't any tamer than Casablanca, despite being animated, but it's also no less tame, despite being made in the 90s.

Still, Casablanca was one of the greatest classic films of all time, so the very fact that I'm comparing Porco Rosso with it repeatedly is probably a sign of something good.  I just know I loved this movie, and I hope you will too.