Archive for Film
I must confess that I have been very remiss about putting up any updates about the St. Elizabeth documentary since the end of December (here). A great deal has happened, not all of it good, but things finally seem to be back on track.
On returning from Hungary with a disk drive containing all the footage our camerman Michael shot, plus the tapes from my own camcorder, I expected to be able to start editing, or at least viewing the footage, right away. But when I made my first phone call to my mother when I arrived home, she informed me of my uncle Joe’s death. I left right away, and only after I returned from the funeral and Thanksgiving holidays did I discover that the drive was unusable. I couldn’t even read it with my computer.
Long-distance consultation with Michael didn’t help; I gave the disk to my brother Nick at Christmas, and he couldn’t access it either. So it eventually went back to Michael, who discovered that though it was supposed the be cross-platform, the formatting of the files themselves (at least that’s what I think he said), made it impossible to read on anything but a Mac. So he had to re-copy every one of the some 300 gigs of footage through his computer network from a Mac to a PC and then to the portable drive - which took around 200 hours. Which would have been fine, but he had to be absent on other filming gigs a good deal of the time during the next four months. I didn’t receive the footage until the middle of April, five months after I returned home. And even then we found footage that had not been copied, which had to located.
In the meantime, a lengthy illness, five separate tax returns for the back sales tax for my business, plus regular taxes on April 15, made it nearly impossible to keep up with my regular job (freelancers don’t get paid time off), let alone other tasks like writing the script and obtaining permissions for using still images and archive footage. I also had to test out various editing programs, and started learning to use Adobe Premiere Pro.
Then at long last, when everything was all set for editing, my laptop stopped working. The motherboard had fizzled out. Back it went to the company for repairs (thank goodness it was still under warranty), Then I had a replacement computer to set up, and finally to work — though I no longer had the trial version of Adobe Premiere, which was on the other laptop (you’re only allowed one trial version). To save time, I decided to resort to using the simple Windows editing program that I already knew for the trailer. Then when everything was ready again, I discovered that the drive I had copied my own footage on had failed. There were parts I hadn’t transferred to my laptop, so they had to be captured from tape again.
In the meantime, I finally got some good news: the Presidency of the International Council of the SFO (CIOFS) would be able to reimburse me for some of the filming expenses. They are also going to put the trailer on their web site and help promote the video when it’s done.
So things really seem to be back on track now, and the trailer at least is close to completion. In spite of the frustration, seeing all the tons of disconnected footage you shot finally connect and come alive into an actual story is thrilling. We already have a trailer from 2007 that focused on our interviews in Rome; this short teaser trailer will focus more on the actual experience of the Franciscans of the various orders who attended the celebrations in Rome, Assisi, Esztergom and Budapest, as well as an outline of Elizabeth’s life. It should be much more visually exciting than the first trailer.
So keep checking back here for the trailer, which I hope will be done in a couple of days. Then on to editing the real thing!
Oh and one more thing; if you want to be put on the e-mail list to receive updates about the documentary, just write to me at editor@taucrossbooks.com.
Filed under: Film, St. Elizabeth Documentary, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Writing | |No Comments
I haven’t had time to comment on the latest film from the oeuvre of Dan Brown, Angels and Demons, due to hit theaters this Friday, May 15. In fact, it hasn’t created nearly as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code. I haven’t had time to read it either (I had a hard enough time making it through the other book), but Angels, based on a Da Vinci Code prequel, has the reputation of being less anti-Catholic than his more notorious work.
That judgment is probably a somewhat relative one, since, from the Wikipedia summary, the book apparently has not only the same type of breathless, nonsensical thriller plot, but the same abundant basic errors in historical fact, literature, art, science, geography and just about everything else you can name. And the same distorted view of the Church as an institution relentlessly opposed to science and progress. A major part of the DVC was its description of the Priory of Sion, a secret organization of which Leonardo and Sir Isaac Newton were supposed to have been Grand Masters, and much was made of them as scientific freethinkers opposed to Church doctrines (no matter that this was far from the truth).
The trailer for Angels and Demons mentions the “brutal massacre” the Church carried out against another secret society, the Illuminati. The who? you might ask. According to Brown, the Illuminati were a society of scientists, founded in the 1500’s, of which Copernicus and Galileo were members. Copernicus was supposedly killed by the Church for spreading scientific truths. In 1668, the Church carried out the supposed “massacre” on the Illuminati leaders, leading the sect to vow revenge . . . As you might expect with Dan Brown, not one word of this is true. Just more distortions and lies passing themselves off as history.
What is true is that there was a society similar to the Freemasons, the Illuminati, found in Bavaria in 1776, which lasted just a few years before it was suppressed by the Carl Theodor, the ruler of Bavaria (not a heresy-hunting Churchman, by the way, but an “Enlightened despot” himself). As for Copernicus, he died of a stroke in 1543 at the age of 70.
Here are two excellent takedowns of the errors in the book and film by Steven Greydaus of Decent Films, and sci-fi author John C. Wright.
Nevertheless, L”Osservatore Romano (what is it with this paper recently?) is praising the film as “harmless entertainment”. No real mention of the above lies, however, or the fact that historical lies do harm the Church — and history itself as well — as I’ve pointed out here.
Another troubling aspect — and there is a major SPOILER ahead, so beware — the book’ plot climaxes with the unveiling of the fact that it was the cardinal Camerlengo who murdered the recently deceased Pope. Worse yet, a secret society is involved. . . This plot point, of course, has been quite overworked in the last three decades in regard to John Paul I’s death, and his Camerlengo and Secretary of state, Jean Cardinal Villot, who has been unfairly maligned for decades by being accused of his supposed murder. Without having read the book, only a summary of the plot, I can’t say how great the similarities between the plots and characters are. I certainly hate to see it brought up again, though, even in another context. Let’s hope the film doesn’t lead to another rash of conspiracy theories in John Paul I’s case. (although, according to Steven Greydanus’ just-out review, the film’s Camerlengo plot and the climax differ significantly from the book’s).
And word is that Brown’s next book, The Lost Symbol, due out this fall, has something to do with Freemasons, and what do you want to bet, the Catholic Church as well? . . .
Update (evening of May 14): I’ve just read and can highly recommend Mark Shea’s e-pamphlet Answering Angels and Demons, from Ascension Press. Go here to get a free downloaded copy for yourself. It will answer everything you want to know about Dan Brown’s errors, the Church’s relation to science, and a number of other subjects.
Answering Angels and Demons
Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), I also received in the mail today the 3-volume set of Shea’s Mary, Mother of the Son (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2009). This trilogy, written by a Catholic who is a former Evangelical, is intended to reach not just Catholics, but Evangelicals and other non-Catholics. Mark Shea discusses with verve, insight and humor what what the Church really teaches about Mary. Volume 1, Modern Myth and Ancient Truth, manages to answer both Evangelical critics, who claim the Church’s worship of Mary is merely pagan goddess-worship, and Brown’s claim that the Church suppressed paganism and the Sacred Feminine (For all his blather about the Sacred Feminine, Mary is strangely, the one New Testament figure Brown utterly ignores). Instead, Shea shows the real relationship of Mary, the Church and paganism, and how the Gospel and grace actually crowned and transformed pagan beliefs. I’m nearly finished with the volume, and it’s a great treat.
Mary, Mother of the Son
You can get the book here.
Filed under: Angels and Demons, Dan Brown, Film, Myths and Mythology, Pope John Paul I, The Da Vinci Code | |No Comments
Well, not quite, since my internet access has been cutting in and out. . . plus I have a headache tonight.
But, as we go along!
Love Hugh Jackman . . . funny song parodies of the nominated films, but uninspiring music!
Well, I was certainly wrong about Best Supporting Actress! Penelope Cruz. And Janet was right. This is going to be a long night, since they’re not as anxious as usual to play people offstage. Each actress introduced at length.
A salute to screenwriters. . . It’s about time! The written lines play out on screen
Best original Screenplay . . . Milk! Could this be the start of a trend? A plea not only for gay rights but gay marriage by the screenwriter, hugely applauded in the theater — but it won’t go over well everywhere at home. I think it’s competent, but far from being as good as WALL-E. A political win?
Best Adapted Screenplay . . . Great! Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire. This could be the start of a trend . . . I hope.
Best Animated Feature begins the nominations with WALL-E and a clip . . . It’s WALL-E! Great! He reveals for the first time(?) that in high school he was Barnaby in Hello Dolly! That explains a lot.
Best Production Design . . . Benjamin Button, so at least it wins something.
Costume Design . . . it’s The Duchess . . those sumptuous period clothes!
Romance in the movies 2008 . . . WALL-E is getting a lot of play here too!
I’m going to have go leave for a while now and do some work. . .
Great, now it’s Slumdog that’s on a roll!
A medley of famous movie music — that’s more like it!
Best Supporting Actor . . . I’d prefer clips of the films to these smarmy descriptions that try to be moving . . . what can they possibly say about Heath Ledger? They praise his whole career. The winner . . .Heath Ledger, as expected. It’s accepted by his father, sister and mother. . . they accept on behalf of his little daughter Matilda, which is genuinely moving.
Now for documentaries, a subject I really have a vested interest in this year. They have to bring Bill Maher on for this, to plug his stupid non-nominated film Religulous? This is not a cool moment. The winner of documentary feature is Man on Wire, which does sound cool.
After a break . . . it’s time for Best Director . . . This is quite a talented group . . . it’s Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire! He’s jumping up and down! Way to go!
Best Actress . . . much more puffery to get through . . . great to see Sophia Loren again . . . she looks great for . . . however old she is now. . . and Kate Winslet wins! Really effusive speech.
Best Actor . . . There’s a distinguished group up there, including Anthony Hopkins and Ben Kingsley . . . It’s Sean Penn (I predicted that!). He mentions “signs of hatred” as he drove in, and again gay marriage — shame on those who voted against it in Proposition 8.
My ramblings tonight have been very silly because of my headache. . . I’m watching on my roommate’s TV because mine is still broken.
Steven Spieberg to present Best Picture. . . They are relatig them to Best Pictures of the past . . . Slumdog Millionaire! (I almost though it might be Milk, I’m glad it wasn’t, really). Looks like they’re getting the whole cast and crew onstage,even the little kid actors. Well, that’s it!
I’m very tired so I’d best sign off now.
Filed under: Film | |No Comments
Yes, it’s that time again. I managed to squeeze in viewings of three more Oscar-nominated films this week, Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader and Milk, but still, this year I’ve been too busy to do much watching. I don’t know how much I can judge the nominees when I haven’t seen them all. For the most part I don’t have many overwhelming favorites.
This time I’ve seen four of the five Best-Picture nominees (missing is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button).
My all-over favorite film in most respects is WALL-E. (I’d also vote its teaser as one of the coolest trailers of all time). But of course, as last year with Ratatouille, it’s not nominated for Best Picture.
Well, on to the actual the Best Picture nominees. Frost/Nixon was tremendously absorbing and enjoyable and well-directed by Ron Howard, and of course, well-written, by Peter Morgan, with great performances by Frank Langella and Michael Sheen. It’s even downright suspenseful, though most people know the outcome already. Perhaps it’s just a little obvious in what it says, and has to my mind, a slightly weak ending. (I’m hoping to write more about this). The Reader was hard-hitting in places, but too solemn and self-conscious to bring the desired catharsis to the viewer. What really carried it were the performances, especially Kate Winslet’s. Milk was a well-made biopic with a magnetic performance by Sean Penn and a social message that liberal Hollywood loves. But then look what happened with Brokeback Mountain. . . But Slumdog Millionaire was so incredibly inventive and original in its filming of a heartfelt and crowd-pleasing story that voters would be unable to resist it. I would join all the predictors saying Slumdog will most likely take the top prize. And probably deservedly so.
Best Actress: Meryl was great, but this is undoubtedly Kate Winslet’s year. She is probably the actress with the most nominations who has never won. The film she’s in, The Reader, basically wouldn’t work without her. She portrays a mystery woman whose motivations are never clear, and whose actions are often anything but sympathetic, and you can’t take your eyes from her when she’s onscreen. I wasn’t much convinced by Angelina Jolie in Changeling, and her role was rather one-note.
Best Actor: A real tough one. Frank Langella deserves all the praise in the world for his uncanny portrayal of Richard Nixon’s confessional and self-justification all in one — especially since he manages to make you forget he doesn’t really sound or look like Nixon. On the other hand, he’s one of many Nixon portrayals onscreen. Sean Penn could easily get the award for the way he portrays both a specific personality and the passion that makes him tick. His (fittingly) flamboyant portrayal of Harvey Milk is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Richard Jenkins’ work in The Visitor — a small quiet film that shouldn’t be missed. Though his quietly recessive character, a widowed professor, seems almost completely inexpressive, his gradual emotional awakening is beautifully done. But for the Academy his work probably isn’t “big” enough. I haven’t seen Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler. He has a lot of support for his comeback story in Hollywood. This one’s too tough to call - but I’ll say Penn. It’s a good way to reward a film that undoubtedly won’t take top prize, and a most deserving performance. I’d be happy to see any of them win. (I missed his performance, but evidently Brad Pitt doesn’t stand much of a chance).
Best Supporting Actor: There’s no question that Heath Ledger will take it, but I can’t say much about him since I haven’t seen The Dark Knight, believe or not, though I’m looking forward to it on video. My favorite of those I’ve seen is Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Best supporting actress: This is one where I haven’t seen too many. I think from the buzz that it will be Viola Davis in Doubt.
Best original screenplay - WALL-E - I don’t even have to see the others — however unfair that is. (The only other nominated film in this category I’ve actually seen is Milk).
Best adapted screenplay — Slumdog Millionaire will win, since I think inventiveness and originality will be the key.
Best Director: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire. He’s a real virtuoso at juggling emotions and complicated story threads as well. One curious fact this year: the nominees for Best Director and Best Picture completely match up for once. Usually some Best Picture nominee’s director is left out.
Janet Batchler’s predictions match up somewhat with mine.
If I get a chance I’ll live blog the Oscars tomorrow night — though once again I have to work on translations. I’ll try to write a comment or two at any rate.
See you then!
Filed under: Film | |No Comments
I have a huge back load of things to do and to write about. I do plan to go back to my John Paul I posts soon, I promise. Another subject is film. We’ve already had the Golden Globes and Oscar nominations this year, but I didn’t watch. My TV was broken. I hope to have it fixed by Oscar night! (However, I am now more anxious than ever to see Slumdog Millionaire).
I have seen several films that seem poised for Oscar nods, including Changeling, Wall-E, Doubt, and Frost/Nixon.
The last two films were the ones that I was most interested in seeing — in both cases, because I had seen other works by their talented writers. And as it turned out, both ended up with Oscar nominations. I’ll write about Frost/Nixon (by Peter Morgan, who also wrote The Queen) later on.
For right now, I want to write about Doubt, written and directed by John Patrick Shanley, based on his own 2004 Tony-Award winning Broadway play. I have always loved the Oscar-winning film he wrote, Moonstruck, and in particular the poetic writing. I was quite interested in this play, though I didn’t get a chance to see it on stage.
Set in St. Nicolas Catholic parish and school in the Bronx in 1964, Doubtt begins calmly with an ordinary day in a largely Irish Catholic neighborhood. Grim-faced Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) patrols the aisles in class and even in church, to make sure her charges don’t get out of hand (and gives them a smack on the head if they do). Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the new young priest who wants to bring the “winds of change” to the Church and this parish in particular. He is kind to the kids, especially young Donald Muller, the school’s only black student. Sister Aloysius doesn’t like change. She likes absolute certainty. And the fact that Father Flynn gives sermons on “doubt” has her worried. Then one day sweet young Sister James (Amy Adams) tells her she saw Donald going to the rectory alone with Father Flynn, and coming back upset. Has he done something unspeakable to the boy?
Sister James isn’t willing to transform her suspicions into an outright accusation; Sister Aloysius has no such qualms. She practically declares the priest guilty of molestation before she has heard all the evidence — and the evidence is ambiguous. Al the same, she will use every means, fair or not, at her disposal to have him removed from the parish. She tries to enlist the boy’s mother (Viola Davis) on her side, with unexpected and disturbing results. Sister Aloysius may experience setbacks, but she plows ahead without admitting any doubts.
In the end, the film doesn’t leave us with certainty about anything, even the priest’s guilt — and the final scene is unsettling for anyone who thought they knew what was going on.
What is doubt? Do we need it? Can we live with it? Father Flynn explains in his sermon that doubt and uncertainty is one of the things that most binds human beings together. Sister James is torn because of her uncertainty. Donald’s mother expresses some doubts about things no one has ever questioned (and that most people in the audience won’t think can be questioned). Sister Aloysius alone seems certain — but she admits that in pursuing her case she may be “taking a step away from God but in His service.”
Shanley has said in an interview that the play “is about the way I process the world — which involves a great deal of certainty and also a great deal of doubt.” He says he thinks doubt is vital in human life.
I found the film very absorbing and thought-provoking. It presented a very even-handed approach to the question of priestly abuse, even though that was not really what the film was about. It gives a good picture of the things that can and have gone wrong in the Church that made the abuse situation possible, including the hierarchical boys’ club mentality of the priesthood that leaves little room for interference by a mere nun. The contrast between the priests and nuns is made clear in a scene that alternates between a jolly red-meat dinner of the priests in the rectory who spend their time joking about women, and the austere meal of the nuns, who worry about one elderly nun being dismissed because she is half-blind. In another scene, Sister Aloysius and Sister James almost reflexively serve tea to Father Flynn while preparing to accuse him of an unspeakable crime. The film does make it clear, at any rate, that it is possible for an accused priest to actually be innocent.
Some scenes will also bring some knowing smiles to Catholics who recall the early days of the Vatican II and the changes it brought — particularly in one scene involving a picture of Pope Pius XII, which I won’t spoil for you. Shanley never gets much into the specifics of the changes in the Church, which might disappoint some, and which I certainly missed, but this might have distracted the audience from the story.
The big news is that the whole main cast has been nominated for Oscars, and that is certainly a big draw for the film. I’ve always loved Streep and she does a terrific job here (including the adopting of a pretty mean Bronx accent), and manages to make a character who might seem wholly unlikeable understandable and even rather heroic, even if you don’t think she’s right. Hoffman, an equally brilliant actor, makes you wonder at every moment whether his outwardly jovial character might be hiding a dark secret. He shifts believably between cajoling and thundering when Sister Aloysius threatens to expose him (a dynamite scene). The little-known Viola Davis is heartbreaking and Amy Adams reliably good as the troubled young woman caught in the middle. I suspect that Shanley, with theater acting in mind, encouraged his cast, Hoffman and Streep in particular, to aim for the rafters, but the fireworks are certainly good ones.
Unfortunately, apart from getting those performances, Shanley is a much better writer than he is a director. The quiet and realistic feel of many simple scenes in the parish and convent were well-done. But a really experienced and visually-oriented director could have done a lot more with the story, say, for instance, Norman Jewison, who directed Shanley’s script for Moonstruck. There were attempts to hold the story together with meaningful images, but for the most part they just stuck out and called attention to themselves in the wrong way. The visual motifs of the wind and the light bulb constantly popping just came across and bizarre (not to mention the weird camera angles).
But there was one quite beautiful scene that really made the theme of faith and doubt resonate for me. It was the one where the sisters all come out of their rooms for morning prayer, and Sister James takes the half-blind old nun’s hand to lead her down the dark hall — only she really can’t see that well herself. This was in contrast to the previous scene where Sister James was sitting bathed in the morning sunlight in her room. Things are clear and bright and then they are not - and our leaders may find it as difficult to see as we do. But the flip side of doubt is faith, after all, and this scene seemed to encompass both. That is the image from the film that will last longest for me.
Filed under: Film | |No Comments
« Previous Entries||Next Entries »
