I worried yesterday when I posted about film that my colleagues at MOJ would think, Why is he taking up space here with something so bereft of relevance to "Catholic legal theory"? So imagine my surprise and delight as I've discovered over the course of today the posts by Elizabeth, Patrick, and Bob. I read Mr. Blue oh so many years ago--and was captured by it. (Think of, in addition to Dostoevsky's The Idiot, Shusaku Endo's Wonderful Fool.) And I am an ardent fan both of Mike Leigh's films and, thanks to Happy-Go-Lucky, of Sally Hawkins. Ms. Hawkins has a brief cameo--no more than a minute or so--in this year's much discussed An Education. Seeing her for that moment reminded me of her brilliant performance--like Mo'Nique's in Precious, a flawless performance--in Happy-Go-Lucky.
Monday, December 21, 2009
What a relief!
Mr. Blue, Prince Myshkin, Brother Karamazov, St. Francis, Sally Hawkins, and Us
Thanks very much to Elizabeth, Michael, and Patrick for their holiday film and book recommendations. It occurs to me that I've been of a mind to recommend something contemporary in this connection too -- thought I might be a bit (characteristically) late: The Mike Leigh film, 'Happy Go Lucky,' which I viewed about this time last year (so maybe it almost counts?) was just an utterly beautiful film. Doubtless you all know the story by now. An (at first) apparently ditzy, irritatingly happy person sort of waltzes and bops through a couple of weeks of her life, at first annoying most of those she meets but inexorably winning just about all of them over in time with her all round cheerfulness and deep, patient kindness. You're at first tempted to think her a bit 'thick,' as the English might put it, or relentlessly superficial -- and 'happy' for that reason alone. But in the most wonderfully subtle ways, Leigh makes you gradually come to realize just how very deep and decent this young woman is -- so much so as to leave you feeling almost guilty and inadequate in comparison, all while determined to be this decent yourself. In particular, any time that Mr. Leigh focuses upon Ms. Hawkins's face, as she gazes intently and silently through a window, or into the face of a child or a homeless man, you just about shiver with awe at the sheer mystery and love and ... I don't know, indescribably facticity of this in the end inexplicable, just blessed soul. In a way, I think Mr. Leigh provides a very nice contemporary version of a wonderful and long-familiar archetype -- that of the 'jongleur de Dieu,' or perhaps 'Holy Fool.' I've often thought that what's demanded of me as an unjustifiably fortunate fellow is to move steadily from being a sort of Ivan Karamazov, as I was when quite young, to being a sort of Alyosha Karamazov (perhaps somehow both at once?) -- or maybe equivalently a Prince Myshkin or St. Francis or ... now, thanks to Patrick ... Mr. Blue. Ms. Hawkins's fantastic example in 'Happy Go Lucky' provides one more roadmap of how to get there. (Please watch especially carefully the scene with the homeless gentleman under the overpass -- it will give you shivers it's so beautiful!)
Thanks again!,
Bob
Mr. Blue
Michael P.'s and Lisa's welcome discussion of movies and culture reminds me of something I've been meaning to mention here since Bob Hockett introduced, maybe two months ago now (I haven't looked back), the issue of spiritualities such as the Franciscan, Ignatian, Carmelite, etc. The thing I would like to mention is Mr. Blue, a short and wonderfully rich book by Myles Connolly. Maybe lots of folks already know about this book, but it was new to me when I discovered it on the shelf of a very fine Christian book store. Originally published in 1928, it's now out in a fresh edition that begins with a preface by John Breslin SJ, which includes this: "Blue . . . was a uniquely American personality. As Myles Connolly wrote him, J. Blue was the man whom the ambitious Jay Gatsby might have become had he steered by a higher truth than the sound of money in Daisy Buchanan's voice." Blue is a contemporary St. Francis figure. When he inherits a fortune, "he exchanged money for everything possible. He exchanged it with the poor for their delight. He exchanged it with the helpless for lighter hearts. I thought at one time he was setting a bad example for other plutocrats. But the fear was unfounded. Nobody imitated him." (p. 9) There is reason to believe that Connolly wrote Mr. Blue after reading Chesterton's life of St. Francis. Anyway, it's a delightful picture of what it might look like to take Christianity seriously, in the Franciscan way, in the modern world.
Thanks to Michael Perry (and Steve Shiffrin and possibly Paul Krugman)
Hi Michael and Other Friends,
Just a quick thanks to Michael for the references to Krugman. I'd actually not seen these yet but will look for them today. I might note as well in this connection that I had a nice chat with our friend Steve Shiffrin yesterday after mass, during which he admonished me that I, like Howard Dean (a flattering comparison indeed!), might be letting my idealism get the better of me in expressing the frustration I was then expressing about what the health insurance reform legislation is becoming. I've since cooled my heals a bit and am trying to be as calm and sensible as possible -- which is rather more than I've been, though quite possibly still rather less than I ought!
All best and more soon,
Bob
A response to Bob Hockett
Let me hasten to add that this comment does not address the questions Bob has posed to Rick Garnett. While Rick is drafting his response to Bob--which I, like other MOJ readers, eagerly await--I want to note that Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist and Nobel laureate, addressed Bob's wavering support for the current version of the Senate's bill, in his NYT column this past Friday. Bob, no doubt, has read the column. (I wonder what Bob thinks about Krugman's argument.) I'm posting because I thought other MOJers might like a link to the column, here.
This morning, Krugman begins another, related column with these words: "Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward." The rest of the column is here.
Thanks so much, Elizabeth , ...
... for picking up on my "respite from political-moral controversy" post.
As between Precious and The Hurt Locker, there is clearly room for a reasonable difference in judgments about which film merits the Oscar (not that I'm holding my breath for Hollywood to be that discerning). Elizabeth's succinct comment about Precious captures wonderfully, I think, what is best about the film. I suspect Elizabeth agrees that Mo'Nique's performance as Precious's mother is flawless.
(Some film trivia: Elizabeth mentions the fact that a woman--her name is Katherine Bigelow--directed The Hurt Locker. Elizabeth also mentions James Cameron's Avatar. Bigelow is a protege (and former wife) of James Cameron. I haven't seen Avatar yet, but based on what I've read, I expect my reaction to be substantially the same as Elizabeth's.)
Contemporary American (Film) Culture, cont'd
If Michael is inviting us to engage in movie ratings, I feel compelled to contribute. I have a 16-year-old son who is a somewhat rabid movie fan and we take the film awards season very, very seriously around my household. Between my older son who needs someone to drive him to & get him into R-rated art films, and my youngest daughter needs someone to drive her & sit with her through movies like the Hannah Montana 3-D Concert and Beverly Hills Chihuahua, I see a LOT of movies. Plus, I love movies.
I agree with Michael that both craft and content being equally important in judging films. I just saw Avatar yesterday. That's an example of a film where the brilliance of the craft does not elevate the film to "great" status, because of lack of content. It was a visually stunning movie; the CGI and subtle 3D effects were simply dazzling. The movie transported you to another world for a couple of hours -- well worth the ticket price. BUT, the story was basically Disney's Pocahontas meets Peter Jackson's The Return of the King. I found myself wanting to leave the movie early (it's way too long) to get home & watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy again.
I also agree with Michael about The Hurt Locker and Precious being two of the best films of the year. But I'd switch the order. I agree that The Hurt Locker was masterful in both craft and content. (As an aside, it's one of the few war movies directed by a woman. It did not have a single element of conciously portraying any sort of "woman's perspective" on the war. I couldn't help but wonder, though, if that untraditional gender perspective might have given the movie some of the complexity and depth that gave the film its resonance. I'm not trying to say anything like "women are more complex and deeper than men", but rather that the different perspective on such a familiar topic might have changed the focus just enough to engage the viewer more intensely.)
But Precious beats out The Hurt Locker, for me, hands down. That film was one of the most profound artistic presentations of the complexity of the human condition that I have ever seen. The characters in that movie displayed almost every type of behavior you could imagine on the spectrum of evil. The unflinching acting behind those portrayals of evil was truly award-worthy. But the message of that movie was one of the dignity of each and every human being. The most powerful force in that story, more powerful than evil, was the power of love -- most particularly the love that a mother had for two children who came into the world under indisputably tragic circumstances. I think that a movie that can take the viewer through an emotional journal through despair at Precious' circumstances, to the horror of how evil people could be, to end up with a feeling of hope and love, is a great movie.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
On rationing in the new federal health plan
Private plans may "ration" care in the interests of profits without seeming to judge who is more worthy to live. But when the political community rations care it appears to make invidious distinctions.
For example, if a private plan charges a higher premium to include cardiac care for those over 65, those having to pay the higher premium will be unhappy but will probably understand that this is just a business judgment that young people have fewer heart problems and does not reflect any notion that older folks are less worthy to live.
By contrast, if the political community (in a government-supervised insurance plan) charges the old more than the young for the same benefit, this may well seem unfair and in fact may become a precedent for further unequal treatments of different ages.
In general, we rightly hold the body politic to different and higher standards, compared to private companies -- not only re health insurance but, e.g., re private vs. state action that discriminates on the basis of religion.
Another possible effect of federally funding abortion
The Left should be concerned about the real-world human freedom and equality rather than the nominal equivalents traditionally favored by the Right. (For example, the Right has long been for equal legal freedoms to work, go to school, etc. while ignoring de facto differences in power and wealth that make for unequal outcomes.)
Making abortion financially nearly costless through federal subsidies (as Reid-Nelson may well do, except in those states that refuse the federal funds) appears at first to make women more free, but in fact it empowers those men who control their female sexual partners (especially among the poor). Ordinary abortion is not expensive, but the decision to spend any money at all is a real-world point of deliberation and negotiation. As the cost of an abortion is reduced almost to zero, some women will lose a last locus of possible resistance to their exploiters: "Just you get on down to that clinic, sweetheart. It's free."
The Left should also be concerned about another real-world result (and, for some, purpose) of federal abortion funding: the decimation of minority races. (Shades of the documentary "Maafa21"...)
A brief respite from political-moral controversy: Contemporary American (film) culture
Last summer, here at MOJ, I unburdened myself of the judgment that The Hurt Locker was, at the time (June), the best film of the year. This afternoon, my wife Sarah and our older child Daniel (who is 20) went to see the much ballyhooed Up in the Air, with George Clooney. A very enjoyable movie. But The Hurt Locker remains, hands down, the best film of the year. IMHO. (With Precious in second place.) There are--or should be--two sine qua nons in judging the best film--or, better, best films--of the year: (1) content and (2) craft (which includes acting). How can a film, qua film, be admirable, much less great, if its craft is poor ... even if its content is terrific? Or if its content is poor ... even if its craft is terrific? Both the craft and the content of The Hurt Locker are, in a word, superb. I've seen The Hurt Locker twice--and I want to see it again. If you are a cinephile, what do *you* think. If, however, you are indifferent to film--or, worse, a cinephobe--well, condolences!
One of the truly embarassing moments in the cultural history of the American Catholic Church occurred in 1965, when the Legion of Decency (!) rated the powerful, morally compelling film The Pawnbroker "condemned". And why "condemned"? Because the film was the first mainstream American film to show female breasts. OMG! (The scene in which this happened was one of the most powerful in the film--and, for what it's worth, completely non-erotic.)
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
