Mulier in Aqua

In the self-obsessed kingdom of Hollywood, no filmmaker has drawn more attention so quickly than a 36-year old East Indian director named M. Night Shyamalan. In a short five years he wrote and directed four films, which grossed a combined total of more than $700 million in North America alone. Each of these films explored the supernatural - first ghosts, then comic-book heroes, then aliens. His latest, "Lady in the Water," promised more of the same - it has been marketed as a bed-time horror-story - but early screenings had critics panning the movie as being too unconventional for its own good. I'm inclined to agree.

To be fair, M. Night Shyamalan is a master at the craft. He has the ability to mix the thrilling and touching, the emotional with a sense of dread; and "Lady in the Water" is no different. Unfortunately, the film presented difficulties to the viewer that his previous movies did not. We are asked to believe in the supernatural, as we are in his other films; but whereas the average person believes in ghosts, a la The Sixth Sense, aliens like in Signs, and people with extraordinary gifts such as in Unbreakable, being asked to believe in the Friendly Green Giant or Mickey Mouse is very different.

In this case, the supernatural beings in question are narves, a kind of mermaid without fins and slightly blue skin around the eyes. Oh, and very bland expressions. In fact, no expression at all, not even when being chased by a scrunt, the villain in the story. Scrunts are shadowy, camouflauged creatures that move like the monsters from "Brotherhood of the Wolf." According to legend, a scrunt can only harm narves when they are out of the water: "there are rules," we are told. A set of three demi-gods act as the lawmakers, and only fear of these creatures keep the scrunts at bay.

A somewhat confusing opening animation, drawn as though for a children's book, roughly explains the back story: the narves are water dwellers who lived in harmony with men until man's materialism took him inland and eventually to war against his fellow man. The narves send their young maidens to contact man, but "man does not listen." Meanwhile scrunts hunt down and kill many of the mermaids.

If you're kind of lost, you realize what the viewer is up against. It doesn't help that twenty minutes of useless, drizzling dialogue commences following the meeting of our main characters, Story (Bryce Dallas Howard), and Mr. Heep (Paul Giamatti.)

As we eventually learn, Story is a narf sent to Paul Giamatti's pool. She must seek for a writer (played my Shyamalan himself, in his best cameo yet) whom she will inspire to write a book that will change the course of history.

Giamatti is good as a stuttering, nervous superintendant who helps Story fulfill her mission. Howard, on the other hand, has nothing to do. She is bland, undeveloped as a character, and spends most of the movie huddling in a shower stall.

Then there's Shyamalan himself. His acting is very good - he actually looks like a movie star. Unfortuantely, his role displays the same egotism that was prevalent in Signs and The Village - the filmmaker's character in this movie is the real hero, the one who will change history, (according to Story's prophecy), just as in Signs his character was the reason for the chain reaction that brought the film to its conclusion; and in The Village he represented the one with the control to keep his fellow movie characters locked in their medieval soceity. It's an interesting commentary on the filmmaker's ability to "create" and rule the lives in his films. I see it as egotism, and a childish obsession to control, like Neitzsche's Will to Power.

Storyline aside, there's some genuinely good humor (another Shyamalan trademark) concerning quirky characters. First there is the ill-humored film reviewer; then, the man who works out only one side of his body; then the Chinese student and her mother. Some of the best comedic moments revolve around Giamatti's relationship to the older Chinese lady.

Unfortunately, the good acting and periodic comedy is not enough to save the story. It is made as a bed-time story - we know that it will all work out in the end, we know that the main characters must survive, we know that justice will be done. Indeed, the film ends like a Greek comedy, with the gods coming down from the sky to right wrongs and save the day, which is all fine and dandy until you consider that THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE. It is not marketed towards children, despite the theme; it does not contain cute and cuddly protagonists, and contains internal and external conflicts that have no place in an under-13 movie. It is meant to be entertaining and original. Unfortunately, entertaining it is not. Shyamalan uses long, drawn-out takes with little audio, which worked well in The Sixth Sense, but which just bores us here. Asked if he could figure out a puzzle, the film reviewer responds, "There's no originality anymore,"every story is a regurgitation or re-imagining of a previous regurgitation of a novel idea that had been dreampt up 1500 years earlier. The critic claims to be able to figure out the puzzle, and even though he is wrong, we have already stopped caring.

The film slowly unveils the legend, piece by piece as recounted by the Chinese lady. It allows for some red herrings and more comedic moments, but it also causes the film to drag. The more Heep learns, the more people he draws to himself, and the more unbelievable the film becomes. Never mind the legend - it is incredulous to think that Heep could convince anybody that his story was true, much less the fifteen or twenty people he recruits to help him.

Again, many of Shyamalan's films contain the theme of "purpose." The characters in the films all are part of a larger plan, and their quirks are part of their purposes. The theme reoccurs in "Lady in the Water," but the problem is that we've seen it all before - and done much better - in "Signs." The characters are more believable, the conflicts more interesting, and personal dynamics more engaging in Signs than in Shyamalan's latest offering. The most important scene - invoking a Christian image, as Story is "resurrected" - sees Giamatti let go of his bottled-up anger at himself and ask forgiveness of the people he harmed by his neglect. The "energy" he releases allows the dying Story to be healed at the moment of death. (At this point in the movie, I leaned over to the guy I went with, his hands clutched as though in prayer, and asked, "is this a religious experience for you?" Unfortunately, although that was the point, it failed miserably.)

"Some stories are real!" one character desperately says. Then again, some are not, and this is a story that should never have been told. Stay away from the supernatural, Shyamalan, and bring "Life of Pi" to birth.

Top Ten Signs that this TV station is Catholic

Hmmm... Let's start with the lifesize paintings of Saints - young Saints - as you enter through the door. How about the poster of "the Passion of the Christ" on the wall? Or the computer-generated image of the facade of St. Peter's Basilica that hangs over my computer?

Stoll along the bookshelves, and instead of books you'll find tapes labelled, "WYD2000"; "Papal Funeral Mass;" and "Molla Family interviews".

How about the fact that there is a rather large - comparitively speaking - chapel built right in the middle of the station?

Or photos of JP2 with most of my co-workers?

Or that the CEO is a priest?

There's also all of the World Youth Day paraphernilia. And at least 3 icons of Christos Pantokrator in various places. And very old sheets, behind glass, of Gregorian Chant displayed on the walls.

And that's just the beginning.

Welcome to Salt and Light TV. Available on Bell Express-Vu and Rogers digital cable. We need to work on Shaw cable so that we can be displayed in the Western provinces. They consider us Catholics a "sect" and, I guess, too brainwashed to be exposed to the general public. Never mind that 45% of Canada is nominally Catholic.

Well, I've been here nearly three days now. I've got my feet wet in a few departments - marketing, production, post-production. Today I transcripted a "Catholic Focus" episode called "Pro-Life Toolkit," featuring (to my pleasant surprise) a certain young woman named Stephanie who is very actively involved with Pro-Life work. The "Catholic Focus" series has become the signature piece for this TV station, and the transcription work had to be done because an American TV station (not EWTN) wants to broadcast them and they require closed-captioning.

So that's the start of my work. I hope to update again soon.

God Bless,
Dave

2 TV movies about Pope John Paul 2

In the months following the death of John Paul, television studios rushed to be the first to produce a film about his life. There was also the inflated hype over a bio-pic by Mel Gibson, after rumors were circulated that he had sent a crew to film the funeral.

The first film to be completed was actually an Italian movie, produced by Taudue Films, entitled "Karol: a Man who became Pope." Directed by Giacomo Battiato, it told the story of Karol Wojtyla's younger years under Nazi occupation, then as a priest and bishop. The film ends with his election to the papacy, actually using TV footage of the real pope's speech to the people of Rome. The movie had been started before his death, and completed shortly after.

The second TV movie I came across was a film, simply titled "Pope John Paul II,"(available on DVD from CBS, $50) starring Jon Voight and Cary Elwes (as the older and younger Wojtyla, respectively.) This film spanned his entire life, starting at roughly the same time period as "Karol."

Following the death of John Paul, the makers of "Karol" decided to complete the story and film his papacy, in a movie called "Karol: the Pope, the Man."(The complete miniseries is available in Canada on DVD August 4th for about $30.) Taking up where the previous film left off, it documents his struggle against communism (he visited Poland twice before its collapse, and once immediately after,) as well as pivotal moments of his papacy (such as the assassination attempt.) The film also documents several other prominent Catholics and their relations with John Paul, including Archbishop Oscar Romero, Polish priest and martyr Jerzy Popieluszko, and Mother Teresa, in subplots intertwined with the main story.

The "Karol" miniseries is undoubtably the finer of the two films. Perhaps its greatest strength is the believability of Piotr Adamczyk, a 34-year-old Polish actor who carries the role of Pope John Paul to perfection. Unlike the "other" film, this one actor (who presumably didn't expect to make an entire second film under old-age makeup) makes Karol endearing, courageous, funny - he simply brings to life this Pope we all had a connection with. You feel you've known the guy your whole life.

Where the Voight film supercedes "Karol" is in its attention to historical details. For instance, the writers of "Karol" found it necessary to invent a main character, one Father Tomasz Zaleski, who I think is a composite character. In the words of George Weigel, he was "a complete invention;" also doctored were details surrounding his close friend Hania, as well as a Jewish childhood friend (this film seems to confuse Jerzy Kluger with Roman, another Jew who meets Karol in Rome after two decades apart.) But in the greater scheme of things, this is all nitpicking.

Both films take a positive view of John Paul and his papacy; neither tries to take potshots at him for his socially "conservative" views - the heads at CBS must have really had to hold their noses greenlighting the script - and nobody tried to put words in his mouth about this or that. Interesting in both films is John Paul's battle against abortion - in "Karol" he is confronted by a (Canadian, of course) woman who wants the church to liberalize its stance on contraception to help AIDS sufferers; his response is both encouraging and paternal, explaining the Church's position in a compassionate manner but without any wishy-washiness; in "Pope John Paul," the film's response is a short excerpt from "Letter to Women," showing his love and concern for the dignity of women and how respect for life and motherhood is ultimately wrapped up with a genuine respect for women.

Also of note is the films' treatment of Cardinal Ratzinger. In "John Paul," Ratzinger's appointment as head of the CDF is explained as a help to "bringing the Church into the new millenium of peace and love" (I cringed at the line, but it's a very interesting comment on the filmmakers' view of the CDF.) Ratzinger (played for some reason by a Polish actor, but who looks impeccably like Pope Benedict) is by John Paul's side for the remainder of the movie, and is never portayed as anything less than a well- respected Cardinal.
That was "John Paul." For some reason, "karol" doesn't mention him at all. Whether this is a comment on his character, or because the film cannot cram much more into its 3-hour run time, I don't know- but even a simple mention of Ratzinger could have been possible without needing much explanation, especially considering their close friendship. The only time we see him is during a wordless montage of real footage from JP2's funeral.

Both films are worth watching. Indeed, perhaps the best reason to watch them is for the acting. Christopher Lee plays the role of Cardinal Wyzynski in "John Paul II"; his work is rivalled by the actor from "Karol" in the same role. James Cromwell plays a memorable Cardinal Sapieha (a character not mentioned in "karol") and Voight is nearly as good as Piotr Adamczyk in the role of John Paul II. Another fine performance is that of Hristo Shopov, an unfamiliar name but very familiar face -- he played Pilate in The Passion of the Christ. In "Karol," he portrays Julian Kordek, the communist who harasses Cardinals Wyzynski and Wojtyla, and the only man who knew the potential of "the proletariat priest who lacks organizational and leadership skills."

In short - if you haven't already - I encourage you to watch the films. Thumbs up especially for "Karol."

And to Mel Gibson: we're waiting for that movie!

WYD SYD 2008

If you're interested in World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney, I encourage you to check out their official website. And for extra reading, the "ePilgrimage" newsletter is chock full of information, including what's happening in Australia to prepare, a testimony by a young WYD veteran, info on St. Edith Stein (the patron saint of WYD SYD 08) and excerpts from Fides et Ratio. You can also sign up to receive it by email.

Reflections on the Communion of Saints

Before thinking about reviving this site, I spent a bit of time reading other Catholic blogs. What really got me thinking was the connection I felt with such bloggers as Fr. Stephanos and The Anchoress, Fr. Tim, and American Papist, who I've never met nor communicated with (but who know me through a video of mine, posted online here), and Dilexitprior (who I know personally, and to whom I owe profound thanks for the proliferation of the aforementioned video.) There's something great about knowing that a person halfway around the world shares your beliefs and world vision, and yet is comfortable in his/her individuality (as opposed to the scourge of individualism) even as a Catholic.
I remember, during WYD 2005 in the week before the Cologne activities, we were in Munich, where a good 10,000 WYD-goers were staying. During a late night, while my buddies were off at a beer hall, I wandered around Marienplatz, the center square of downtown Munich, where a number of Catholics had congregated and milled about, each group doing its own thing. I felt the same connection there, chatting with a bunch of French pilgrims (trying vainly to speak in my poor Quebec French; they didn't understand, either way!); I had the same feeling when surrounded by Catholics on the metro system in Cologne. At any rate, a street comedian a few blocks away did his impression of "Those Catholics at Marienplatz": when alone, he implied, they cringed like cowards, but together... and he *almost* did the Goose Step.

The irony. He must not have known any Catholics. Or any knowledge of history - the unrevised kind, that is. But of course, there's a grain of truth to what he said -- the oft-used cliche of "together we stand, divided...we fall" and that togetherness is what I seem to draw from my fellow Catholic bloggers.

Which brings us to the Communion of Saints. As I understand the doctrine, the Communion of Saints refers to all baptized members of the Christian family ,who share a special connection as members of the Body of Christ, the Church -- a connection strengthened to each other and to Christ by partaking in the Body of Christ, the Eucharist. Of course, this connection cannot be destroyed by death, since we have both the hope of the resurrection of the body, and the belief in the immortal soul at rest in God (and "alive in Christ.") As such, just as we ask those around us to intercede with Christ for us through their prayers, so we ask the Saints in heaven (whose prayers are so much more potent, as it were, since the "prayer of the righteous man is powerful indeed" (James 5)) to pray for us.

And we, in turn, pray that the candidates for Sainthood may be canonized.

Please pray for Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati, Bl. Kateri Tekatwitha, Bl. Mother Theresa, and the Servants of God John Paul II, Pius XII, and George Vanier.

God Bless,
Dave

Back again - 2 years less a month later.

I first started this blog in August 2004, as a way to connect with my seminary friends. Unfortunately, that never happened. My first and last blog post (up to now) consisted of:

"This is my first post, so I'll keep it short."

Hardy-har-har.

At any rate, I hope to keep this blog alive and well. I'll be travelling to Toronto in 3 weeks to start an internship at Salt and Light TV, and I will *try* to document my time there.

Anyway, God Bless the Catholic blogging community and I hope to get back to you soon.