What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Fading Fast]

...It's not a question of pro-or-anti Christianity (and I consider Christianity and religion to be two separate things) as it is the personal dilemma of just how much you owe to a high-control belief system when it begins to teach things that contradict what you consider the basic tenets of that system. This sort of thing could happen, and does happen, in any kind of belief system, whether religious or secular.....

Spot on, which is why I'm not a "group" or "joiner" person. I have my beliefs and I do adapt and, even, change them as facts and experience dictate, but based on my experiences and beliefs and not on some organization's. The more powerful the organization, the smaller each individual in it becomes.

...As far as the treatment of Christianity in films goes, what bugs me is the conflation of "Christianity" with hard-line evangelical fundamentalism, not just in films but in all popular culture. There are many, many Christians in the world who reject hard-line Bible-thumping fundamentalist beliefs, but you rarely see them anywhere in pop culture. Just once I'd like to see a movie featuring left-wing Social Creed-teaching grape-juice Methodists. At least the Catholics get represented once in a while.

Agreed again and I think the conflating is done to blur the image of Christianity in the publics mind in as unfavorable way as possible. Also, my guess, the only reason Catholics get represented is so that they can be specifically clubbed over the head. The Catholic Church has many sins to answer for - fine, show that in movies. But the Church has also done much good throughout the world and helped many people - where are those mainstream or "artsy" or "independent" movies?

 

[Fading Fast]

Watching "A Foreign Affair" in the background, a movie I've seen many times.

• Great B&W cinematography
• Jean Arthur (1) has a fantastic voice, (2) looks at least ten years younger than she is and doesn't look fake or plastic and (3) needed this to be a pre-code movie as they made her character unnaturally weak

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think it's less an intentional effort to portray "Christianity" as unfavorably as possible as it is a lack of awareness of what Christianity actually is. For a lot of people born since the end of WWII the fundie stuff is the only "Christianity" they know about -- even though the sort of fundamentalist evangelicalism that's common today didn't exist a hundred years ago, let alone in Christ's time. It was manufactured in the years after the war by the NAM, the Religion In American Life Campaign, and certain compliant celebrity clergymen for a particular purpose, and the Boys, as always, did their level best to make their particular brand dominant in the market.

Another factor might be that a lot of people who make films about religious subjects have come out of high-control religious backgrounds themselves, and may well be motivated to view such situations in a negative manner given their personal experiences. "Exposes" always sell better than apologetics. And at the same time, people who stay in high-control religions tend to view moviemaking as an inappropriate "worldly" occupation unsuited to someone who holds their beliefs. There are exceptions to this -- I have a friend who got a degree in film from Bob Jones University -- but generally speaking such faiths frown on members seeking a career in Hollywood.

As for Catholics on film, one should consider that thruout the Era, "freedom of the screen" did not exist: Hollywood was under direct and total censorship by Catholic ecclesiastical authorites acting thru the Breen Office -- Joseph Ignatius Breen himself was a hard-line Catholic layman whose decisions were made in full consultation with high-ranking prelates connected to the Legion of Decency. It wasn't until after Breen's retirement that movies began to offer a less favorable view of The Church, and you could argue that much of that was a direct reaction to so many years of strict ecclesiastical control of filmmakers.

 

[belfastboy]

It's hard to describe -- the Mother is very difficult to sympathize with on one level, coming across as a cold-blooded reactionary refusing to accept that the Church is moving with the times but on the other hand you get a sense of her as a woman whose marriage is falling apart thru factors beyond her control -- only instead of being married to a person, she's married to her beliefs.

The story of the young nun really seemed secondary to this -- it's your usual "vow in haste, repent at leisure" convent story where she finds that her own inner urges are more powerful than the forces that drove her into the cloistered life, blah blah blah sex scene blah blah blah, and I found that story far less interesting than the Mother's storyline. She does not accept the Vatican II reforms at all because that's not the Church she signed up for -- but at the same time she's obligated by her position to accept and teach those reforms whether she wants to accept them or not. It's not a question of pro-or-anti Christianity (and I consider Christianity and religion to be two separate things) as it is the personal dilemma of just how much you owe to a high-control belief system when it begins to teach things that contradict what you consider the basic tenets of that system. This sort of thing could happen, and does happen, in any kind of belief system, whether religious or secular.

This could be a really heavy-handed story with a lesser actress in the role, but Melissa Leo is one of the best in the business right now, and she absolutely nails the undertones required to make it work.

As far as the treatment of Christianity in films goes, what bugs me is the conflation of "Christianity" with hard-line evangelical fundamentalism, not just in films but in all popular culture. There are many, many Christians in the world who reject hard-line Bible-thumping fundamentalist beliefs, but you rarely see them anywhere in pop culture. Just once I'd like to see a movie featuring left-wing Social Creed-teaching grape-juice Methodists. At least the Catholics get represented once in a while.

Yes, mainstream culture always goes after the "easy" target, especially regarding religion, they are not inclined or equipped to tackle a more nuanced discussion. "Religulous" was treated in the media as a comic overview of religion in America while in reality the smug maker chose only the easy and most extreme examples of belief. The better to bolster his smugness. They never tackle the intellectual Catholicism of Teilhard or the heart of Morton.

 

[ChiTownScion]

They never tackle the intellectual Catholicism of Teilhard or the heart of Morton.

Likely because even most adult Catholics have never even heard of them. A nun whacking a nine year old in the back of the head or across the hand with a metal ruler rings a lot more bells - many in the PTSD category- for those of who have survived a parochial school experience in the late Fifties/ early Sixties. Or our friends and spouses who have heard the stories.

The church changed dramatically in the 60's and 70's, and it was about more than changing the liturgy from the Latin (and Greek) to the vernacular. One of their more positive changes was encouraging their nuns to pursue a higher education. The result now is that, at least in the US, very few female members of the religious orders are teaching grade school in parish schools. I've encountered at least four of them who are now practicing law, and my wife has met a few who are advance practice nurses. By encouraging employment in the outside world, these female religious orders have redefined the meaning of community. I certainly think that the stories of the Magdalene were worth telling, but like you said, the history of the church in the 20th Century isn't entirely negative

Myself, I'd be satisfied if once- JUST ONCE- someone in the industry got it right when trying to dramatize James T. Farrell's Studs Lonegan trilogy on the screen, big or small. I've run across a few other fans of Farrell who regard it as the great American novel. Not sure about that, but it could make for an interesting film if done right.

 

[belfastboy]

View attachment 98288

Likely because even most adult Catholics have never even heard of them. A nun whacking a nine year old in the back of the head or across the hand with a metal ruler rings a lot more bells - many in the PTSD category- for those of who have survived a parochial school experience in the late Fifties/ early Sixties. Or our friends and spouses who have heard the stories.

The church changed dramatically in the 60's and 70's, and it was about more than changing the liturgy from the Latin (and Greek) to the vernacular. One of their more positive changes was encouraging their nuns to pursue a higher education. The result now is that, at least in the US, very few female members of the religious orders are teaching grade school in parish schools. I've encountered at least four of them who are now practicing law, and my wife has met a few who are advance practice nurses. By encouraging employment in the outside world, these female religious orders have redefined the meaning of community. I certainly think that the stories of the Magdalene were worth telling, but like you said, the history of the church in the 20th Century isn't entirely negative

Myself, I'd be satisfied if once- JUST ONCE- someone in the industry got it right when trying to dramatize James T. Farrell's Studs Lonegan trilogy on the screen, big or small. I've run across a few other fans of Farrell who regard it as the great American novel. Not sure about that, but it could make for an interesting film if done right.

Yes, that Studs Lonergan is on my list to re read.

 

[belfastboy]

Spot on, which is why I'm not a "group" or "joiner" person. I have my beliefs and I do adapt and, even, change them as facts and experience dictate, but based on my experiences and beliefs and not on some organization's. The more powerful the organization, the smaller each individual in it becomes.



Agreed again and I think the conflating is done to blur the image of Christianity in the publics mind in as unfavorable way as possible. Also, my guess, the only reason Catholics get represented is so that they can be specifically clubbed over the head. The Catholic Church has many sins to answer for - fine, show that in movies. But the Church has also done much good throughout the world and helped many people - where are those mainstream or "artsy" or "independent" movies?

I am a Protestant both by birth and inclination but I do give props to the Catholic church. If the Council of Nicaea and what grew to become the Catholic Church had not institutionalized, codified the teachings I suspect the life and work of Jesus would have faded from view many centuries ago and he would be but one of the many, now obscure, prophets, preachers, holy men seen throughout history.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm of the sort that thinks Christianity started to go awry when Paul got involved, but history is history. Seldom does any movement survive its founder without drastic alterations.

That said, a movie about the life and adventures of Paul would be compelling entertainment, especially if it was told from the Roman point of view. Just who is this strange, disruptive radical character who claims to be a Roman or a Pharisee when it suits him, and who seems to be a loose cannon even among his fellow believers, and what must be done about him? Before Christianity was the thing of councils and ecclesiastics, it was a radical, subversive outsider movement appealing almost exclusively to the underclass. Let's see that Christianity for a change.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I'm of the sort that thinks Christianity started to go awry when Paul got involved, but history is history. Seldom does any movement survive its founder without drastic alterations.

That said, a movie about the life and adventures of Paul would be compelling entertainment, especially if it was told from the Roman point of view. Just who is this strange, disruptive radical character who claims to be a Roman or a Pharisee when it suits him, and who seems to be a loose cannon even among his fellow believers, and what must be done about him? Before Christianity was the thing of councils and ecclesiastics, it was a radical, subversive outsider movement appealing almost exclusively to the underclass. Let's see that Christianity for a change.

Divining what it originally was has become the obsession of many over the centuries (the Campbellites, the Plymouth Brethren and others in the Nineteenth Century alone) and often with vastly different results. The Ante- Nicene Fathers are all over the map on a lot of theological points, and documentation of what transpired in that very first century of it isn't exactly documented in the best of methods for determining details. Call me a cynic but believing that there was ever any stage of it where vested pecuniary interest didn't dwarf everything else is a stretch.

 

[belfastboy]

Divining what it originally was has become the obsession of many over the centuries (the Campbellites, the Plymouth Brethren and others in the Nineteenth Century alone) and often with vastly different results. The Ante- Nicene Fathers are all over the map on a lot of theological points, and documentation of what transpired in that very first century of it isn't exactly documented in the best of methods for determining details. Call me a cynic but believing that there was ever any stage of it where vested pecuniary interest didn't dwarf everything else is a stretch.

I don't disagree with anything you state including the pecuniary aspect. I am of the "follow the money" cynics. In spite of motivations I still maintain without that institutionalizing/codifying what we have come to know as Christianity may have fallen by the wayside and only be known, if at all, as some obscure religious sect long since past into history. Regardless of what I think of them liturgically I do give them props as without them I may not have my brand of Christianity from which to choose. After all, Mr Luther had to have something against which to rebel.

 

[Benny Holiday]

Sha'ul of Tarsus would be a fascinating person to be depicted in film. A fanatical expert in Jewish law who persecuted the then new sect of followers of Yeshua ("Jesus") of Nazareth, only later to bring his intellectual briliance and zeal for upholding the Torah to preaching Yeshua as the Messiah in foreign lands - all after seeing a vision of Yeshua en route to arrest some of His followers in Damascus. No matter what troubles, persecutions and mishaps befell him, the man who changed his name to Paul refused to waver in his work until he was finally exiled to Patmos. He even took on the other apostles, even Peter, when he thought they were wrong in their stance. Everything Luther learned of salvation by grace he learned from Paul's letters to the Roman and Galatian believers. He's a compelling character for the depth of his commitment and determination to grow a movement he originally despised.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I'm of the sort that thinks Christianity started to go awry when Paul got involved, but history is history. Seldom does any movement survive its founder without drastic alterations.

Before Christianity was the thing of councils and ecclesiastics, it was a radical, subversive outsider movement appealing almost exclusively to the underclass. Let's see that Christianity for a change.

Amen to that - possibly the most generous perspective one can take on this fraught subject.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Pulling this thread back... Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I was pretty disappointed with it after the universal rave reviews, many calling it the best SW film since Empire. Sure, it ticked off every box for "Star Wars film", but it's too long, and it sacrifices character- and story-building moments every step of the way for spectacle. It feints towards interesting developments with Rey and Kilo/Ben... then retreats to the usual Dark Side seduction and Rebels/Resistance on the run schtick. Nearly every interesting question that's raised (like Rey's parents, why Ben turned, etc.)... is sidestepped. A nice performance by Mark Hamill, though.

As many missteps as Lucas made with the prequel trilogy, I give him credit for wanting to show aspects of the SW universe that hadn't been explored, and being interested in the politics of how republics fall through malfeasance and deceit. These new Disneyfied Star Wars movies are only interested in replicating the action and story beats of the earlier films, in very simplistic THESE GUYS ARE GOOD!/THESE GUYS ARE EVIL! terms. (E.g., Supreme Commander Snoke - he's not a Sith, yet he's a powerful Force user who's come to rule the revived Empire... and we don't know where's he's from, how he did it, what his goals are, or anything else. He's just EVIL! In comparison, Senator Palpatine/Darth Sidious is a complex and fascinating character.)

I think maybe I'm just finally over Star Wars after 40 years.

 

[AmateisGal]

Despicable Me 3. Fun, but not nearly as good as the first two.

Now I'm watching Christmas in Connecticut on TCM and then The Bishop's Wife. A perfect Sunday afternoon!

 

[scottyrocks]

I caught most of The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) this morning. Classic. And Lana Turner ain't hard to look at.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Pulling this thread back... Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I was pretty disappointed with it after the universal rave reviews...
I think maybe I'm just finally over Star Wars after 40 years.

That's how I felt 40 years ago - I have never understood the popularity of these movies.

 

[3fingers]

That's how I felt 40 years ago - I have never understood the popularity of these movies.

I guess according to people I know I am considered a strange genetic outlier because I have never sat through any of them.
Absolutely no interest.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The original was the best drive-in movie ever made, bar none.

 

[Zombie_61]

That's how I felt 40 years ago - I have never understood the popularity of these movies.

Star Wars is no different from any other movie franchise--people either like them and are interested in seeing more, or they don't and aren't. When the first Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings movies were released I had a number of well-intentioned people tell me that I should see them 'cause they were "Your kind of movie." Nope. I have no interest in wizards and magic and trolls and dwarves and orcs and/or whatever else is in those movies; it's just not anything that appeals to me. And, yes, based on what little I know about them I can see parallels between those movies and the Star Wars movies, but the difference is in the way they're presented in the various franchises. Besides, I made the mistake of trying to read "The Hobbit" decades ago and found J.R.R. Tolkien to be one of the most long-winded and boring authors in the history of the printed word. That being said, at the urging of a few friends I did make a sincere effort to watch The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) when it came to cable. About 20-30 minutes in I was so bored that I fell asleep, and when I woke an hour later it seemed as if I hadn't missed anything so I found something more entertaining to watch.

So while I enjoy the Star Wars movies, I realize they're not for everyone. On that note...

Pulling this thread back... Star Wars: The Last Jedi...I think maybe I'm just finally over Star Wars after 40 years.

Except for being "over" Star Wars, I agree 100%. There were a lot of missed opportunities in The Last Jedi, sacrificing good storytelling in favor of action sequences that did little or nothing to move the story forward.

 

[ChiTownScion]

That's how I felt 40 years ago - I have never understood the popularity of these movies.

I was poisoned against the franchise before even seeing the first movie, thanks to my dad. He & his wife had walked out: "It was RIDICULOUS! Talking animals and s***!!" So, I was never into Star Wars.

And part of it was my "If it never happened, or never COULD happen, I won't waste time with it" mentality. Even at six, I thought that Dr. Seuss was ridiculous: I'd rather spend my time reading the encyclopedia and actually learning something real.