The B-Movie Catechism

CUTAWAYS

2009-07-14T11:27:00.001-04:00

Yes, I’m still working day and night, so yes, you all get more filler for the next couple of weeks. Still, heavy workload or not, I couldn’t help but pass along the happy news (for the two or three who still might not know) that The Sci-Fi Catholic’s own D. G. D. Davidson has heard the calling and will soon be entering the seminary. Sounds like the Year of the Priest is off to a rollicking start.

But you can’t please all of the people all of the time, and there was one Anonymous voice who expressed concerns that Mr. Davidson’s (clearly satirical) stated reasons for joining the priesthood was perhaps too jocular for so serious a decision. It made me wonder just what kind of problems this unnamed seminary instructor was seeing in his candidates. Are there seminarians out there who might not be approaching their calling in the right spirit? Hmmm…

Maybe I’m wrong, but if I had to guess I’d say this good father-to-be from 1976’s Drive-In must have fallen asleep during the lecture on the “preferential option for the poor” because I don’t think this is exactly what it means. (Of course, figuring out just what it does mean can be pretty hard.)

Kidding aside (as best as I can manage that, anyway), there have been problems in our seminaries. The sobering final report from the Apostolic Visitation of Seminaries in the United States released in December 2008 notes difficulties in individual seminaries ranging from a laxity of moral discipline among staff and candidates to (unbelievably) an incomplete grasp by both faculty and students on what being a priest actually means. What the…!?!

Be that as it may, I’m still pretty confident about the class of 2009 and beyond, but I’m sure they wouldn’t mind a little help here and there. I urge everyone to remember to pray for Deej and all our other incoming seminarians as they continue their process of discernment. And if you hear they’re a little short, well, it’s okay to treat them to a meal or slip them a few bucks on the side so we can avoid scenes like the one above. Do what you can.

Oh, and also don’t forget to pray for their teachers as well. We can always use more good instructors like, say, Father Leslie Nielsen…

What? I stayed serious for as long as I could.

CUTAWAYS

2009-06-29T15:13:00.001-04:00

You know, it’s gotta be tough these days for any old-school Devil worshipers still out there. I’m not talking about them there new fangled Satanists who are really just hedonistic egoists with no real belief in a supernatural God or Devil. I mean the original guys, the ones who pledged allegiance to an actual entity and might actually want to perform the occasional virgin sacrifice to their dark master. Imagine what it must be like for them…

Almost enough to make you feel sorry for them, isn’t it? Almost. After all, what do the heathens expect after a couple hundred years of creeping secularism? And it’s getting worse. Recently released results from a study of middle schoolers performed by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston found that “by age 12, 12 percent of students had already engaged in vaginal sex, 7.9 percent in oral sex, 6.5 percent in anal sex and 4 percent in all three types of intercourse.” Christine Markham, Ph.D., assistant professor of behavioral science, says “These findings are alarming because youth who start having sex before age 14 are much more likely to have multiple lifetime sexual partners, use alcohol or drugs before sex and have unprotected sex, all of which puts them at greater risk for getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or becoming pregnant.” Wow, either these scientists are uptight Puritans, or youngsters having sex might actually be a bad idea. Either way, though, what’s there to do about it? I mean, kids are going to have sex no matter what, right?

Well, not exactly. One study by the Center for the Advancement of Health suggests that sex education can help cut down on early sexual behavior, at least before the age of 15. Which is great except for the fact that such programs, if successful, would seem to have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of virgins available for Satanic rituals. Fortunately, there is a solution to both problems. In what can only be called a shocking discovery, a 2003 study by the NICHD (a sub-branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that “religion reduces the likelihood of adolescents engaging in early sex by shaping their attitudes and beliefs about sexual activity.” Who would have ever thought that belief systems which strive for holiness might actually decrease risky sexual behavior among children? But science says its true, thank God! And best of all, since most religions actively combat all forms of Satanism (modern egoism, ancient wacko cults, whatever) on both spiritual and philosophical grounds, we’ve got that problem covered as well.

INTERMISSION:

2009-06-17T11:37:00.001-04:00

As Catholic Media Review made note of, the Year of the Priest kicks in on June 19 and to help celebrate it the National Catholic Register has offered up some suggestions for movies to watch which contain positive portrayals of our collared clerics. Here’s the top ten good priest movies according to NCR:

1. The Scarlet and the Black (1983)
2. The Bells of St. Mary’s (1945)
3. The Mission (1986), mature audiences
4. Going My Way (1944)
5. The Keys of the Kingdom (1944)
6. On the Waterfront (1954)
7. I Confess (1953)
8. Boys Town (1938)
9. Molokai: The Story of Father Damien (1999), mature audiences
10. The Exorcist (1973) mature audiences

Now that’s a pretty strong list and it contains some all time classics, priests or no priests. But, you know, as good as that list is, we think it could stand to have a few more movies added to it. The American Catholic has already made his suggestions, but here at The B-Movie Catechism, we were thinking more specifically that it could use some of OUR KIND of movies added to it. This is actually harder than you might think. Bad or fallen priests are a dime a dozen in B-Movies and the few good ones you run across usually only get a scene or two, like say Father McFerrin in Teenage Exorcist. But we’ve come up with a handful of low budget celluloid clergymen we think make the grade.

1. FATHER MCGRUDER from BRAINDEAD aka DEAD-ALIVE (1992): Okay, so like in Teenage Exorcist, the good Father McGruder really only has a bit part in this early Peter Jackson gore-comedy, and he does become something of a cad once he joins the legion of the undead. But watch the film (if you have a strong stomach) and you’ll agree McGruder had to be on the list if for nothing else than the scene where he transforms from pastor to pugilist, raining a storm of priest-fu on the zombie hordes as he yells out his battle cry, “I kick ass for The Lord!” (Come on, you have to know at least one priest who would want that on a T-shirt for his birthday.)

2. FATHER SANDOR from DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966): There’s no way you can convince me that Father Dwight Longenecker didn’t see this film at a young impressionable age. I can just picture little Dwight looking up at the big screen as the English sounding take-no-prisoners priest barrels through villages and mountainsides with a rifle strapped to his back and thinking to himself, “You know, I think I could that for the rest of my life.” Father Sandor is the alpha male when it comes to priests in movies. He’s the only one I can think of who ever took out Dracula with a gun?

3. REV. MIKE HILL from THE NORTH AVENUE IRREGULARS (1979): Okay, this one’s a cheat as the reverend is actually Presbyterian, but what the heck, he spends most of the movie in a collar. Loosely based on a true story, this comedy tells the story of how the new pastor in town assembles a group of ladies from his church to take on the local mob and their numbers racket. It’s old school Disney goofiness from back in the day when they could actually make a live action movie without loading it with pre-manufactured pop idols designed to suck every dime out of the pockets of 13 year olds. Plus you get to roll your eyes knowingly as the preacher struggles to reinvigorate his congregation with some decidedly “Spirit of Vatican II” style techniques.

4. FATHER MICHAEL from THE UNHOLY (1988): The American Catholic already mentioned Chariots of Fire’s Ben Cross’ turn as a priest in The Assisi Underground (1985), but Ben returned to put on the cassock again in this lesser known (for good reasons) late 80s horror outing. After miraculously surviving a fall from a skyscraper, Father Michael is sent to New Orleans to battle a demon who targets priests for temptation and murder. The flick is mediocre and the tempting more often than not involves disrobed women (so stay away if that’s a problem for your chastity), but it’s still nice to watch a film where, for once, the priest actually makes it to the finale with his vows intact and is portrayed as a hero for doing so.

Anyway, that should give you a good start if you’re in the mood for something cheesy but would still like to see some charitable portrayals of priests. If you think of some we missed, be sure to let us know. Happy viewing.

CUTAWAYS

2009-06-12T01:56:00.001-04:00

Alright, these twelve to fourteen hour workdays I’ve been pounding out for the past three months are starting to get to me. Besides the irregular blogging (sounds like a medicinal side effect doesn’t it), I’m aching, cantankerous, and just all around miserable. Lord help me, I think I’m turning into… Joe Don Baker!

Ah well, best not to complain too much about a job these days I suppose. And besides, if Pope John Paul II was right, there’s more than just a paycheck to be gained from it all. In his 1981 encyclical Laborem Exercens: On Human Work, he wrote that “work is a good thing for man - a good thing for his humanity - because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes "more a human being." Work can accomplish this for us because, as the Catechism points out, “work honors the Creator's gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish.”

I like that. Now the next time my job is going to cause me to get home a little late, I can just tell my wife I’m sorry, I know the boy is driving her crazy and she needs a break, but I have to do my part to save the world. That should work, right?

CUTAWAYS

2009-06-03T16:28:00.001-04:00

As I was watching this clip from 1987’s The Barbarians, the first thing that came to mind was, “Wow, Princess Amidala really let herself go!”

But the second thing I thought of was how much there seems to be a tangible feeling in the Catholic blogosphere right now that if you’re in any way trying to follow the teachings of the Church, then the culture at large is out to get you like some angry, freakish mob. Or maybe I’m just projecting my own paranoia. Or both.

Whatever the case may be, it’s nice to know the Bible has us covered. In Ephesians it describes a whole set of spiritual armor we can don whenever we feel under attack. “Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Pretty cool, huh? (And just in case you’re a literalist, don’t worry, we’ve got you covered there also.)

But anyone who’s ever browsed around the stalls at their local Renn Fest knows armor can be pretty heavy. You need a tad bit of strength just to pick it up and put it on. So what can we do to buff up and get a little spiritual muscle so we’re prepared for those time when it seems like the secular throng is trying to slip the noose over our necks? Well, Paul states the obvious in Ephesians, by reminding us to “pray at all times”. But Tara Little, writing in the Arkansas Catholic, suggests something that may not come readily to mind when you’re thinking about bulking up; fasting. Ms. Little likens fasting to “a matter of stretching ‘the spiritual muscle’ the same way one exercises his or her body.” In the article, Msgr. James Mancini concurs, noting that by fasting we recognize "that the Spirit and the flesh are in battle with each other. [In fasting] we try to limit or modify the demands of our appetites. The appetites are not wrong, God gave them to us for a purpose, but they definitely need discipline… Once we do start denying the flesh, we're able to sense Christ's influence much more [because] it's in our spirit that we're able to relate to him… God only needs the heart. He doesn't need all this time, and all this big effort. But we need to do something physical that will engage our heart to make that choice."

So, pray, pray at all times. But if you’re feeling a little extra flabby in the spiritual department, then try adding a little fasting to your religious workout. It can work wonders.

Braying like a jackass, on the other hand, is completely optional.

CUTAWAYS

2009-05-30T23:56:00.001-04:00

Here’s a quick clip from Star Pilot a.k.a. 2+5: Missione Hydra (1966) in which director Pietro Francisci teaches us the fine art of body language. See if you can guess who amongst this merry gathering will cause trouble later in the film and who will become fluent in the universal language of looove.

So, how’d you do? Not too hard to figure out, huh? I think it’s fair to say that the director of Star Pilot wasn’t exactly aiming for subtlety in this scene. Ah, but it’s only funny because it’s so true, right? Even in the Old Testament itself, at least according to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, you can find five examples of the kind of googly eyed love at first sight moment like we see in this clip; Adam and Eve, Rebecca and Isaac, Jacob and Rachel, David and Avigail, & David and Bathsheba. Now, I think I might argue a little with the good Rabbi over including David as I’m not quite sure what he was feeling was “love” the first time he saw these women, especially the buck naked Bathsheba. Oh, I’m sure he felt “something” alright. But love? I guess I’m just a skeptic. Still, even if you toss those out, that still leaves us with a few good Biblical examples of love at first sight.

Good examples or not, though, Rabbi Ginsburgh advises us to approach these stories with caution. “One should not expect to be struck with an intense feeling of predestination when he first meets his predestined spouse.” he notes. “As a rule, the couple's love experience grows and develops as they nurture it together throughout their lives. Nonetheless, every rule has its exceptions, and thus we find these examples in the Torah of the intense experience known as love at first sight… Every exception tells us something about the rule that we would not otherwise have known. In our case, the exceptional experience of love at first sight is a graphic manifestation of the intensity and romance that developing love does eventually achieve as well. The converse is also true: if the experience of love at first sight is real, it will eventually achieve the stability and rootedness of developing love. Instances of love at first sight are thus instructive even for the majority of couples, who do not experience such intensity at the start of their relationship. Rather than feeling that their love is somehow deficient or unromantic, they should view examples of love at first sight as enlightening portents of the intensity into which their love should -- and hopefully will -- develop.”

Sounds like someone’s been reading their Catechism. Okay, maybe not, what with him being Jewish and all, but hey, we’ve always said that “when she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." So, it should be no surprise to find that the Catechism agrees with the Rabbi’s assessment that whether it starts off as a slow boil or as a blazing fire, a good marriage always leads to growth. "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."

So with all that going for them, maybe Bellsy & Luisa and Phena & Whatshisname actually do have a good chance at being more than just four space ships passing in the night. Now, if they can just keep that spark going so that twenty years from now, after a few kids and careers and interplanetary crises and such, when they’re sitting across the space breakfast table from one another and look up into each other’s eyes.. the camera will still zoom in just like it did in the beginning. That would be sweet.

NEWS FLASH: LUNATIC LOSES AGAIN, CELEBRATES MORAL VICTORY!

2009-05-26T22:29:00.001-04:00

The winners of the 2009 Cannonball Awards have been announced and as we predicted.. we didn’t win squat! But with 2% of the vote for Best Visual Treat, 8% of the vote for Best Hifreakinlarious Blog, and a whopping 13% of the vote for Best Under Appreciated Blog, The B-Movie Catechism claims complete and total moral victory!!! I mean, come on, a blog that is currently in the midst of reveling in the cinematic jewel that is Gymkata manages to place in the top five? That’s a monster win, my friends, a monster win!

Still, I suppose we should congratulate those blogs who actually got more votes than us in their respective categories, although surely their first place finishes must be hollow and meaningless next to the supreme moral victory that is ours.

First up is the award for Best Visual Treat which goes to Holy Cards for Inspiration. Micki runs an excellent site over there, although some (and by some I mean me) might think that since her site promotes EVERYBODY IN HEAVEN, it’s conceivable that some friends in high places might have influenced the vote just a bit. (I myself tried to appeal to Simon Templar, “The Saint”, but apparently fictional TV rip offs of James Bond don’t have the same pull as real people living in the presence of God.)

And then there’s Margaret, a.k.a. Minnesota's Mom, who garnered enough popularity to win the award for not being popular enough (eh, we’re Catholics, we eat paradoxes for breakfast) and take home the cup for Best Under Appreciated Blog. Again, another excellent site, although some (and by some I mean me) might question the strategy of scheduling the birth of your child to coincide with the final week of voting. She’s posting photos from the hospital room fro crying out loud. (I myself was going to post some baby photos, but anyone whose seen It’s Alive knows they probably wouldn’t have gotten the same reaction.)

And last, but not least, is the award for Best Hifreakinlarious Blog which goes to our pal LarryD over at Acts of Apostasy. Larry is a frequent commenter around these parts, so we don’t want to rag on him too hard… although… there are some (and by some I mean me and Matthew Archbold and Red Cardigan and so on and so forth) who felt it was best to pull for Larry to win this one because, well, what else does he really have going for him? (I myself was going to campaign just as hard to win this category, but considering I’m in the middle of writing a review of Gymkata, I figured my dignity was in enough danger.)

So our hearty congratulations to these fine champions, as well as the winners in all of the other categories. We only hope that their measly first place trophies are compensation enough when compared to the massive moral victory which is ours and ours alone.

CUTAWAYS

2009-05-25T00:27:00.001-04:00

Some folks on YouTube keep begging for more Pandemonium (Give us our DVD release already MGM!), and since I never get tired of the movie, here’s another clip.

B-fans out there might recognize David McCharen, the guy playing the chicken patient, as he popped up in a number of early 80s releases doing his bird shtick before moving into voice work. Given my tastes in entertainment, it should be no surprise that Mr. McCharen is one of the first things that came to mind the other day after I began listening to the LibriVox recording of Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton and heard the following passage.

“To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell [Asylum] at all. In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dullness of life…

If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”

Chesterton, being the smart fella he is, expounds on this argument to savage the philosophies of materialists, pantheists, and best of all, those who “believe in themselves”. (Incredible. Was “just believe in yourself” already a mantra in Chesterton’s time?) Anyway, feel free to check out what more G. K. has to say about madmen in the Librivox link above, or you can read it here.

Oh, and on the off chance that any materialists, pantheists, or anyone who just believes in themselves happens to have stumbled across our dark corner of the internet here, well, we don’t want you to feel too slighted, so here’s a little song just for you.

SHORT FEATURE: ATHLETES’ WIVES GONE WILD

2009-05-20T00:21:00.002-04:00

While doing a little research for the upcoming review of Gymkata (Tell me, what sane person researches Gymkata?), I got curious about whatever happened to the movie’s star, Kurt Thomas. Turns out that after being inducted into the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame, Kurt and his wife opened up the successful Kurt Thomas Gymnastics Training Center in Texas. Good for him. Other athletes… well, their private lives haven’t gone as well.

A couple of thoughts come to mind after watching this video.

One: If, like myself, you had no idea who Anna Benson was before seeing this, and you feel compelled to Google her… might I suggest leaving Safe Search on.

Two: This illustrates yet another reason Protestants should have held onto those deuterocanonical books. I’d venture a guess that these guys would have really benefited from a heaping dose of Sirach before walking down the aisle. “An evil wife is an ox yoke which chafes; taking hold of her is like grasping a scorpion. There is great anger when a wife is drunken; she will not hide her shame. A wife's harlotry shows in her lustful eyes, and she is known by her eyelids… [however] A wife's charm delights her husband, and her skill puts fat on his bones. A silent wife is a gift of the Lord, and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul. A modest wife adds charm to charm, and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul. Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord, so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home. Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand, so is a beautiful face on a stately figure. Like pillars of gold on a base of silver, so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart.”

Now, not to worry, ladies, while Sirach is definitely considered an inspired book, stuff like the being silent isn’t necessarily to be taken literally in every instance. And that being the case, it’s probably not a good idea for all you guys out there to keep pointing out such verses to your wife or girlfriend. (Trust me, I learned this firsthand as a teenager.) It’s like the introduction to the Book of Sirach in The Catholic Youth Bible says, “In interpreting Sirach, you must take special care not to conclude that women are the source of most of men’s troubles!” Good advice. Still, is it just me, or does the use of the word “most” make it seem like the editors are implying “some”?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: GYMKATA

2009-05-15T21:49:00.001-04:00

Sometime last year, in my review of Roller Boogie, I made this statement regarding roller skating champ Jim Bray. “For an athlete tossed in front of a movie camera for the first time, his acting is okay, nowhere near as bad as it could have been. One day, if I’m feeling masochistic, we’ll discuss Kurt Thomas in Gymkata and you will KNOW how bad it could have been.”

Thanks to a request by our old friend Che, that day has come. Egads.

(By the way, I was kind of shocked to look back and realize it took me over a month to deliver my last review. I have a new client at work who is going to keep me working through these rough times, but their time requirements are downright brutal. I’ll try and be quicker this time around, but I still won’t set any records. My thanks to everyone for sticking around even though my posting has had to slow up a bit.)

WARRIOR OF THE LOST WORLD

2009-05-15T18:26:00.002-04:00

THE TAGLINE

“In another time... in a world ruled by tyranny and violence... only one man can stop the nightmare.”

THE PLOT

While attempting to avoid certain death at the hands of pursuing Omega law enforcers and post-apocalyptic punkers, The Rider inadvertently drives his talking Supersonic Speed Cycle through a secret doorway into the lost world of The Outsiders. Once inside, The Rider is informed by The Enlightened Elders that he is the prophesized savior who has come to defeat the Omegas and their eeevil leader Prossor. To accomplish this, he is told, he must sneak into The City to rescue Prof. McWayne, leader of the New Way. Unimpressed by the prophecy or the notion of doing something for the greater good, but rather impressed by the body of McWayne’s daughter Natasia AND the gun she shoves into his… motivational region, The Rider gives in and agrees to the mission. Overcoming the dangers of one immobile snake, three squeaking tarantulas, some oatmeal faced mutants, and a legion of Omega soldiers who couldn’t shoot the nose off their own face, The Rider succeeds in getting McWayne back, only to have Natasia captured in the process. To ensure greater success the second time around, The Rider decides to recruit an army from the various gangs living in junkyards outside The City, which he accomplishes by first single-handedly beating the living crap out of all of them. With this impressive force backing him up, The Rider launches a final assault on the Omegas and frees The City, only to find a brainwashed Natasia once again pointing a gun at him, albeit aiming a bit higher this time. Can The Rider find a way to fulfill the prophecy and save Natasia, or will Prossor and the Omegas triumph in the end?

THE POINT

In her essay Apocalypse And Dystopia In Contemporary Italian Writing published in Trends in Contemporary Italian Narrative 1980-2007, Gillian Ania, Senior Lecturer in Italian at the University of Salford, contemplates possible reasons for what she sees as a rise in “end of the world” themes in Italy’s literature during the last part of the twentieth century. “Particular dates (such as the end of a millennium) certainly seem to bring out apocalyptic sensibilities, and human beings, despite refuting the significance of such boundaries rationally, can be infected on the one hand by a sense of decay and cultural decline, and on the other by a search for renewal. [Frank] Kermode nevertheless stresses that “apocalypse can flourish… quite independently of millennia”. Historical events, indeed, exert a far stronger pull and apocalyptic literature is more aptly classed as “crisis literature”, presenting or illustrating a crisis (experienced or perceived) as well as giving an alternative picture of reality.” Well, okay. Ms. Ania sounds like a smart, reasonable person, so I’m sure there’s some valid points in what she suggests. But around these parts, we think there just might be one other teensy little factor at work in the current Italian obsession with the apocalyptic.

Mel Gibson.

Now hear me out; I’m not just kicking a guy when he’s down. Just do the math. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior hit theaters in 1981, after which it took the Italians somewhere around 15 minutes to start cranking out blatant rip offs of the movie at the rate of about one every… oh, 15 minutes. In fact, there were so many Italian produced rip-offs of The Road Warrior in the 1980s that there’s little to conclude but that the whole country had developed some sort of obsessive national man-crush on Mel Gibson. (Must have been that tight leather outfit.) All of which means that the last few generations of Italians have grown up on a steady diet of films chock full of post apocalyptic desert wastelands, armored dune buggies, authoritarian dystopias, and fetish wearing nuclear mutants. That’s GOTTA do something to the psyche of a future writer. (I rented as many of these things as I could get my hands on and look what happened to me!) And if you peruse Ms. Ania’s works cited list, I think you’ll find it bears my theory out. Almost every author she mentions started writing after 1985 with the majority of them not really getting going until after 1990. The math works out. So, with all due respect to Ania’s insightful analysis, I purport that it was most likely Mel Gibson and his leather pants, or at least their vu compra knockoffs, which really seeded the minds of late twentieth century Italians with visions of Armageddon.

Irrespective of whichever one of our theories turns out to be correct, however, I believe there is one thing Ms. Ania and I could probably reach agreement on; watching the blatant Road Warrior rip off which is Warrior of the Lost World is enough to screw with anybody’s head. Why so? Well, As Ania sees things in her essay, today’s Italian apocalyptic authors are “writers who revere the ‘lessons of history’ and scry the future, partly as a way of externalizing their personal fears, distaste and disenchantment, and partly as a warning to society.” If that description can be applied to the apocalyptic filmmakers as well, then the creators of Warrior of the Lost World are externalizing some pretty freaky internal fears.

First off, they seem really concerned that the only real advancements in technology will come in the area of sound design. Everything in this movie (cars, guns, computers, etc.) looks like it was either made in the exact same year as the movie was filmed, or decades earlier. But it all SOUNDS really futuristic. The ~~motorcycle~~ Supersonic Speed Cycle hums and whirrs, the ~~plastic machine guns~~ laser rifles pwew pwew, and the ~~ColecoVisions~~ futuristic super computers all bloop and beep busily. Heck, the ~~Atari 400~~ mindboggling artificial intelligence attached to the Speed Cycle even talks. And talks. And talks. And by that I mean the thing’s whiny synthesized voice obsessively repeats everything two or three times in a row until it gets to the point you wish that you could bodily kill a machine in a gruesomely slow manner just for the sheer joy in hearing it screech out, “I’m dying! I'm dying! I’m dying!”… But I digress. The point is that the film makers appear to be warning us that the future will sound really neat, but look like total crap.

They also seem suspicious that automobile safety will not sufficiently improve in the days to come. In the future envisioned by Warrior of the Lost World, sentient motorcycles will somehow veer straight into clearly visible rock walls (where’s K.I.T.T. when you need him?), speeding autos still won’t have enough momentum or maneuverability to make it out of the way of dump truck sized Megaweapons creeping along at 5 M.P.H., and cars will unwaveringly steer themselves over the sides of cliffs, even if no such cliff appears to have existed 10 seconds earlier. Worse still, all vehicles will explode upon the slightest contact. Even eye contact. For a mobile society like ours, the times ahead appear dark indeed.

Worse than those two problems, however, is the coming breakdown of society into smaller and smaller cliques of people who have no individuality outside of their group identity. This is most noticeable in the scene where the Rider attempts to recruit his army from the various gangs living on the outskirts of town. None of them are even given a name in the credits, each being referred to only by their gang affiliation. You have ~~pot-bellied rednecks~~ Truckers, ~~beefy guys in karategi pants~~ Martial Artists, ~~feral lesbians~~ Amazons, ~~weenies in army surplus fatigues~~ Mercenaries, ~~geeks~~ Geeks (huh?), and a solitary dwarf whose individual worth is so unimportant that the Rider simply picks him up and uses him as a weapon to pummel someone with. (Long time nerds will remember that a properly wielded dwarf can do a respectable 5 or 6 points worth of HP damage.) And it’s just as bad inside the city where the population can easily be categorized into three basic groups based entirely on their uniforms. You have the robed Elders, the black suited Omega Guards, and the Workers, who apparently emptied every post-apocalyptic Wal-Mart within 100 miles of Dickies coveralls. To compound the loss of personal identity, the Omegas have made it illegal for anyone to show intense emotion within the city. So dedicated is the cast to portraying the devastating effects of this particular requirement that they continue to follow the statute throughout the course of the movie, showing an almost inhuman lack of range of emotions, regardless of whether their characters are in the city or not. (Lesser thespians would surely have succumbed to the temptation to act, but not these professionals.)

But by far the most blood chilling thing the makers of Warrior of the Lost World see in our collective future is the notion that our freedom might be illusionary. You see, after all of the Omega forces have been crushed and the eeevil Prosser has been shot dead and The Rider and Natasia do a little obligatory snogging (ewwww), we are treated to a bizarre scene in which Prosser’s body is wheeled into a lab, cut open and revealed to be (dom dom dommm) a robot. So, even as our heroes traipse merrily about celebrating what they perceive as their newfound freedom, the real Prosser remains alive and well and claiming that he is somehow the true victor. It’s never explained how, but that’s what he says. Natasia’s cryptic last words to The Rider hint that she may realize this, but everyone continues on as if all their problems have been solved. It’s a sobering commentary on the future of humanity.

That’s a lot of fears packed into one movie. And at the source of it all is something so obvious that it’s easy to overlook at first. These future movie worlds, especially the post-apocalyptic ones, almost never have religion. As Ms. Ania writes, “Critics have variously categorized literary apocalypses, dividing them into religious or secular, Christian or anti-Christian, high or popular, ancient or modern (or postmodern), demarcations that can be helpful in assessing patterns or models. Of particular relevance… is the system defined by John R. May (and used by Zimbaro for her classification of apocalyptic literature) wherein the two broad categories are religious and secular. The first subdivides into traditional (Judeo-Christian, following Revelation) and primitive (less structured, and beginning with some kind of paradise); the second into three: anti-Christian, humorous, and the apocalypse of despair. The religious grouping offers hope at the end, the secular the absence of hope.” So whether the future is one where the veneer of religion is used by those in power to help keep the masses under control (Zardoz) or, like most of the Road Warrior knock-offs, one where religion has been abandoned altogether (Blood Of Heroes), a Godless future is a dark and fearful one indeed.

[A quick note: I have the inescapable feeling at this point that someone out there in Internetland will be tempted to try and counter that last statement with Star Trek. Please spare yourself the embarrassment. It should be common knowledge by now that the series is at its best when it sticks to interpersonal relationships and general pronouncements on the near indomitable nature of the human spirit. It’s at its piss-poor worst when it tries to shovel secular humanism down the viewer’s throat. If you haven’t caught on to that yet, I suggest you pop in your (likely unopened) copy of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, then sit down and be silent. Even Star Trek without God sucks.]

While most of the fears touched on in Warrior of The Lost World are things to be concerned about (I certainly don’t want my own car throwing itself over suddenly appearing cliff sides), it is the failure of the characters to recognize the shallowness of their so-called freedom which places the movie squarely in the atheistic camp of '”the apocalypse of despair.” As Ms. Ania notes, “We began by stating that apocalyptic texts were traditionally intended to both console and challenge, yet it is clear that modern presentations do not have this dual capacity. Writers today offer little consolation, theirs is more a kind of ‘resistance/protest literature’ against a society in which physical wellbeing and myriad ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ have been gained, but at the expense of individual maturity, wisdom, and ideals such as honesty, loyalty and common morality.”

Interestingly enough, as we’ll see in a second, Ms. Ania’s statements on what constitutes true freedom are remarkably similar to the teachings of the Church on the subject. But what she doesn’t do, at least not in this essay, is make the connection between the kind of society the atheists are fraught over and the fact that it is their lack of belief which so often leads to those societies in the first place. The Catechism, however, has no such problem bridging the two. “Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude… Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom… By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself (Ania: individual maturity), disrupts neighborly fellowship (Ania: ideals such as honesty, loyalty and common morality), and rebels against divine truth (Ania: wisdom)."

Perhaps all of this seems like a stretch, but I think it shows through most clearly in the central protagonist of Warrior of The Lost World. The Rider is ostensibly a hero because he overthrows (or at least thinks he does) a dictatorship. But, as he keeps telling everyone throughout the movie, his actions aren’t really directed toward anything, not towards Natasia, not towards the good of society, and certainly not towards God. He’s just going through the motions. (A gun in the crotch may get a person moving, but it doesn’t really inspire true belief.) That’s why, after the snogging (is that a country song?) The Rider, imprisoned within himself, simply takes off and leaves Natasia behind, his uncompleted (and unexplained) “mission” taking precedence over any loyalty he may feel to Natasia and her people. Because his actions aren’t really directed towards the greater good of a common morality, they can’t ultimately result in a true freedom for the people of the city. And that’s why I believe the film makers felt compelled to throw in the scene with Prosser, if for no other reason than to accentuate this truth. At least I hope that’s why. Because the only other possible explanation is that these guys truly thought there was going to be a sequel to this train wreck of a film, and that… that’s just madness. I don’t want to go there.

THE STINGER

One of the interesting things that popped out at me while reading Gillian Ania’s essay was the overall tone that suggested academia readily accepts the notion that the atheistic view of the future is dismal compared to that of religion. But as it turns out, that’s just me buying into the notion that all college and university professors are Godless heathens when in fact, according to a 2007 study by the Harvard Divinity School, only 23.4 percent of them are. In contrast, 35.7 percent of the respondents claimed “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it.” while everyone else camped out in the wishy-washy middle ground of belief in some kind of undefined higher power. In defense of my surprised reaction, however, I will point out that the study has no statistics on which group has the biggest mouths and gets the most press coverage.

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU... AWESOMENESS!

2009-05-11T19:43:00.005-04:00

Rarely do I pimp new movies around here, preferring to stick to the, um... classics. But, dear friends, how can I resist sharing with you this trailer which is starting to pop up on various sci-fi blogs. Yes, it's...

MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

I know, I know. I'm well aware that The Asylum is the company which has given us such direct to DVD stink bombs as Transmorphers, Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers, and AVH: Alien Vs. Hunter. (And those are just the ones I've watched!) But this is different. This is...

MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!

The title alone almost brings tears to my eyes. And its got Lorenzo "Snake Eater" Lamas and Deborah Gibson in it. Yes, that Deborah Gibson. I met my wife when she was 16 years old and she had a Debbie Gibson poster on her wall and now, 20+ years after watching her shake her love (Debbie, not my wife), I actually get to see...

DEBORAH GIBSON VS. MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS!

I know I shouldn't get my hopes up. I know that when the Catechism states "simple and faithful trust, humble and joyous assurance are the proper dispositions for one who prays the Our Father." it's not talking about stuff like this. I know that the "humble and trusting heart that enables us 'to turn and become like children'... is accomplished by the contemplation of God alone, and by the warmth of love, through which the soul, molded and directed to love him, speaks very familiarly to God as to its own Father with special devotion." I know that.

But Holy Cats! This has a giant shark jumping into the sky and grabbing an airplane! Worldly creation or not, it couldn't possibly let me down. Could it?

CUTAWAYS

2009-05-10T09:00:00.001-04:00

A new client has had me working day and night for the last month and a half, so blogging (and sleep and relaxation and smiling) has been sporadic at best. Perhaps the mental numbness this has brought on explains how I was able to sit through the entirety of 1989’s Beware: Children at Play. Here, let me share some of the pain…

Still, despite the bad acting, the bad dialog, the bad haircuts, the bad… well, everything, besides all of that, I couldn’t help but notice a nugget of truth in this scene. As we see here, it almost never fails that when you put two or more intellectuals (even wannabees like me) together in an enclosed space, they’re bound to get so caught up in the wonder of their own intricate arguments (gratuitous use of Shakespeare is a sure sign things are getting out of hand) that they often forget the simple, but decidedly more urgent, things which need to be attended to.

And Christians are no more immune to this than anybody else. That’s why it’s always been nice to have people like the 14th century monk Thomas à Kempis around to help us keep things focused where they need to be. “What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity” he queries in the third paragraph of The Imitation of Christ, “if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.”

Ow! But if you can handle that kind of direct to-the-point style, then get thee to a computer (ah crap, Shakespeare reference) and pick up The Imitation of Christ either to read online or download to your mp3 player. Yeah, it was written over 700 years ago by Thomas as an instruction manual for incoming novices to his order, but it’s still invaluable today for cutting through the clutter. I’ve got a couple of different translations in pocket sized format just right for adoration and my car library. (What, doesn’t everyone have a car library?) Now if you can’t handle that brand of disciplined spiritual instruction, I suppose you could always check out one of the more recent “Spiritual” best sellers out there like say The Secret or The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. But personally, I’d rather watch Beware: Children at Play two or three times before subjecting myself to that. I like my crap to at least have entertainment value.

THE ANNUAL RITE OF ELECTION, SORT OF

2009-05-01T22:09:00.001-04:00

Long time readers may remember this touching scene from around this time last year…

… and so on, and so forth.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The newly rechristened Catholic New Media Awards are up and running, and much like last year… this blog doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning. Nor should it in any sane world. Was there ever any real possibility that I would actually get more votes than Father Z at What Does The Prayer Really Say? I mean (1) he’s much more informed than I am, (2) he’s much more prolific than I am, and (3) he doesn’t feel compelled to insert rubber monsters, ray guns, or spurting arteries into every one of his posts. (Personally I feel that last one is a serious defect in the good father’s writing style, but I concede that the majority might disagree.) So why should the results this year be any different?

However, to give the little guys like me a chance during awards season, everybody’s favorite blunk drogger over at The Crescat started The Catholic Cannonball awards as a way to have “blog awards for us "minor" bloggers... a blog award not dominated by the usual suspects.” And as it happens, The B-Movie Catechism is indeed up for a few Cannonballs this year. Now personally, I’m not giving it too much thought. I’m happy just to use this blog as a part of working out my own salvation with fear and trembling while providing a few smiles to my fellow Catholic bloggers along the way. In fact, I wasn’t even going to bring the awards up.

But there’s Tor to think of.

It just pains me to see the big guy so sad. So why not go ahead and pop on over to The Crescat on May 3rd when the voting starts and give Tor some love. He knows we probably won’t win this one either, but we gotta get more than 0.003% of the vote, don’t you think? The B-Movie Catechism; where 0.005% of the vote is a moral victory.

CUTAWAYS

2009-05-01T01:18:00.002-04:00

Don’t watch this If you’ve never seen Chinese Super Ninjas, because it will spoil the end. Also, don’t watch this if you don’t like seeing blood. No, really. I’m talking about fire-hose-spraying, whale-blowhole-spouting geysers of blood. It’s fakey looking, but still, you’ve been warned.

Now, some of you may be asking just what the heck I was thinking posting that clip? But it wasn’t what I was thinking (as I’m rarely accused of doing THAT), it’s what I was reading. Namely, the Bible. As you might recall, I’m still making my way through Holy Scripture using The Coming Home Network’s guide to reading the Bible and the Catechism in a year, and I was reminded of this scene when I happened to run across this tidbit from 2 Maccabees 14.

A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a man who loved his fellow citizens and was very well thought of and for his good will was called father of the Jews. For in former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and for Judaism he had with all zeal risked body and life. Nicanor, wishing to exhibit the enmity which he had for the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him; for he thought that by arresting him he would do them an injury. When the troops were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they ordered that fire be brought and the doors burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword, preferring to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth. But in the heat of the struggle he did not hit exactly, and the crowd was now rushing in through the doors. He bravely ran up on the wall, and manfully threw himself down into the crowd. But as they quickly drew back, a space opened and he fell in the middle of the empty space. Still alive and aflame with anger, he rose, and though his blood gushed forth and his wounds were severe he ran through the crowd; and standing upon a steep rock, with his blood now completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them with both hands and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again. This was the manner of his death.

So, let me get this straight. To avoid capture, our hero first stabs himself, then throws himself off a building into an angry mob, and finally rips out his own guts and flings them at his enemies…

That. Is. So. COOL!!! I’d totally pay to see a movie with that scene in it. Those guys from 300 look like such total weenies in comparison to this Razis fellow. Still, much like our super ninjas in the above clip, we’re stuck asking the question of Razis, “Why did you do it?” After all, even though the author of 2 Maccabees, in his rah-rah enthusiasm for the Jewish revolt, clearly sees Razis as a martyr, there’s no getting around the notion that his actions ultimately represent a suicide, which as we all know was a big no-no in Judaism. St. Thomas Aquinas certainly doesn’t buy wholly into the martyr idea when he writes in the Summa, “It belongs to fortitude that a man does not shrink from being slain by another, for the sake of the good of virtue, and that he may avoid sin. But that a man take his own life in order to avoid penal evils has indeed an appearance of fortitude (for which reason some, among whom was Razias, have killed themselves thinking to act from fortitude), yet it is not true fortitude, but rather a weakness of soul unable to bear penal evils, as the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7) and Augustine (De Civ. Dei 22,23) declare. (Summa Th II-II Qu.64 a.5)”

Now a number of protestant scholars have pointed to the story of Razis as one of the reasons 2 Maccabees shouldn’t be included in the canon of Scripture, insisting that because the human author doesn’t explicitly condemn the suicidal nature of Razis’ actions, it somehow implies God’s approval of suicide. But if that’s the case, then other books would have to go also. (The story of Samson comes to mind.) So, what we have to do is look for some other reason this particular story is noteworthy in the Biblical narrative to see if there’s a good reason for including it in the canon.

And sure enough, there is one, at least according to C. D. Elledge in his book Life After Death in Early Judaism. “One of the many odd, but important, contributions that 2 Maccabees has made to the history of ideas is the notion of a graphically physical resurrection from the dead. This is not simply an assumption of the work, but a deliberate emphasis of at least two different episodes of the narrative. The episode of Razis expresses this in the clearest and most economical terms. This Jewish older, when persecuted for devotion to the law, attempts to end his own life by jumping off a building. When this fails, he eventually takes his own entrails in his hands and casts them out of his body at his persecutors, "invoking the master of life and spirit to return these things to him again' (14:46). In this case, Razis dies with prayers that the very entrails that he loses in death will be returned to him by the One who has supreme power over life and death.”

So, maybe it’s just me, but it would seem having a book in the Old Testament which nails down a pre-Jesus expectation for a bodily resurrection is just a wee bit more important than haggling over whether or not the author let Razis off too easy for his decision. But then again, what do I know? I’m the guy who thought it was a good idea to put Chinese Super Ninjas on his religious blog.

PRAYER REQUEST

2009-04-30T18:06:00.002-04:00

A friend collapsed while vacationing in the Netherlands and is having a bypass tonight at 1:00 AM EST. Any prayers you could send his way would be much appreciated. His name is Keith.

SHORT FEATURE: MONKEY-ED MOVIE – THE LOST WORLD

2009-04-24T01:07:00.001-04:00

You want to know how things work around here? My job slows down just enough to let me devote some time to writing the review of Warrior of the Lost World, but I get distracted because the title reminds me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, which naturally calls to mind Spielberg’s The Lost World, which leads me to… oh, never mind my free association nightmare, just enjoy the short. (Everybody likes monkeys!) You know, despite my preference for low budget fare, I actually enjoy the Jurassic Park films (mostly for the pure pleasure of seeing dinosaurs tear stuff up; hey, the monkeys should have been a clue you ain’t on a fine arts blog). But as the above short highlights, the treatment of Jeff Goldblum’s character in the Lost World is kind of annoying. Without Michael Crichton’s input on the script, the second movie seems to find his Chaos Theory shtick (complex systems, for the most part, cannot be controlled) too difficult to explain and just replaces the whole thing with Murphy’s Law (anything that can go wrong will go wrong). That’s not scientific theorizing, that’s just plain old fashioned pessimism.

Still, I suppose I should sympathize with the character of Ian just a little. What with our constant harping on the state of things today, we Christians are always getting tagged as pessimists ourselves. Even Pope Benedict XVI was labeled as such when in 1995 he suggested that “perhaps the time has come to say farewell to the idea of traditionally Catholic cultures. Maybe we are facing a new and different kind of epoch in the Church’s history, where Christianity will again be characterized more by the mustard seed, where it will exist in small seemingly insignificant groups that nonetheless live an intensive struggle against evil and bring the good into the world — that let God in.” As you can imagine, that kind of talk didn’t go over too well with the “name it and claim it” crowd. As the Pope related in God & The World, “When I said that, I was reproached from all sides for pessimism. And nowadays nothing seems less tolerated than what people call pessimism - and which is often in fact just realism.”

But even if you don’t buy that reasoning, and still think the Pontiff is being a little pessimistic, that’s actually okay because, believe it or not, Christians aren’t always expected to play the optimist. Christians are expected to strive to be something much more significant; they’re expected to be hopeful. As Peter Kreeft points out, “Hope is not the same as optimism; some of the great hopers are pessimists by temperament, like Evelyn Waugh. Hope's opposite is despair, which is a deadly sin, not pessimism, which is a psychological trait.” (If you’re dying for a lengthy explanation on what the good doctor means by that, you might enjoy The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Pessimism.) In fact, Kreeft goes so far as to dismiss simple optimism as Hope devoid of Faith, as mere wishful thinking (Rain rain go away, come again some other day, as Barney the Dinosaur might sing), or worse, as “the power of positive thinking”. (I think he’s talking to you, Oprah.)

So, for those of you Christians out there whose temperament is so inclined as to expect in certain cases that anything that can go wrong will go wrong; you go right ahead. Just don’t forget, as the Catechism reminds us, that “in every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.” That’s not optimism, that’s just plain old fashioned Faith.

(Oh, and look. Just as I’m finishing this, here comes another email from work that’s bound to take hours to deal with. I was kind of expecting something crappy like that to happen.)

NOW SHOWING AT A BLOG NEAR YOU

2009-04-22T00:02:00.003-04:00

Yes, my friends, the time has come once again to pick the brains of my fellow bloggers for interesting tidbits regarding the intersection of film and religion. Let’s see what’s going on out there.

First up, if you haven’t found it on your own, let me point you to AZ Catholic, a fine blog written by Kim a.k.a. The Papist MSTie. Someone want to tell me how a blog with the statement “We can find important theological lessons while watching MST3k” on it got started and I just noticed it? Anyway, according to Kim, she’s “just your average Roman Catholic who is from Arizona, and is one of the half million or so in this great state that is of Irish descent. Who is currently attending college to get an AAS in Culinary Arts, and has a border line obsession with old and/or bad movies, but especially comedies and Mystery Science Theater 3000.” Be sure to drop by and tell her hello.

After that, you might want to head over to The Art of Apologetics, but only if you haven’t seen (or have no plans to see) last year’s most critically acclaimed horror movie, Let The Right One In. Austin has watched it and taken note of some rather disturbing subtexts in the film, themes which I feel have been overlooked by most of the mainstream reviews, but which are starting to get tossed around on various movie forums. Be sure to stick around for the comments section where I make a rambling butthead of myself.

Speaking of rambling buttheads, by now you’re probably already aware of Ron Howard’s impassioned “my movie's not anti-Catholic” defense of the upcoming Angels & Demons. As expected, the Catholic blogosphere isn’t buying it. Carl Olson, over at Insight Scoop, does a fairly comprehensive Catholic fisking of Mr. Howard’s article, but if you’d also like a secular perspective on Ron’s Dan Brown movies (and your eyes don’t mind the obligatory four letter words), be sure to check out Chud.com’s reaction to a possible Da Vinci trilogy.

For something a little less jocular, pop over to the Chicago Sun-Times where Roger Ebert has posted a rather serious essay on how he believes in God. (Combined with some of his other recent posts, I’m beginning to suspect the man is either preparing an autobiography or believes he is dying. I hope for the former.) Like so many these days, Mr. Ebert finds himself too intelligent to trust in the dogmas of organized religion, but unlike too many, he’s surprisingly complimentary about many aspects of Catholicism and his own religious upbringing. Anyway, despite the fact that I obviously disagree with some of his conclusions, I’m inclined to be charitable to Roger as he’s one of the people whose work taught me to take film seriously. Plus, maybe it’s wishful thinking, but there’s something about the article that feels like he’s still seeking, and you know what Scripture says about that. AND, he mentions that his wife has a strong faith (of some sort). The prayers of a wife and mother are pretty irresistible forces Rog, just ask St. Augustine.

And if after all that you’ve got room for a little bit more, Gabriel McKee over at SF Gospel takes a quick look at a favorite of ours around here, The Day of The Triffids and finds that heroes can be real jerks sometimes.

So don’t just hang around here, start clicking, pick some brains and gain some knowledge.

OUTTAKES

2009-04-17T02:04:00.001-04:00

Further proof there’s something seriously wrong with me, but what can I say, the scene fit perfectly. And despite the tedious political trappings, I believe this topic falls well within the range of catechesis. You know, they probably don’t want my help after this, but if you feel inclined to, go check out NDResponse and Notre Dame Scandal anyway. Prayers would be most helpful.

COMING ATTRACTIONS: WARRIOR OF THE LOST WORLD

2009-04-05T22:43:00.001-04:00

I have to admit I’ve never read a Dan Brown novel nor watched the movie based on his work. I mean, when you’ve had an atheist tell you to avoid them because the man’s books are poorly written and his research is laughable and easily discredited, why bother? But I’m beginning to suspect there just might be a real Catholic conspiracy going on after all. I think my fellow Catholic bloggers are out to get me. First came the request to review Spellcaster, and now from our esteemed friend Miguel Cuthbert comes an entreaty to see us take on Warrior Of The Lost World. Without the MST3K commentary I might add. Oh yeah. They’re out to get me.

Once again, no trailer for this beauty is available online, but some kind soul has posted the opening scroll on YouTube for your viewing pleasure. Do your best to digest it all, there may be a pop quiz later.

SPELLCASTER

2009-04-04T01:22:00.001-04:00

THE TAGLINE

“His magic is evil… His spell is deadly… His power… complete.”

THE PLOT

Jackie, a poor waitress stuck in a go-nowhere life, is overjoyed to find herself one of the few lucky winners of an R-TV (Rock Television) reality-TV style contest, the goal of which is to search for a one million dollar check hidden in the castle of the reclusive Senor Diablo. Joining Jackie on the hunt are her brother Tom (who amazingly also won a spot despite there being millions of entrants), the drunken, fading rock star Cassandra Castle, and 5 other detestable human beings not worth naming here. Unfortunately, at least for the publicity hungry Cassandra, R-TV’s massive production crew of two people is killed in a mysterious car explosion, so the televised portion of the proceedings never get under way. However, unaware of the accident, and in dire need of cash, the gamesters begin the quest for the check anyway, oblivious to the fact that they are being watched by an unseen figure via crystal ball. One by one the hapless explorers are dispatched by supernatural means until only Jackie, Tom, and Cassandra are left to confront Adam Ant, the evil Spellcaster behind everything. Only then do they learn the true reason they have been brought to this castle of death and what the prize they’ve been competing for truly is.

THE POINT

How this blog made it to its third year without managing to review a single Charles Band movie is beyond me. Whether it be as director, writer, or producer, the man has been cranking out nickel and dime goodies (over 230 and counting) since the early 1970s. If you’ve trolled through a video outlet even once, then there’s no way you’ve escaped Band’s oeuvre. Laserblast, Ghoulies, Trancers, Puppet Master, Subspecies, and on and on, right up to the recently released The Gingerdead Man 2: The Passion of the Crust, they just keep filling the shelves. (And if you read this, then you know I didn’t make that last title up.) Yet despite his prodigious output, it wasn’t really until the mid-to-late 80s, when he was running first Empire Studios, then Full Moon Entertainment, that his movies began to have a distinctive Charles Band feel about them and a fan base developed based solely on his brand. Released in 1992, Spellcaster showed up right around the tip end of that golden age (Trancers III & Puppet Master 4 were already in production, so the newness was wearing off), but it still has certain elements which mark it as a Charles Band production from that era.

To start with there’s the location. During this period exchange rates were fairly low, so lots of production companies actually found it cheaper to fly their actors over to various European countries rather than film in The States. Shot almost entirely on location at the 600+ year old Castello Orsini-Odescalchi in Bracciano, Italy, Spellcaster has a ready made authentic old world set design that these kinds of movies could never afford otherwise. It’s just hard to go wrong with a place which has hosted the likes of Pope Sixtus IV, Charles VIII of France, AND the wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, (okay, maybe you can go a bit wrong with that last one) and Spellcaster makes the most of it.

Along with a good setting, you could almost always count on the effects in one of Band’s movies from this time period. Now obviously you’re not going to find stuff on the level of ILM or WETA, but what you do get is often above average and imaginative. That’s because Band apparently works under the philosophy that if you have to choose between having good actors and having good monsters, it’s better to skimp on the on-screen talent. (And trust me, he does.) This may sound like it would make Spellcaster a bit tortuous to watch, but with an 83 minute running time, you don’t have to suffer through too much “acting” before the next creepy crawler shows up. And in Spellcaster they show up in surprising numbers. Among other things you get a groping zombie attack, a hand carved chair that eats the people who sit in it, a minotaur, a neon electric snake, some unidentified Ghoulies leftovers, and a were-pig. Yes, you read that right, a were-pig. Discussing the kinds of special effects he prefers, Band once explained that “it's all in the realm of fantasy. There's no slasher, there's nothing hopefully that reminds people too much of what horrible things are going on in the world today that you can catch on the news every night."

Man-eating chairs and were-pigs aside, though, the movie is missing some things. Director Rafal Zielinski, who spent the 80s helming formulaic sex comedies like Screwballs, Loose Screws, & Screwball Hotel (notice a pattern?), doesn’t really seem to know what to do with a creature feature. Horror can live with a light heart, but it needs atmosphere flowing through its veins, and Spellcaster is pumping pretty dry in that department. In retrospect, Teen Wolf can challenge Spellcaster when it comes to atmosphere. (Maybe if the movie had been named Screwcaster, Zielinski would have put some effort into it.) But what’s missing even more than the atmosphere is Adam Ant. Given that he has top billing and is the only person to appear on the video cover, you’d think the 80s icon would have been given more screen time than the three or four minutes he’s in. Now hiring a recognizable name, paying them just enough to be on set for a few days, and then using them to promote the movie is an old B-movie trick, but Spellcaster takes it just about as far as it can go. Unless you count the near endless times you see his hands hovering over a crystal ball, Ant is in the movie for only one scene. One scene! And he’s the most enjoyable actor in the film!

Unfortunately, that’s not saying much, as it’s really pretty easy to be the most enjoyable actor in Spellcaster. Now, in fairness to the cast, it’s not necessarily their fault this time around. Most of them, Gail O’Grady in particular, would go on to do solid TV work after Spellcaster. But their parts as written aren’t so much people as they are walking talking character flaws who take stereotyping to an insulting international level. There’s Teri the all-American 24 hour tease. She’s so good she even manages to tease that segment of the audience who rents these things looking for nudity by miraculously keeping everything covered through numerous showers and an attempted rape. Speaking of which, let’s not forget Tony the Italian guy, who radiates both perpetual horniness and perpetual greasiness in equal measures. His opposite is Myrna the insufferable gun toting, tweed breek wearing British snob. And, of course, there’s Yvette, the French girl. That’s it. Apparently the movie sees being French as a character flaw. But the worst of them all has to be Harlan the fat guy. Harlan is the kind of obese character you only find in movies, the kind who cleans his plate, then the plate of the person next to him, and then goes off in search of more plates. It’s pretty bad.

But that’s probably done on purpose too. In keeping with Band’s lighthearted approach to things, most of his movies find it better to have the body count consist of repulsive a-holes rather than people you might really care about. And in the case of Spellcaster, just to make sure you know it’s only the bad people who are dying, the movie has most of them knocked off in some way related to their particular character flaw. The tease is trapped in a painting in which she will be forcefully assaulted by the minotaur for eternity. The Brit is shot with her own guns. The French girl I can’t remember, I guess she’s forced to stay French. And as for the fat guy, yep, you guessed it. Were-pig. The characters are such paper thin, over the top obnoxious sinners that by the time the devilish Adam Ant starts wiggling his fingers over the crystal ball and taking them out, you’re almost tempted to cheer him on. And why not? If Psalm 136 can hurl invectives at God’s enemies like “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”, then why shouldn’t we be able to celebrate when Spellcaster’s sleazy misogynistic Goombah gets tossed off a balcony to his rather squishy sounding death? Heck, some would even say it’s our Christian duty to desire for bad things to happen to bad people.

Way, way back in our review of Student Bodies, we discussed how Christians should avoid seeking to do harm to, or have revenge on, their enemies. But what about asking God to do it? Vengeance is His, sayeth Him, right? And, as evidenced by the above Psalm, the Bible is chock full of imprecatory petitions. Found mostly in the Psalms, but also scattered throughout the Old & New Testaments, imprecatory prayers, as defined by Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, are those in which the petitioner “pronounces a curse over the enemies of God and God's people, as when David prays, "May no one be left to show him kindness, may no one look after his orphans, may his family die out, its name disappear in one generation" (Psalm 109:12-13).” Sure, it’s strong stuff, especially considering society’s modern day aversion to “meaness”, but since it seems to have been okay for King David and St. Paul and those guys to pray to God this way, shouldn’t it be for us as well?

Maybe. But the first thing to consider before we casually imprecate (sounds a bit dirty doesn’t it?) is that there seems to be little to no consensus on just what’s going on in these kinds of prayers. St. Augustine prefers to see them somewhat symbolically. Regarding Psalm 136, he asks, “What are the little ones of Babylon? Evil desires at their birth. For there are, who have to fight with inveterate lusts. When lust is born, before evil habit gives it strength against you, when lust is little, by no means let it gain the strength of evil habit; when it is little, dash it. But you fear, lest though dashed it die not; "Dash it against the Rock; and that Rock is Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4” Modern theologians such as Erich Zenger and Linda M. Maloney take Augustine one step further. In their book A God of Vengeance?, the authors see the imprecatory psalms as poetic renderings in which “God in person confronts us with the fact that there are situations of suffering in this world of ours in which such psalms are the last thing left to suffering human beings.” Basically, they’re lamentations which act as sticky notes to remind us of social injustice.

Now both of those theories are workable, but they don’t quite address what we’re trying to find out. One interpretation that gets us a little closer lies within the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the imprecatory Psalms. It puts forth the idea that they “are national anthems; they express a nation's wrath, not an individual's. Humility and meekness and forgiveness of foe are virtues in an individual; not necessarily so of a nation; by no means so of the Chosen Nation of Jahweh, the people who knew by revelation that Jahweh willed they should be a great nation and should put out their enemies from the land which he gave them.” While this nationalistic, bug picture approach is good, and works well with later imprecatory verses like those in the Book of Revelation, it still doesn’t give us a final answer as to whether or not its okay to pray to God to punish a specific individual because of some wrong we’ve seen them do. (And I really want the answer, because, you know, I’ve got a list.) But the introduction of the virtue of humility into the equation just might.

Humility, as the Catechism reminds us, “is the foundation of prayer.” In order to stress this truth, Saint Benedict dedicated an entire chapter of the Rule he penned in order to aid in the establishing of religious communities to the attainment of that particular virtue. In it, he puts forth 12 steps one must go through in order to become truly humble. Now don’t worry, I know this review is overlong already, so we’re only going to take a quick look at step seven. But that isn’t necessarily something to be relieved over. According to Columba Stewart, OSB, in his book Prayer And Community: The Benedictine Tradition, it is Benedict’s seventh step of humility which “is the most wrenching for modern readers: ‘that one not only claims with the tongue to be inferior and worse than everyone else, but actually believes it with deep feeling of heart’ The kick comes in the succeeding words, borrowed from Psalm 22: ‘humbling oneself and saying with the prophet, “I am a worm and not a human being, cursed by others and rejected by people.”’… The key, as so often in the Rule, lies in tracking the biblical quotations which follow; “I was exalted but now am humbled and confused’ (Ps. 88:16, Latin) and ‘it is good that you have humbled me, so that I could learn you commandments’ (Ps. 119:71).”

You see the catch, of course. If we’re truly humble, especially by St. Benedict’s definition, then the first person we have to ask God to lay the smackdown on is the one and only person we know for certain is a dirty wretch… ourselves. And, as the Psalms point out, if by chance He does dash us against the rocks, then by all means we should be joyful about it, because we’ll know He did it so we could grow in wisdom and understanding. All in all, until we’ve got all our own kinks worked out (which should take a while considering what worms we are), it’s probably best to leave it up to God decide at what point the hammer should fall on others. He’s been around awhile, He’ll know when its time. Until then, it’s probably safer for our prayers for others to take the charitable route. Oddly enough, Spellcaster actually kind of ends on just this note. The newly sober Cassandra, who had arranged for the fate of all the nasty folk in the first place, has a change of heart, adopts a more humble non-rock star lifestyle, and strikes a new deal with Senor Diablo which frees all of the victims from their punishments. While this may not be as immediately satisfying as seeing someone turned into a were-pig for their sins, it at least leaves open the door for their possible redemption down the road. Except for the girl who’s French, I don’t know how she’s going to fix that.

THE STINGER

Senor Diablo, being a nasty guy, doesn’t just let everyone off the hook without getting something in return. So what’s his payoff? In the final scene we learn that Cassandra introduces Diablo to R-TV who gives him his own reality show in which he offers to let people compete on live TV for the chance to become a star with a recording contract… at a price, of course. In other words, the movie ends with Satan creating American Idol. I freakin’ knew it!

CUTAWAYS

2009-03-27T21:15:00.001-04:00

While perusing through the works of Charles Band, the producer of this week’s epic Spellcaster, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this scene from 1981’s S.O.B. in which everyone’s favorite F-Trooper Larry Storch delivers a eulogy only Tinseltown could appreciate. I thought of it because, except for perhaps the part about grossing $200 million off a single film, I imagine Band’s own eulogy will run something along the lines of this one. How so, you ask? Well, it’s the litany of questionable movie titles the overzealous guru rolls off during his tribute. It’s eerily similar to some of the very real titles you’ll find amongst the hundreds of films Band has been involved with over the past three decades, a few of which we’ve provided below. (And remember, be sure to use Larry Storch’s guru voice as you read them.)

Last Foxtrot in Burbank - The Day Time Ended – Zombiethon – Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity - Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama - Dreamaniac - Assault of the Killer Bimbos - Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death - Castle Freak - Kraa! The Sea Monster - Teenage Space Vampires - The Horrible Dr. Bones - Monsters Gone Wild! - Blood, Sweat, & Fears – Evil Bong.

As you can see, reading the titles of a Band film can sometimes be just as entertaining as watching them. (Sometimes, more so.) But that’s on purpose. In an interview from a few years back, Band noted, “a strong title, of course, has always been important and the idea of combining two words or really putting a lot of thought into the title before a picture is even written. Corman did it too so I can't claim that was my idea but I certainly focused on that a lot. Most of the films that I made, that I conceived, that I was very involved with and in some cases directed, definitely started with the title and usually a piece of artwork that made sense. Then I would work back to the script and the story and make the movie. So that little formula has worked for me.” And it does work! I’ve never even heard of The Horrible Dr. Bones until now, and though most reviews say you should eat glass instead of watching it, I still kind of want to find a copy just because it has the freakin’ name The Horrible Dr. Bones!

Now, when coming up with a good title for anything, author and speaker Dave Taylor suggests you should “focus on the single most important concept, idea, product, vendor or topic… and then ensure that appears in the title too and you'll be well on your way to creating good titles.” Christians have always had an innate sense of this principle, however, when trying to come up with titles for an omnipresent, omnipotent God, it’s been kind of hard to narrow the focus down to a single most important concept. So hard, in fact, that Holy scripture alone contains over 100 names for Jesus. By 1953, Arthur C. Clarke had bumped the total up to nine billion.

Fortunately, as Catholics, we don’t have to worry about trying to figure out just the right one. Sometime back in the fifteenth century, the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus first made its appearance and it’s been a popular devotion ever since. Based on a number of the names which appear in scripture, this call-and-response petition to God contains the following titles for Jesus:

Lord – Christ - God the Father of Heaven - God the Son, Redeemer of the world - God the Holy Spirit - Holy Trinity, one God - Jesus, Son of the living God - splendor of the Father - brightness of eternal light -King of glory - sun of justice - Son of the Virgin Mary - most amiable - most admirable - the mighty God - Father of the world to come - angel of great counsel - most powerful - most patient - most obedient - meek and humble of heart - lover of chastity - lover of us - God of peace - author of life - example of virtues - zealous lover of souls - our God - our refuge - father of the poor - treasure of the faithful - good Shepherd - true light - eternal wisdom - infinite goodness - our way and our life - joy of Angels - King of the Patriarchs - Master of the Apostles - teacher of the Evangelists - strength of Martyrs - light of Confessors - purity of Virgins - crown of Saints – Lamb of God.

Much like Taylor advises, each of these titles concentrates on a specific important aspect of God’s nature, and each one is worthy of meditation. On occasion I pray the Litany of The Holy Name during adoration, waiting to see which one or two titles stick in my mind, and then contemplate on those. I’ve yet to come away without some small insight. Of course, it’s an old devotion, and probably not to everyone’s style, but if you’re ever stuck in a rut prayer-wise, you might want to give a Litany (this or any other) a try. You’re not likely to come away disappointed.

OOOPS. AGAIN.

2009-03-23T21:28:00.001-04:00

Alas, client imposed deadlines have eaten up most of the past week, so there hasn’t been much time for blogging. Thanks for your patience, the show should resume shortly.

CUTAWAYS

2009-03-20T01:00:00.001-04:00

Yes, I know I just posted a clip from 1982’s Pandemonium, but really, you can never have enough Pandemonium. This scene is a take-off on the old slasher movie set-up where the promiscuous teens separate and wander off in order to have pre-marital sex. And if you read our review of Student Bodies, then you know exactly how that’s going to turn out. (Don’t worry, there’s no nudity in the clip, although there is some gratuitous goosing.) But that’s not why this clip is here. What we’re interested in (besides the baloney line, which is one of my all time favorites) is Carol Kane’s throwaway quip about the pill at the end of the scene.

Oh, that wacky birth control and its side effects! Even if you don’t buy into the potential threats of blood clots and ovarian cysts, you have to at least be concerned about the recent studies which have shown a possible link between using birth control, gaining weight, and getting irritable bowel syndrome. Forget scaring’em with cancer, if Rome wants the ladies to lay off birth control, they should just run a campaign explaining how the pill will cause them to become morbidly obese and develop uncontrollable explosive diarrhea. Then stand back and watch the sales plummet.

Well, it’s what I would do anyway, but I doubt the Vatican is going to stoop down to my level anytime soon. And there’s no reason they should. Even though science is making the Church’s position on birth control look pretty good right now, that’s not the hook Christianity hangs it hat on when it comes to things like the pill. After all, given a few more generations (assuming they’re not all aborted or contracepted out of existence), science is likely to chip away at most of the ill effects of the pill. And for those bad side effects the scientists can’t eradicate, well, they’ll probably just come up with a pill that makes you happy enough to forget about them.

No, as nice as it is when science backs her up, the fact is the Church’s argument against birth control has always been a moral and ethical one. Facing criticism over some statements he had made about condoms, the late Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo wrote in a 2003 reflection entitled Family Values vs. Safe Sex, “In order to stress that the level of protection provided by the condom against HIV/AIDS and STD’s is not sufficient, I also referred to a certain permeability suggested by the results of scientific investigations. Such concern also has to be given attention considering that the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the sperm cell – in addition to other risks brought about by different factors in the condom’s structure and in its actual usage… Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Apart from the possibility of condoms being faulty or wrongly used they contribute to the breaking down of self-control and mutual respect… (Notice the shifting of the argument from scientific to moral grounds?) Rather than focusing merely on the aspects dealt with by the expert investigators, one has to keep in mind above all the integral good of the person, in line with the proper moral orientation, which will be necessary to provide total protection against the spread of the pandemic. With or without the threat of HIV/AIDS and STD’s, the Church has always called for education in chastity, premarital abstinence and marital fidelity, which are authentic expressions of human sexuality.” Always.

Oh, and if all that sounds eerily familiar to the words Pope Benedict XVI used when recently discussing condom usage in Africa, don’t be surprised. Reporting on the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the pontificate, the Heartland Journal had this to say. “The cardinals who seek Cardinal Ratzinger’s election are the most preoccupied. The most active is Cardinal Lopez Trujillo”. I’m pretty sure they knew each other.

SHORT FEATURE: MISSION: MAGIC (OPENING THEME)

2009-03-17T23:21:00.002-04:00

You know, with acts like Marilyn Manson or Gorgoroth, you know what you’re getting into. Cacophonous, confrontational music, packaged in an over the top theatrical brand of Satanic imagery designed to make sad 13 year old boys feel mysterious, threatening, and cool. (Over generalizing? perhaps.) But as this week’s movie, Spellcaster, proves, even the more genteel rockers like Adam Ant occasionally dabbled in devilish doings, bringing Beelzebub to the unsuspecting masses. Perhaps the most heinous example of this is the 1973 cartoon series Mission: Magic in which a cartoon version of Rick Springfield, along with the insidious witch Ms. Tickle, spent each Saturday morning indoctrinating children into the ways of evil… cajoling them to join their dark army of evil Candarian demons so they might conquer this land and take over each and every soul of the living, enslaving all mankind so they might chew on their tiny brains and bathe in their hot boiling blood....!!!

Sorry, I slipped into Evil Dead: The Musical territory for a minute. In actuality, Mission: Magic was a semi-educational show prefiguring The Magic School Bus in which Rick, Ms. Tickle and her students travelled through a magic chalk board to study history and solve mysteries. At the end of the show Rick would perform a pop ditty explaining the moral of the story. So if there was any indoctrination going on at all, it was through introducing kids to whatever social issues were all the rage amongst pop singers dyring the early 70’s. You know, teaching them activism, environmentalism, feminism… cajoling them to join their dark army of evil Candarian demons so they might conquer this land and take over each and every soul of the living, enslaving all mankind so they might chew on their tiny brains and bathe in their hot boiling blood....!!!

Sorry, I slipped into U. S. Congress territory for a minute. (Over generalizing? Perhaps.) Interestingly enough, the Catechism places the practicing of magic and the idolatry of the state under the same general heading of “You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me” without worrying whether your intentions are to summon up satan or just get out the vote. As the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia explains it, “Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God.” Anything we put before God, even basic desires like security from external threat and internal stability, can become an idol. Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M. believes the recognition of our own idols is one the primary benefits we can reap from the period of Lenten fasting. “Jesus, in the wilderness, was also tempted about food; unlike Israel, he kept his faith in God. What of us? As strongly as we may say that we want—and really intend—to follow God, many forces remain, within and without, to pull us away and push us toward idols. It is always the most legitimate needs (e.g., food, water, defense, internal order) which can become the most seductive idols.”

UPDATE:

Scott W. over at Romish Grafitti decides to trump my post on Mission: Magic with his own collection of clips from Free To Be... You And Me. He doesn't just trump me, he goes all in and demolishes me. Rick Springfield is just no match against the combined might of Alan Alda and Marlo Thomas. Frightening stuff, but a great post on indoctrination of the young. Check it out.