A blog dedicated to sharing the joys and challenges of being the mum to a large family.
In first place were those who were ambivalent about the movie at 50 percent.
In second place were those who ‘othercotted’ the movie at 29 percent.
In third were the folks who boycotted the movie at 9 percent.
"For me prayer is a surge of the heart, it is a simple look towards Heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy."
... Saint Therese of Lisieux
---------------------------------------------------------------
4 comments:
Thee might be happy to know, having seen the film, it is not anti-Catholic, nor does it advocate for the notion that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalen.
Rather it is about fanaticism. One of the heroes is Opus Dei, a police man, who one thinks is a "bad guy" but is led by a small group of fanatics in Opus Dei who seek to destroy those who believe they are, or are protecting, the decedents of Jesus - BUT are not the main stream of Opus Dei. We all know, even Quaker institutions... are made up of human's with flaws and odd intentions.... The organization which protects the believed "descendants of Jesus", has a fanatic supporter, who seeks to push them into the open by murder and such... but... in the end, no one knows if the Sarah daughter of Jesus tale is true... so it is about... putting one's faith at peril by selling out the meaning of faith by fear of others. So, it is not a bad film, like many of Ron Howard's film, I think it suffers from the fact that Ron Howard has a Poly Anna streak, likely from a rather unnatural childhood, as a child actor. But, it is fun story telling, and does not threaten faith... and the historical inaccuracies are not more egregious than those in Mel Gibson's passion ( some liked it, some did not...) ... well, movies are movies. Imagine if we learned history from film alone... the Gone With the Wind version of the KKK? Well... I am pretty sure God speaks louder to our hearts than he speaks through the films. Films are mostly a good excuse to eat popcorn and drink soda, and have a good cry... which is why churches and meeting houses don't have beg screens.
Much love and prayers for thy home search. Thine in the light...
Thy fFriend
lor
whoops... Big screnes... not beg screnes! oh to have a proof reader!!!!
and a PS, I never was able to wathch fiction about Ireland, such as, the Patriot Game... so I DO understand... I knew and saw too much in Ireland to take some fiction too easy...
Well ... again, blessings and a warm home and good parrish, and wonderful neighbors, and fruitful work!
Thine
lor
By dear Brother Jess:
I haven't read the book, but often go to films that are in the center of theological conflict, as I am a member of the committee of Ministry and Counsel for the New York Quarter of the Religious Society of Friends ( Quakers ). Me mum commented that the book is quite different, so thee might well be right about the book. Thee did misunderstand me, in that I did not mean it was fanatic to believe that Yeshua had children. Rather, in the film, there are two groups. One is a group committed to the belief that he did. The other, is not the main stream Catholic Church, or Opus Dei, but a subset within both, who are committed to violent opposition of the first group. There is an individual, who is in violent opposition to both, and it is the violent parties which are the film's fanatics.
So, even the main character who comes to find she is thought to be the daughter of Yeshua, is not fully convinced, nor is she fanatical.
The violent characters in the film who are Opus Dei express the fear that if they are found out by the Vatican they will be excommunicated. Then, one of the film's heroes, is a member of Opus Dei who opposes the violent extremists within the group. I should, and likely will read the book, one of these days, as I think thee is right, I have heard that the book makes the small subset out to be the mainstream of Opus Dei, but I should see that for myself.
Now, as to anti Catholic images in the film, it is easy to see moments that might be seen as that, if one does not put them into the context of who in the film is saying what. For example, there is a portrayal of the Counsel of Nicea, that is cartoonish and anti-Historical. But it is so, in the description of the fanatic who is attempting to expose "the myth". So, it is not presented as history, in fact, unless one watches without weighing who in the film is speaking.
As to threatening faith... I think it is a very bad idea for anyone to base their scholarship on popular culture. I think if one has a real interest in the events of those times, one should go to original source materials, and in fact it is not a bad idea to learn some of the original languages, Aramaic and Hebrew.
If I might make a small joke at Ron Howard's expense, so many of his films have happy endings, I am tempted he made the film believing it to be the story of the Bible with a happy ending.
I think the movie is like the monsters under the bed, and a lot less worrisome when one turns on the lights.
Thine, dearly in the light
lor
After an email from Christi, reminding me about the request of Ron and co. to place a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, I must say, I am in complete agreement that there should be a disclaimer. I think that the general public's blurring of fact and fiction makes conversation... a challenge.
Post a Comment