I’m on Kresta right now, and Catholic Answers Live 6–7 Eastern / 3–4 Pacific), talking about Up, Star Trek, Night at the Museum and other stuff. Listen online!
P.S.S. Okay, show’s over.
I’m on Kresta right now, and Catholic Answers Live 6–7 Eastern / 3–4 Pacific), talking about Up, Star Trek, Night at the Museum and other stuff. Listen online!
P.S.S. Okay, show’s over.
UP! UP! UP!
Great day for UP!
Wake every person, pig and pup, till EVERYONE
on the EARTH is up!
That's from Dr. Seuss's Great Day for Up, but it also encapsulates my enthusiasm for Pixar's latest film (which has a bit of Dr. Seuss influence, or at least bits reminiscent of Dr. Seuss).
I don't just mean my enthusiasm for Up. I mean my enthusiasm for their latest film — whatever it is. In any given year, Pixar weekend is one of the most reliably exciting times to be a critic.
There may be better films in any given year, but no filmmaker, no franchise, no creative team, no factor I can think of more reliably translates to very high quality than the Pixar logo. No other film event more consistently stands among the year's top highlights than Pixar weekend.
Last year it was WALL-E; the year before, Ratatouille. Before that, Cars, a rare middling effort from Pixar that still stands solidly with the best of their competitors' work.
In 2005, alas, there was nothing at all — no Pixar weekend all year long. They also missed 2002 (and prior to that they averaged only a film every two years). But in between 2002 and 2005 they produced the dazzling Finding Nemo and the even greater The Incredibles, probably one of my top 25 films of all time. So you gotta cut them some slack.
Next year, Pixar weekend will bring us Toy Story 3. The following year, for the first time ever, we're slated for two Pixar weekends: Cars 2 and The Bear and the Bow, the latter being the first Pixar film with a female protagonist. (Cars 2? Who was clamoring for a sequel to Cars? When oh when will Brad Bird revisit The Incredibles?)
Being a film critic isn't all free movies and, well, free movies. You try giving up your cozy evenings at home to schlep to the city and sit through the likes of Angels & Demons and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian month after month.
And that's not all. Then you have to write about them! Which means you have to think about them! Sometimes, if you're not careful, you wind up thinking about them a lot more than the filmmakers did. And then reviews like this (or, even worse, discussions like this) are the unfortunate result.
Pixar, though, makes it all worth it.
How do they do it? How do they keep doing it? Magic? I have no idea. I just want them to never stop.
Powerful.
Hey, Tim Jones here, again.
Some British scientists have done some research that appears to
solve one of the problems of a particular theory of RNA synthesis that
makes this theory more plausible as a possible explanation of the
origins of DNA and organic life on earth. That is all.
FOX News runs the headline "Scientists May Have Found How Life Began", which is positively pedestrian compared to the source article from Agence France-Presse, "Chemists See First Building Blocks to Life on Earth".
That's the problem with most science reporting…
—————
In more fun science news, they're handing out awards for optical illusions, now;
The winning entry, from a Bucknell University professor, may help explain why curve balls in baseball are so tricky to hit.
There are a couple of other cool illusions shown, as well as the design of the award trophy, which is clever.
Okay, here we go for the spoiler-enriched version of my reaction to Star Trek.
Total spoilage will be in effect, so caveat lector.
Continued below the fold.
Well, I finally got around to seeing the new Star Trek film–the first film I've seen in theaters in I don't know how long.
I'll put spoilers in a forthcoming post and just have a few non-spoiler comments in this one.
The good news is that I basically liked the film.
It was fun.
It met my expectations, which were as follows: (1) I wanted it to be fun, (2) I wanted it to be a viable relaunch of the franchise, and (3) I wanted it to be fundamentally though not scrupulously faithful to the original.
I thought it substantially met those goals, so I liked it.
This is not to say that I hadn't been concerned. Some of the stuff seen in trailers had me worried. For example, the Kirk-Spock conflict depicted in the photo. That had me concerned. The film could have mindlessly ramped up the characters' emotions without providing a good reason for Spock's outburst. (Not unlike many episodes of the rebooted BSG, which over-milked the pathos factor).
Fortunately, there is a good reason Spock is blowing his stack in this picture. The conflict isn't overdone, and it works in context.
I understand that the film may not be to the taste of some die-hard fans of the original series. And that would be true no matter what for the simple reason that no movie is to everyone's tastes.
Personally, while I have a soft spot for TOS, I don't regard it–or any Trek series–as an artistic masterpiece. All of the series have some real stinkburgers as episodes (e.g., just to name one from each, TOS: Spock's Brain, TAS: The Terratin Incident, TNG: Skin of Evil, DS9: Sons of Mogh, VOY: Threshold, ENT: A Night In Sickbay). Some of them have many stinkburgers.
Most of the talk in the Catholic blogosphere right now regarding President Obama concerns his shameful appearance at Notre Dame. This is conversation that needs to be had, and I hope that it leads to a tougher statement from the U.S. bishops on the honoring of pro-babykilling figures and to a thorough housecleaning at Notre Dame.
CHT: Volokh.
SDG here with two new Angels & Demons pieces: my review of the film, and an essay on the relationship of religion and science in the story. (A third piece, fact-checking Angels & Demons, went up last week.)
And that's it. I'm done. I'm Browned out. I'm grateful for the trip to Geneva and Rome, but after five different pieces for four different publications, reedited into three pieces (so far) for Decent Films, plus various radio appearances and a spot on EWTN, now that I've actually survived to opening day, I never want to hear, say, read or write the name "Robert Langdon" ever again. Ever.
Especially since Brown's upcoming third Langdon thriller, The Lost Symbol, is all about Freemasons and is apparently set in Washington, DC.
I've been to Washington, DC.
Heck, my family and I toured the West Wing, had lunch in the West Wing mess hall, and climbed up the elevator shaft at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
Of course, I bet Langdon will wind up jumping out of Air Force One with nothing but a propeller beanie and splashdown in the Reflecting Pool. And then find the hidden code in invisible ink on the back of the Declaration of Independence … that … Nicolas Cage already found in National Treasure. Hm.
(Oh, dang. Catholic Answers Live at the end of the month. I'm not done yet. Once more into the breach…)
This post is going to be about the current dustup in the blogosphere regarding Christopher West and the recent ABC News piece on him.
Before I get to the controversial stuff, though, let me say a few words about the task Chris is undertaking.
Christopher West has a difficult job. As a chastity speaker, he's got to juggle several things at once:
They'll also selectively edit the stuffing out of an interview with you and leave the audience with carefully chosen, out-of-context quotations.
That's what happened to Christopher West in this ABC Nightline piece . . .
I've been interviewed by the press, and misquoted by it, often enough that when I first watched this piece, I employed the only safe rule when dealing with an MSM story of this nature: Ignore everything that doesn't come out of Chris's mouth. Do not rely on summaries of his position offered by the reporter.
The summaries that reporters use to link quotations are key means by which they distort, sensationalize, and just plain get stuff wrong.
And, as one would expect, the most controversial stuff in the piece is not stuff that Chris says but that the reporter attributes to Chris in a summary.
The statement that Hugh Hefner is one of Chris's "heroes" or "muses," for example, is something the reporter says–and it's exactly the kind of erroneous "observation" that a reporter in search of a sensationalistic angle would make.
Similarly the statement that Hefner and John Paul II, each in their own way, "rescued" sexuality is something that the reporter says, not West.
Even when one eliminates reportorial summaries and observations, though, and just sticks to the quotations of an interview subject, there is a significant risk of out-of-context presentation.
I know that firsthand because back during the priestly sex abuse scandal I was interviewed by a news program that took an answer I gave to a question on one subject and juxtaposed it with video that made it appear that I was commenting on something that I had never even been asked about.
I was livid.
And so I've always got in the back of my mind, "What's the context for the quote I'm seeing? Could this be taken out of context?"
An example of that is West's statement "I love Hugh Hefner."
Jerkily introduced, without seeing the discussion that led to this statement, after the reporter has just been telling you that Hefner is one of West's heroes, the quotation creates the impression that West endorses Hefner.
But . . . c'mon. I'm guessing that Chris West loves Hefner in the same way that Fundamentalists love Catholics–that is, they love them so much they want them to repent of their lifestyle.
And that's hinted at by what West says next: "I really do. Why? Because I think I understand his ache. I think I understand his longing because I feel it myself. There is this yearning, this ache, this longing we all have for love, for union, for intimacy.&q
uot;
So this is not an endorsement of Hefner and what he's doing. It's compassion toward him, a recognition that there is something broken in Hefner–and all of us–that needs to be addressed.
The language about "feeling his ache" doesn't strike me as the best way to say this. I don't really want to get into Hugh Hefner's head in quite that way (though that's what the language invites me to do).
And there is a danger of spiritualizing away the sexual urges to which Hefner caters if they are presented as just longings for love, union, and intimacy.
But it's clear that West intends to be expressing a sentiment of Christian love towards a broken individual with whom we all share various forms of brokenness.
The response was awkwardly phrased–as likely would be the case when hit by a reporter with a "What do you think of Hugh Hefner?"-type question (you don't want to feed prejudices by coming off as a stereotypical, venom-filled Christian bigot by saying "He's a son of hell," so it's easy to fall back on unnuanced Christian love-type language)–and I think West would be well advised not to make "I love Hefner"-like statements in interviews in the future since we've seen how easily they can be taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood–but it's clear that West is not proclaiming his membership in the Hugh Hefner fan club.
If you want to see what West has to say about Hefner when he's in control of the message, take a look at this video . . .
So I think folks in the blogosphere should cut West some slack and remember that he's on the side of the angels.
At the same time, I think West should use this as a learning experience and take the occasion to purify his message so that he can be even more effective in the future.
Just as a general matter, it's important to keep in mind that there is more than one audience that needs to be (basically) comfortable with what's being said.
Getting through to the people who most need the message of chastity is so difficult that it is easy for chastity speakers to spend so much effort focusing on how to get into that audience's head that not enough attention is paid to the already-convinced crowd and to what will–in the classic Catholic phrase–"offend pious sensibilities."
I think that's at the root of what happened here.
In the TV and YouTube age, the pious crowd is going to see the message being presented to the unpious crowd, and if the sensibilities of the message are too oriented toward the unpious folks then one's relationship with the pious ones ("the Base") will be injured.
Injuring one's relationship with the Base is not a good thing, as our recent former president found out.
The trick, the thing that makes the kind of work West is doing so difficult, is not settling for messages that just please the Base or that just please the worldly target audience. What one has to try to do is find ways of reaching the unchaste without simultaneously alienating the chaste.
That's the challenge.
And it can be done!
You can't please everybody every time, but it is possible to craft messages that will reach the unchaste while not unnecessarily offending pious sensibilities.
In that regard, what I'm about to say isn't specifically applicable to Christopher West. In various points it may or may not apply. It just consists of observations that I've made after listening to the tapes of a lot of different chastity speakers as part of my job.
Tim Jones, here.
This is about a week late, but I wanted to let JA.O readers know that several pieces of my work are
inexplicably featured in the current edition of a well-respected online literary
journal, The Christendom Review.
This has been in the works for a while, and the actual date of publication sort of snuck up on me.
Many thanks to William Luse and to editor Richard Barnett for the
opportunity to be featured in this fine magazine. The Christendom Review also regularly showcases some
great poetry, essays, editorials, etc…
Don't worry, I didn't really bribe anybody. What I did do was send an e-mail saying, "This is a nice literary magazine you got going here… it'd be a shame if anything happened to it…"
Visit Tim Jones' Daily Painting Blog…
… as well as his Daily Spouting-Off Blog Old World Swine.