So I was pleased to see last week that the Washington Post's "Under God" blog picked up on my 2012 review at Christianity Today in a post on the film — and that they specifically called out a "Catholic" coda at the end of the review, in which I expressed my difficulty with the depiction (and non-depiction) of Catholic clergy at key points in the film:
A Tibetan monk is among the survivors, but "the only Christian clergy shown are the Catholic prelates who die at St. Peter's . . . If Emmerich is going to specifically show the Vatican leadership going down with St. Peter's, I want to see Catholic (and/or Orthodox) bishops among the survivors–somewhere on the planet."
Apparently Canada's CBC took note, and this morning I did a half-hour segment on the CBC's morning show "The Current." While I always walk away from a broadcast appearance thinking about all the things I wished I had said, I thought that it went pretty well, all things considered.
Now this morning I see that NYTimes.com's Arts Beat blog picked up on my New Moon review for Christianity Today in their round-up of reviews! This time, there's not a specific faith angle; the CT.com review is quoted alongside Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek and Slate.com's Dana Stevens — and they note, amusingly, that mine is probably "the only 'New Moon' review to invoke C. S. Lewis." Heh!
They also quote what is really the heart of my critique of the whole Twilight saga:
Twilight and New Moon are essentially uncritical celebrations of that overwrought, obsessive passion that is the hallmark of immaturity — passion that wholly subordinates all sense of one's own identity and elevates the beloved to summum bonum, or even the sole good; passion that leaps as readily to suicidal impulses and fantasies as to longing for union.
Pretty cool. (My editor at CT.com says he's going to have to keep me on all the two-star cheese-fests from now on…)
Incidentally, the WaPo blogger, David Waters, comments on my 2012 reservations, "Personally, I think that expecting to find any theological sensitivity from a Hollywood blockbuster is like expecting to find nutritional value in a jelly donut."
Maybe. First, though, how plausible is it that an enormous international project to save a remnant of thousands of people from all over the world, including many of the powerful and connected, would not include bishops? Certainly among those thousands would be some Catholics and Orthodox who would want to make provision for their faith life aprés le deluge, and would arrange for the inclusion of clergy.
Second, it's more the contrast of Catholic bishops explicitly being killed onscreen but not shown among the survivors that bothers me.
And third, I wouldn't say I had any "expectations" of "theological sensitivity" … I was merely commenting on something that's a problem for me watching the film. I might have similar reservations about a jelly donut.
A bit of a spoiler….
As Fr. Robert Barron points out, all the non-christians that managed to get onto the Arks while ALL the ‘other’ religions (especially the CATHOLICS) are annihilated are headed to the one continent that survived – AFRICA.
Ironically this is a continent where Christianity (especially Catholicism) is exploding! When the survivors reach it they will find a strong and vibrant church (along with Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast – The largest church in the world!)
I guess Roland Emmerich does not have a closet in his house with a life size seated statue of Cardinal Arinze laughing at the impeccable research for his movie script.
Maybe … if there’s anyone at all. The problem is that just because part of Africa is above water doesn’t mean anyone survived there. After all, the whole continent is now the new “roof of the world” and the only area above the new sea level, which means there was some catastrophic elevational shifting going on. It’s quite possible that everyone in Africa died and that only the ark survivors are left. But it’s a neat idea nonetheless.
Heh. How many people will get your “laughing clerical statue” joke?
Funny how believers are always accused of living in a fantasy world. Emmerich’s world in which Christians die and leave only the Brights is right up there with the old Casino Royale in which Evil Overlord Woody Allen plots to release a poison that will make all women beautiful and kill all men taller than 5-foot 5 inches.
Yes, I suppose the statue joke may not be as well appreciated….
Roland Emmerich has, among other ‘works of art’, under his staircase, a wax sculpture of Pope John Paul II laughing as he reads his own obituary.
http://manolohome.com/2008/08/15/a-snapshot-of-roland-emmerichs-world/
SDG,
I’m listening to your segment on CBC Radio right now, and it sounds interesting. From what I have heard so far, I’d say that you did a great job. And it’s nice to hear a solid Catholic speaker getting the chance to comment for a more secular audience.
If anyone else wants to listen, you can find the archived audio here:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/
Mmmmmmmm…jelly donut.
OK, now I’m dying to know why Edward leaves Bella & why it’s so jarring, SDG! I have no desire to read/watch anything Twilight. This is why Al Gore invented Wikipedia! LOL.
And 2012 sounds even worse than it looks! Why are folk flocking to these things when there’re other, um, good movies to see? (SIGH)
The scene itself isn’t jarring in terms of what actually happens, only the way it’s staged in the film. It plays like an over-the-top fantasy sequence and made me think, “Okay, this seems like it isn’t really happening, and in five or ten seconds it’ll snap back to the real world” … and then it didn’t.
What’s more, that same effect happened again later in the film, although I ws ready for it the second time, so what I thought was, “Okay, ordinarily I would think this probably wasn’t happening, but last time it was and so probably this time it is too…” and while I was right the second time, it still felt weird.
I don’t think I’ve looked at the reviews on Christianity Today before (sorry). Do you come up with the “discussion starter” questions too? I think that could come in handy — using movies as a starting point for evangelization.
SDG,
I liked your fake caption under Dakota Fanning’s picture. It might be cool to add that to your own site. 😀
“As Fr. Robert Barron points out, all the non-christians that managed to get onto the Arks while ALL the ‘other’ religions (especially the CATHOLICS) are annihilated are headed to the one continent that survived – AFRICA.
Ironically this is a continent where Christianity (especially Catholicism) is exploding! When the survivors reach it they will find a strong and vibrant church (along with Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast – The largest church in the world!)”
Father Barron has a lot of sharply observed insights that I always find quite compelling and engaging. I always get excited whenever he has made a new video. He was right to dismiss “2012” as a bad movie. But occasionally in his movie reviews I think he misses the boat. I think the 2 most glaring examples was his reviews of the Coen films “No Country For Old Men” and “A Serious Man” which he seemed to green-light without really pointing out their problematic worldviews. I don’t have a problem with him giving positive reviews of those films per se. But he seemed to be overlooking the cynical attitude “ASM” seemed to have towards the small (mostly Jewish) suburban community, as well as the nihilistic outlook of “NCFOM” (which was well observed by SDG in one of his mail columns). On a positive note, he did a fascinating review of “Fargo” (one of my favorite films) which was the video that first brought my attention to Father Barron.
Fake caption credit belongs to my editor at CT. 🙂
But occasionally in his movie reviews I think he misses the boat. I think the 2 most glaring examples was his reviews of the Coen films “No Country For Old Men” and “A Serious Man” which he seemed to green-light without really pointing out their problematic worldviews.
Agreed Benchwarmer. While I can admire an ability to pull truth and goodness out of anything, some things are just too toxic, and ought to be called out as such.
Don’t forget that the head of the Church of England was seen escaping!
In watching the film, “2012,” I thought the Catholics made an extraordinarily good impression. It seems that any difficulty lies in certain secular assumptions likely to be made about the subject of prayer. The Pontiff, Cardinals, Italian Prime Minister and his family, as well as all of the Faithful in St. Peter’s Square seemed to me to be praying for salvation, not for physical survival. Once this is realized, the touching gesture of the Prime Minister calming his wife’s near panic in the face of physical death has great dignity. One must also note that the Italian Prime Minister is the only head of state besides the American President who is said to forego the opportunity of physical escape; however, the Prime Minister is infinitely more competent in his death than the President, who seems to have no idea what to do.
We should not allow insufficient secular understandings to cloud our ability to appreciate the value of “good death,” or to cloud our ability to recognize it when it is depicted.
Those who died in St. Peter’s square with the Holy Father were decidedly not, “going down.”
This is TypePad Support testing your comments. Please feel free to delete this.
Thanks to Roland’s refusal to put in any Muslim landmarks (Mecca & Medina) being destroyed, PLUS his nice disclaimer that no Muslim things were harmed in the making of this movie PLUS his interviews where he admits his utter and complete fear of Islam…..and the result is:
2012 is the most pro-Islamic propaganda film ever produced. Think of the message it sends: If you want to survive the end of the world, you must be a Muslim!
Thanks to his anti-Catholic irrational bigotry, and irrational bigotry against all “organized religion” – this insanity of his led him to become a Dhimmi and make a movie that lifts up Islam!
Way to go Roland, way to go! Next time, keep your bigotry away from the big screen and do your job. Maybe THEN you could have made a movie that wasn’t pro-Islamic propaganda.
Huh? Mecca isn’t destroyed onscreen, but the dialogue makes it clear that it’s been destroyed along with everything else outside of Africa. The only people who live, AFAWK, are those onboard the movie’s giant arks — and we don’t see anyone identified as Muslim (or any other faith, except for the Buddhist monk).
no man can predict the exact arrival of Jesus back on earth. 2012 is a load of bull poop…the mayans based it on mathematical calculations, but we all know that God defies the laws of math! He created, He can end on his own time. and to be honest, im sure he doesnt appreciate mere people assumming that they are smart enough to ‘calculate’ (predict) the end of the world.-my 2 cents for the first time in about a year
and by the by… ive recently come to the conclusion that you must either read the Twilight series, or watch it. Doing both will shatter the literary illusion that Stephenie Meyer works so hard to create.
but we all know that God defies the laws of math!
Not really. Math is any consistent system dealing with numbers or quantities. As such, for God to defy the laws of math, he would have to be inconsistent. God’s math may not be the same as man’s math, but whatever those laws are, he does not defy them. That would make him the more arbitrary, will-based God of Islam.
The Chicken
What “The Chicken” said!
>The only people who live, AFAWK, are those onboard the movie’s giant arks — and we don’t see anyone identified as Muslim (or any other faith, except for the Buddhist monk).
OK, I stand corrected.
It is an Atheist propaganda film 🙂