Yes! Yes! Yes! Johnny Quest on DVD!

johnnyquest2Finally! Johnny Quest is on DVD!

If you’re of the right age, you know without me even telling you that Johnny Quest used to be the coolest thing going on Saturday morning–by far!

In case you aren’t lucky enough to remember Johnny Quest, the series was a thirty minute action/adventure cartoon that started airing back in 1964. It instantly became a classic, and it has remained famous for the last forty years. The main cast includes:

  • Dr. Benton Quest–a SCIENTIST (not specializing in any particular kind of

    science, just whatever the episode was about that week) who globetrots, solving

    mysteries for the U.S. intelligence community.

  • Johnny Quest–his intelligent, irrepressible son who is drawn into the

    adventures by his father’s globetrotting.

  • Roger "Race" Bannon–a government agent assigned to protect Johnny to keep

    him from being kidnapped and used to blackmail his father.

  • Hadji–Johnny’s best friend, an orphaned boy from India, and
  • Bandit–Johnny’s irrepressible, comic-relief dog.

Man, Johnny Quest was cool! The series was drawn on a limited, 1964 TV animation budget, so it used limited animation techniques in order to avoid breaking the budget, but it used the animation in creative and striking ways that make it far more interesting to look at than typical TV animation. It features the intriguing, stylistic designs of animator Alex Toth (who also designed Space Ghost and other classic animation series of the period) and detailed backgrounds that are covered with detail. The series’ premise takes the characters to exotic locations around the globe and confronts them with powerful, sometimes supernatural threats–further adding to the visual dynamism of the series.

Also outstanding is the writing. The scripts are intelligent and (despite the fantastic premise of the series) far more realistic than most animated series. Some of the stuff in the scripts would never make it onto Saturday morning TV today. Consider:

In one episode, Johnny, Hadji, and Race are in a South American jungle when they counter a panther who is about to kill a native man. Race has only a second to act, so to save the man he SHOOTS THE PANTHER. Notice that I didn’t say “stuns the panther with a sonic disruptor pistol.” He SHOOTS IT WITH A RIFLE. Then, rather than letting the boys approach the native, who has the panther laying at his feet, Race tells them to stay where they are and then he SHOOTS THE PANTHER AGAIN to make SURE it’s dead. (Remember: There’s nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.)

Yes! That’s what you’re SUPPOSED to do in that situation! Save human life and keep it safe, even if it means killing an animal–a valuable lesson in life (one that everybody used to learn) that you’d NEVER see on a modern, politically correct, eco-friendly, Captain Planet-y cartoon.

What a breath of fresh air a show like Johnny Quest is after years of agenda-driven pablum in animated form. It’s striking, intelligent, focused–and even delightfully scary at times for a boy of a certain age. It stresses virtues like loyalty, determination, inventiveness, and facing one’s fears–and it does so without preaching at the audience. The heroes display these virtues naturally while the series stays focused on the STORY instead of wallowing in introspection and self-doubt before finally summoning up the courage to do the right thing.

The current DVD set includes ALL the original Johnny Quest episodes (despite the misleading “Complete First Season” label; the manufacturer apparently is treating a 1986 sequel series as the “second season”), so when you buy this you’ll be getting all the favorite episodes you remember from childhood.

Whether you want to revive memories of Johnny Quest from your own childhood, want to share it with your own, appropriately-aged children, or appreciate it for the first time, hop on board the hovercraft and watch Johnny and the gang face a truckload of evil scientists, enemy agents, and wicked cool monsters.

BUY IT!

Sisters of Mercy Apologize (Re: The Magdalen Sisters)

Y’all may remember the film The Magdalene Sisters that came out a couple of years ago. It was a horrible film that viciously exploted a horrible scandal. The sisters that ran the Magdalene homes had already issued a partial apology when a previous documentary about the situation had aired. Now they have issued a fuller apology.

Hidalgo

Just turned in my review of the new movie Hidalgo to The Decent Films Guide. The film stars Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings) as a cowboy named Frank Hopkins who goes to Arabia to compete in a long-distance horse race.

You can read what I thought about the movie in the review, but here are a couple of technical notes that really don’t belong in a review:

1) Since we’ve been talking about other languages in movies, I might mention that a good bit of this one is in a Native American language (Lakhota, I believe) and in Arabic. I don’t know Lakhota, but since 9/11 I’ve been studying Arabic. (I wanted to be able to read enough of the Qur’an in the original to refute the claims of Muslim apologists).

The story in Hidalgo takes the viewer to Yemen and Arabia, but the Arabic being spoken in the film doesn’t sound quite like Arabian Arabic to me. It sounds more like Syrian Arabic (though my ear isn’t good enough yet to be sure). Syrian Arabic is more "musical," like the Arabic in the film, while Arabian Arabic is more harsh and guttural.

I also noticed in the film that the subtitles when the characters are speaking Arabic aren’t giving a strictly literal translation of what is being said. That, however, was true of The Passion as well: The subtitles in it weren’t strictly literal, either.

2) The horsemanship in Hidalgo is pretty good. Viggo Mortensen really does know how to ride. In fact, I was stunned at one of the things he did in The Two Towers.

You know the scene where Aragorn has washed up on the shore and we see a horse step into the foreground, placing its hoof right next to his head and then putting its lips over Viggo’s nose? I was stunned when I saw this. In real life letting a horse do that would be incredibly reckless. Since we didn’t see it’s whole body, I thought for sure it was an animatronic (mechanical) "horse" that the filmmakers used, but no, it was a real one. Viggo apparently slept with it in its stall for a few nights to let it get comfortable enough with him. Still, I would have never done that.

In Hidalgo, Viggo rides well (for the most part) and uses realistic audible cues to tell the horse what he wants it to do (people often don’t realize how important audible cues are to riding–not just "whoa" and "giddyup," but sucking/clicking sounds that you make with your mouth; different horses are trained to respond to different cues).

Given the horse realism the filmmakers seemed to be trying for, I was a little surprised that Viggo didn’t talk to the horse more during scenes in which something that would be very frightening to a horse was taking place (e.g., a sandstorm). Horses are very timid and easily-frightened animals that need to be reassured that their riders know what is going on and are in control of the situation. Talking to the horse plays an important role in keeping him calm when something frightening happens. Otherwise he may run off in fear, carrying the rider with him (which is a Really Not Good Thing in a sandstorm).

I also was a little surprised at a couple of points in the movie when immediately after hard exercise horses were ordered to be bathed in cold water or run directly into the ocean surf.  Body heat management is not easy for horses, and they need to be cooled down by slow walking before you get them wet. If they get too much cold water in their hair when they’re still hot it can cause the shivers and even get them sick. One would think that the problem would be exacerbated in the heat of Arabia, but then maybe the cold water there isn’t all that cold by our standards.

Why Don’t Some Critics "Get It"? (The Passion)

A reader writes concerning Wednesday’s blog:

I was wondering why the reviews are either extremely positive or extremely negative. I hardly read of any reviews in between.   Do you think that reason why most people either love or hate The Passion of the Christ is because it is a high-context movie? Gibson’s desired effect seems to presuppose the viewer’s preexisting devotion towards Christ.

I think that you’ve got it right. When you run across a "love it or hate it" movie, it’s because there is some kind of context to the movie that is needed to appreciate it, meaning that critics who lack that context just don’t "get it."

This movie is "high context" in the sense that it requires some knowledge of what the issues surrounding Jesus were. If someone who knows nothing at all about Jesus were to see it, he’d likely wonder why Jesus is being treated the way he is. Although in theory you could piece this together from what gets said in the film, the overall experience would be confusing.

The movie also requires, if not a preexisting devotion toward Christ, at least openness to the Christian message and to the movie itself. Here is where some critics don’t "get it." They may have a basic knowledge of the issues (at least enough to comprehend the movie intellectually), but they aren’t open to looking at the movie through Christian eyes.

My compadre Steve Greydanus tells me that there are even accounts of critics in some places snoring through the movie. This is simply incomprehensible to me. Even if a person didn’t know anything about Jesus and found himself confused by the movie, it’s so intense that it’s hard for me to imagine anyone dozing off from boredom. Only a person who was completely unengaged with the movie on an intellectual and a human level could do that. Yet some critics, because of their lack of appreciation for the gospel story or because of their anti-Christian (or anti-this-movie) agenda, are unwilling to engage it.

Why Don't Some Critics "Get It"? (The Passion)

A reader writes concerning Wednesday’s blog:

I was wondering why the reviews are either extremely positive or extremely negative. I hardly read of any reviews in between.   Do you think that reason why most people either love or hate The Passion of the Christ is because it is a high-context movie? Gibson’s desired effect seems to presuppose the viewer’s preexisting devotion towards Christ.

I think that you’ve got it right. When you run across a "love it or hate it" movie, it’s because there is some kind of context to the movie that is needed to appreciate it, meaning that critics who lack that context just don’t "get it."

This movie is "high context" in the sense that it requires some knowledge of what the issues surrounding Jesus were. If someone who knows nothing at all about Jesus were to see it, he’d likely wonder why Jesus is being treated the way he is. Although in theory you could piece this together from what gets said in the film, the overall experience would be confusing.

The movie also requires, if not a preexisting devotion toward Christ, at least openness to the Christian message and to the movie itself. Here is where some critics don’t "get it." They may have a basic knowledge of the issues (at least enough to comprehend the movie intellectually), but they aren’t open to looking at the movie through Christian eyes.

My compadre Steve Greydanus tells me that there are even accounts of critics in some places snoring through the movie. This is simply incomprehensible to me. Even if a person didn’t know anything about Jesus and found himself confused by the movie, it’s so intense that it’s hard for me to imagine anyone dozing off from boredom. Only a person who was completely unengaged with the movie on an intellectual and a human level could do that. Yet some critics, because of their lack of appreciation for the gospel story or because of their anti-Christian (or anti-this-movie) agenda, are unwilling to engage it.

"It Is As It Was"–Was It?

There are still questions circulating about what, if anything, the Pope said after viewing  The Passion of the Christ. Here’s my take on what happened. First, the established facts:

  • Last December Peggy Noonan and Rod Dreher both reported that the Pope had privately viewed a screener copy of the movie and afterwards said "It is as it was," which would appear to be a remark indicating that the pope was very moved by the film, and that he approved of it.
  • Shortly thereafter, papal spokesman Joachim Navarro-Valls and others began denying that the pope had said this. One claimed even claimed that the pope does not make comments on art.
  • But as Peggy Noonan revealed, before she originally published her story she had gotten e-mail from Navarro-Valls confirming the quote. Rod Dreher also had confirming e-mail from Navarro-Valls.
  • After a further inquiry from Dreher, Navarro-Valls stated "Regarding your request on the email text attributed to me I can categorically deny its authenticity," which would appear to mean that it was a fake.

What is one to make of all this? Both Dreher and Noonan had e-mail coming from Navarro-Valls’ usual account, so either someone was using his account without his knowledge or some kind of deliberate misdirection was involved. My guess is this: The pope really did make the comment (and he certain does comment on art–frequently in fact) but then Vatican officials got uncomfortable with it and started issuing denial stories using mental reservations.

A mental reservation is a fact or qualification that a person "reserves" (doesn’t state). For example, if a child is accused of eating a cookie before dinner last night he might say "No I didn’t" and reserve the fact that he did eat one immediately after school but not "(just) before dinner." Mental reservations can be morally licit in certain circumstances, but not in all. In some circumstances they amount to lying.

In this case, my guess is that the basic denial that the Holy Father said "It is as it was" is a mental reservation, to be construed along the lines of "He didn’t say it (as a public comment)." Though I hate to accuse Navarro-Valls of using a mental reservation, his statement is also susceptible of one. He may mean "authenticity" in the technical sense of "authoritativeness" rather than the colloquial sense of "genuineness." If that reservation is in play then Navarro-Valls would be saying that the e-mail that came from his account is not authoritative, not that it is a fake.

Now that the film is out, perhaps the Holy Father will choose to publicly clarify his thoughts on the film. Whatever the case may be, there is some kind of skullduggery going on. Either,

  1. Noonan and Dreher are forging e-mail in Navarro-Valls’ name (which I don’t believe for a minute), or
  2. Someone at the Vatican is forging e-mails from the papal spokesman (in which case the person needs to be identified, disciplined, and possibly prosecuted–and the public needs to be informed of the fact that the Vatican has taken corrective measures to prevent this from happening so that reporters can have confidence that they really are receiving e-mail from Navarro-Valls), or
  3. Navarro-Valls and others are unjustly using mental reservations and hanging commentators like Noonan and Dreher out to dry (in which case the truth needs to be stated frankly and without reservation, for the commentators repeated what they said in good faith, and they have a right to enjoy their good names).

If either of the latter two are the case then the credibility of the Vatican press office is diminished.