Catholics at the movies
The new Roland Joffé film, “There Be Dragons,” about Opus Dei founder Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer opened today and didn’t receive the best of reviews: Entertainment Weekly (EW to you) gave it a C+, and the New York Times review wasn’t much better. (Then again, “Thor” got hammered. Call the Heathen League for Irreligious and Civil Rights.)
“There Be Dragons” did give many of us in the trade a chance to write about the evolution of Opus Dei, among other things (as I tried to do in today’s Wall Street Journal), and Joffé’s many interviews on the film were perhaps more profound than the movie itself. (This “wobbly agnostic” directed “The Mission” and is drawn to spiritual topics. Read his Q&A with Dan Burke of Religion News Service.)
Lest you think the bad review of “The Be Dragons” is further proof of the congenital perfidy of The New York Times when it comes to things Catholic, there was a small review of another movie, “Vito Bonafacci,” which I’d never heard of and which seems unlikely to get much notice. Perhaps it deserves better. The review in toto:
Between Hollywood’s reliable mining of the exorcism vein (as in “The Rite”) and its coming appreciation of the vampire-slaying action hero in “Priest,” recent studio releases suggest that men of the cloth are needed only to deal with the supernaturally horrific. So “Vito Bonafacci,” an earnest film about a lapsed Roman Catholic in spiritual crisis, is a welcome reminder of religion’s true work.
A first feature written and directed by John Martoccia, this simple film tells an age-old tale. The title character (played by Paul Borghese) is a well-off contractor shaken by a nightmare in which he dies of a heart attack, and his dead mother tells him that his pursuit of “money, power, status and pleasure” had led him astray and that he should have stayed close to “the one true living God.”
The film follows Vito through his day as he asks his wife and employees if he is a good man, whether they believe in heaven and hell, what role the church plays in their lives. In flashback, he recalls lessons about the rosary from earlier Catholic teachers. By the evening, he has reached out to his local priest, who comes to his mansion, takes his confession, even celebrates Communion. Vito is renewed, more certain of his faith and fate.
Effectively a tutorial on some basic Catholic rituals, this isn’t a great film — too many scenes are static or clumsily acted — but it is elevated by the touches of neorealist style in its small-bore focus and its soundtrack of classical compositions and Italian music from the 12th and 13th centuries. In a world fixated on bombast, “Vito Bonafacci” offers a quiet haven for meaningful meditation.
Let anyone who sees it weigh in.
Today’s Times also gave a good review to Octubre, which seems to involve some very Catholic themes and situations. Of these three films, it seemed like the most interesting.
But, David, you forgot the rating that REALLY counts: Rotten Tomatoes :) (Which, as I’m sure you know, is a compendium of critics’ reviews).
Rotten Tomatoes, on the basis of 26 critics’ reviews, gave “There Be Dragons” a rating of 12%, a truly abysmal number.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/there_be_dragons/
“Octubre,” by comparison, has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 75% on the basis of 8 critics’ reviews. That’s … respectable.
David’s article attests to the impressive PR skills of Opus Dei, to be sure. But the Opus Dei Awareness Network provides the best background of the reality behind the film. http://www.odan.org
“The financing of about $30 million came from about 100 investors, and raising it was a struggle, said Ignacio G. Sancha, the lead producer, a Spanish financier and lawyer who is also a member of Opus Dei.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/movies/22opus.html?_r=1
The early Times article stated that “the project was initiated by a member of Opus Dei, is partly produced and financed by the group’s members and has enlisted an Opus Dei priest to consult on the set.”
Contrast this information with a recent quote from an Opus Dei website saying that “at the request of the film’s producers, the communications office of the Prelature of Opus Dei provided historical information and other audiovisual materials regarding Saint Josemaria, as it does in response to similar requests for news stories, books and documentaries,” as if Opus Dei had nothing at all to do with the planning and production of the film.”
Are we now to believe that the leopard has changed its spots?
Last I heard, OD has separate entrances for men and women at its Manhattan headquarters, and has not disavowed self-flagellation as a spiritual practice. The template is well-established.
I am reminded of the very skillful efforts of the Legion of Christ when it comes to dissembling about a group’s true nature. It is truly frightening how easily a false narrative succeeds.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1 for a fuller description, pro and con, about Escriva. Thankfully, Von Balthasar and Kenneth Woodward see through the image.
OD’s spin is chilling mendacity at its height. Enough already with the hyper-orthodox, wealthy cults masquerading as holiness. Fool me once…
Sorry for the extended bold type! I thought I had learned the HTML codes better than that.
I had been hoping that this would be a return to form for Joffé. Oh, well…
Carolyn,
Were you fooled once by a “hyper-orthodox, wealthy cult” or was that just a figure of speech? And what “template” are you talking about exactly? Do you have evidence that the founder of Opus Dei was guilty of doing the sort of terrible things the founder of the Legion of Christ did? (The Vatican did not come down on the Legion for being wealthy or hyper-orthodox.) Looks like lazy insinuation to me. Finally, have the Jesuits, whose founder recommended self-flagellation in his Spiritual Exercises, officially disavowed it? “There Be Dragons” sounds like a bad movie. But if you want to use this thread to criticize Opus Dei, you’ll need to be a little more specific and a little less sweeping.
I don’t know about the “critics”, but Netflix has given it 3.7 of 5 stars, so apparently regular people really like the film.
David G – WSJ byline. Nice! (And nice piece, too).
Matthew,
Oh my, I do admit to generalities, not thinking specificity required to a level you indicate. These are obviously my opinions for better or worse, to take or leave. One can spend untold hours searching sources, as I have done countless times, but I don’t have the energy or interest any more.
For some additional clarity, the template I have in mind regarding the Legion and Opus Dei is one of a cult, steeped in corrosive secrecy, isolation from family, recruitment of minors; focused on a rigid, unhealthy spirituality, with orthodoxy almost a fetish. Both are of Spanish origin, though I’m not certain how that expresses itself. But I have read of a tolerance of corruption that worries Legionaries who are not Spanish. A focus on fundraising and association with wealthy elites is another similarity I see.
Both have women’s groups engaged in similar practices of restricted lives under tight control.
Both have large groups of ex-members who describe similar practices, and work to help each other overcome their toxic experiences. Similar types of entries are not hard to find.
OD – http://www.odan.org See recruiting practices for minors.
Legion – http://www.regainnetwork.org/ See for the same in this interview with a bishop concerned about unsavory approaches, and the denials offered: http://ncronline.org/node/1237
I have no information on Escriva as a sexual abuser, and did not have that in mind when thinking instead of the above.
Unbeknownst to my husband and me, OD tried to sweep up my minor daughter in its grasp, with secret recruiting techniques that made sure we did not know what was happening. I consider it is by the grace of God that she and we escaped their clever enticements. Only afterwards did we discover what was really happening. Years later my daughter gave me a copy of the harrowing book by a woman who escaped from OD after years of mistreatment.
As for self-flagellation, it was part of church practice centuries ago. There were many ascetical practices, with almost a marathon competition to see who could outdo whom. I consider it stepping over into very dangerous territory, and frankly unbalanced. A cilice, “a spiked metal belt or chain worn wrapped tightly around the upper thigh,” as a form of “corporal mortification” is used by ODers, and for sale at http://www.cilice.co.uk/ Chilling material.
Of course, I draw inferences about discrimination when a group has separate entrances for men and women at their headquarters.
A priest friend told me years ago that people really just want to be told what to do. I have come to see more and more the wisdom of his observation.
Second the kudos for the WSJ piece.
Disappointing if it turns out the reviews are right. I’ll still see it–it’s a fascinating historical subect for a film (aside from any objections to the organization, Josemaria makes for an ideal cinematic character). Jaffe is so very talented (Killing Fields, Mission), except when he’s decidedly not (Super Mario Bros, City of Joy). On the topic of religion and film, has anyone seen the Martin Sheen/Emilio Estevez pilgrimage documentary? I had hoped it would be good.
(Speaking of performing arts and religion, can we anticipate a cw review of Broadway’s “Book of Mormon”? Please?)
I know very little about Opu Dei except from one person from Mexico who said that they tend to prefer people who are “connected” and plugged into their respective organizations. He didn’t say it was so much cultish as elitist but maybe that is Mexico.
As an aside wasn’t there some buzz that Madonna was moving away from Kabbalah and to Opus Dei?
I assume that the “touches of neorealist style” are bad acting, which the Times reviewer is choosing to point out both show off his up-to-date knowledge of cinematic jargon and to damn the film. Writers can be so sneaky.
In fact, the first paragraph of the review is all one needs to read to understand where this writer is going:
“Clunk, clunk, squish. That is the sound of the dead language in Roland Joffé’s screenplay for “There Be Dragons” as it tramples his would-be epic of the Spanish Civil War into an indigestible pulp. This calamitous film, written and directed by Mr. Joffé, the creator of “The Killing Fields” and “The Mission,” consists of two stories mashed into an interminable two-hour Sunday school sermon punctuated with battlefield carnage. Beyond the lugubrious pageantry, there is no sign of emotional or spiritual life in the film, only windy posturing.”
After that, I’m surprised he kept writing. I stopped reading. He can’t have had much left to say.
Those who urge the curtailing of contributions to the Church from “pew potatoes” shouldn’t be surprised if “wealthy elites” gain undue influence.
Breach presented the most intriguing view of Opus Dei I have seen. Sanitized hagiography is not an accurate reflection of the fallen people that we are, our struggles and the goos we seek to become.
“. . . and the goos we seek to become.”
Now there’s a sticky subject :-)
No one has yet explained the use of Ebonics in the title of the OD film.
Carolyn–
Have you read John L. Allen, Jr.’s book on Opus Dei? He once felt as you do now.
@Rita,
I like the film title–it’s a play on the medieval cartographical convention of decorating blank spaces with fantastical sea creatures (the phrase appears in Latin on one old map). As a film title, perhaps it references the idea that the spiritual path is terra incognita, or maybe that what we fear in life might end up being imaginary, or that seeing ordinary life as sacred is a radical idea, or perhaps that exploring and understanding an organization and its founder is fraught with risk (for both followers and detractors). I’m not a joiner and tend to be suspicious of groupy stuff, especially those groups who tend to isolate members or those with secret “insider” rituals and teachings, but it’s not a left v right or group purpose thing, it’s just my quirk (hell, I don’t even like college sororities/fraternities). I can say the OD members I’ve met (only about 50, in maybe 4 or 5 states) didn’t reassure me or incline me toward joining or even help me understand the value of their membership. I wouldn’t claim they were a representative sample of the group, though. I have found much of Escriva’s writing to be beautiful and inspiring.
I like the title very much as well, but only once it’s explained. I think it will go down as one of the more inexplicable choices, though if the film is good enough it won’t matter. Besides, the movie could get a boost from all the kids expecting the adaptation of the Bruce Lee video game…
“Breach” was also a good movie. As for Opus Dei itself, my sense is that it has changed in considerable ways, though it may not be my — or anyone else’s — cup of tea. My argument is that rather than reading OD or VOTF or a Bishop in Australia out of the Church’s mainstream the Church has been more successful and truer to itself when it shows a broad embrace.
Mary, thank you for your instructive comments. My note was merely jocular.
Rita, by the way, is quite the joc.
Curious, I clicked through on the cilice link, and found that you can buy hairshirts, METAL disciplines, and “lightweight” cilices (why is “lightweight a selling point? Wouldn’t a heavy one hurt more?) made by genuine Italian nuns. I guess the nun thing–Italian nuns!–must make them more authentic??
I’m envisioning a community of women whose daily work is making instruments of self-mortification. Imagine the dinner table conversation (if any.) “Sister, I have an idea. I wonder if we can make the cilices more irksome if we add a chemical irritant that the user can apply before putting it on.” “Oh, splendid idea, Sister, splendid! Just like your earlier idea that we line our mantillas with inconspicuous thorns, so the women wearing them can be modest AND in pain at the same time! A real two-fer!”
Give me the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence any day.
This seems an appropriate comment re: this topic:
“The reason that there are no more freak shows is because we have become a society that has no place for freaks.” Christopher Lasch
That being said, to my knowledge the SPI do NOT engage in any form of self-mortification. Au contraire —–
Lisa–hilarious.
I hesitate to ask this, because I don’t want to come off as trolling for controversy, but I really wonder about the following, so here goes:
Can one of the theologians or well-read (or even poorly- read but opinionated, I’m not that picky) people here tell me if self-flaggelation, celice-wearing, etc practices are consistent with JP2′s Theology of the Body, and if so, specifically how?
Mary,
To respond to your question, and not digress too much from the thread:
JPII practiced self-flagellation himself, also lying through the night on a bare wooden floor with his arms outstretched. This came out in the investigation related to beautification. People close to him could hear the groans.
He was brought up in a different church, in a time with different practices.
As to JPII’s TOTB, here is Luke Timothy Johnson’s A DISEMBODIED ‘THEOLOGY OF THE BODY’: John Paul II on love, sex and pleasure.
“For all its length, earnestness, and good intentions, John Paul II’s work, far from being a breakthrough for modern thought, represents a mode of theology that has little to say to ordinary people because it shows so little awareness of ordinary life.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_2_128/ai_71578789/?tag=content;col1
Exactly. In another post, there is an article by Cathleen on faith and the leavening of culture but culture leavening faith.
I think that part of the problem with the modern church is precisely this kind of polarization that is an aspect of modern democratic political culture has crept into the Church.
As you say, the Church is indeed truer to itself when it shows a broad embrace. Not easy though. The embrace of the other is a very important theme throughout salvation history.
There is a Sufi story based on an apocryphal account of the life of Abraham that Abraham would always invite a stranger to have breakfast with him. One morning Abraham invited an old man of 100 or breakfast and invited him to say the blessing. The man was a Zoroastrian and prayed to fire. Abraham became indignant at the man’s idolatry and threw him out of his house.
God asked Abraham why he did that and Abraham replied that he was disrespecting the true Lord of all. God replied “I have been feeding that man for 100 years and you could not share one simple meal with him!”
Point is if it is hard for Abraham it is hard for us all.