SVTODAY'S MOVIE FORUM-PAGE 2

I read your article on the Priest. I have to say I saw the film in the theater and I loved it. I was deeply moved by the ending. I know that there are many denominations that allow homosexuality in the church but I have never been exposed to an acceptance of it by any church I have attended. Actually, it would seem that homosexuality is the unforgivable sin according to behavior and attitudes of many Christians I have met.

We all sin and fall short. Forgiveness and repentance is the key to the movie and it was an encouragement to see it in a film.

My "two cents": Homosexual sins are no more unforgivable than any other sins, and the film seems to treat homosexual fornication as even less serious in a Catholic context than breaking the vow of celibacy (perhaps a fine line, as committing fornication breaks the vow). Having said that, however, and now wearing my quasi-professional theologian hat rather than my film reviewer hat, I have to grant that there's greater gravity about homosexual sins than heterosexual sins. That's simply because it's more difficult to redirect homosexual pathology in a sin-neutral way than to redirect heterosexual pathology.

Fr. Matthew, like all priests who sleep with women in violation of their vows, can leave the priesthood, marry his lover, repent of past sins, and continue to enjoy sexual intimacy with his wife while they remain Catholics in good standing, even if barred from service as clergy. Homosexuals cannot enjoy sexual intimacy and remain good Catholics, Orthodox, or evangelical Christians in good standing, and despite all the liberal denominations that have agreed to recognize homosexual unions or at least look the other way, I see no way that can be reconciled with clear teachings of both Old and New Testaments. The issue is not homosexuality per se (which is not a sin but a condition or state of being), but any type of sexual impurity. Any sex outside marriage is sexual impurity in a biblical understanding, and "marriage" between members of the same sex can never be forced to fit a Christian definition of the word.

As I interpret the climax of the movie, Fr. Greg has, by repenting to his congregation, pledged himself to renew his vow of celibacy. His bishop might impose some additional discipline, but in general he would be allowed to resume his ministry so long as he doesn't create scandal. The position of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco in ministry to homosexuals is that they ought to be encouraged to live in nonsexual longterm relationships with others like themselves, the thinking being that two or more men or women committed to celibate lifestyles can better keep their resolve than men or women living alone. Though the tradition predates modern concerns about homosexuality, the Eastern Orthodox church I belong to has long taught that it's better for unmarried persons to live in close community rather than alone. Even monks are traditionally not allowed to live alone until they have shown advanced spiritual maturity.

A member of an evangelical and Orthodox Christian email forum sent this response to my letter publicizing the latest reviews on the site. It is used here with his permission. —Jon Kennedy

I appreciated the information and checked out the website. Is this to be a daily advertisement (i.e., spam) on this list or can we now assume that anyone who is interested has saved the URL and will check it out when they want to.

How does one do a "theocentric" review of a movie with hard sexual content? Are there not some things from which we should simply flee to save our souls?

(Note: "Rdr." is the abbreviation for "reader," an office in the Orthodox Church. In Orthodoxy, anything done to enhance one's holiness or relationship with God through Christ is thought of as having "soul-saving" merit, but is not understood as saving apart from an already existing relationship with Christ through faith and in obedience. —Editor)

One persons's spam is probably another's filet mignon! No, there certainly won't be daily posts; at most I'm hoping to get out one a week (the fact that I got out two on two consecutive days this first week was a fluke which, now that the mechanics are in place, shouldn't happen again). I'm sorry if some find even one notice a week too many, but I beg your forbearance. Creating a web site is a lot of work, and getting viewers to visit it out of the millions that exist now is even harder, so almost everyone from the New York Times on down uses email as a means of letting potential readers know. And as a member of this E-O (evangelical-Orthodox) list virtually from its beginning, I'm not some outsider coming here to find potential readers, but a writer who makes his living writing and doing things related to writing, and feels called to write primarily for people like ourselves.

As for your second question, the answer is, "one goes to the heart, where the issues of life are, and uses biblical insight as the basis of analysis." When I use "hard-R" of course that isn't referring to hardcore pornographic content, but to the fact that there may be some material meant to jolt viewers, often but not always having to do with sexual representations.

Certainly there are things we should flee for the sake of our salvation, but people's stories are not generally in that category. Mary Magdalene, Mary of Egypt, and no doubt millions of others over the millennia have lived "hard-R" lives before coming to saving faith, and many struggled with those things even afterward. But this is a very knotty question, I don't pretend it can be disposed of with a few glib observations. In fact, I'd like to ask your permission to post your note on our forum at the site, to stimulate input, and more importantly thinking along this line, from other readers.

When you ask, "shouldn't we flee?" would you flee the people at work, comrades in the military, classmates at school, who use R-rated language, just because of that? Probably not. Most Christians, I think, grit their teeth and forbear it for the sake of reaching a deeper level on which there might be some redemptive meaning or moments in their personal relationships.

The movies help many of us do that. Sling Blade: one of the ugliest characters ("Doyle") currently on screen, yet typical of many we all encounter day to day and no less an object of Christ's love; also one of the sweetest characters ("Carl") dedicated to making the world better. Chasing Amy has such offensive dialog in several places that I haven't personally recommended the movie to my sons who are about the ages of the characters in the film. Yet despite their foul mouths and evil fantasies, the two young men portrayed somehow get inside your heart and there is at least the hope of redemption, a yearning for it, in this story. There is certainly room for Christian reflection and discussion here.

Sometimes, as in the case of Bullet Proof, I say "In short, this is a sophomoric exercise in obscenity." And as in Female Perversions, "what it means, I haven't a clue." But you have to pay some dues, so to speak, to have the right to say even that.

Rdr. Timothy's second letter (his quotations from Jon's first reply are shown in italics):

The life of St. Mary of Egypt is read every year during Lent. Her life was certainly one with strong sexual content, but the story of her life is told without those prurient details. Somehow, I can't imagine a Hollywood version that would be anything but blasphemous.

The issue, of course, is not whether we isolate ourselves from neighbors and coworkers to avoid profanity and such, but rather, what we choose for entertainment.

It is difficult to find a movie or television program which does not focus on the breaking of one of the ten commandments as the source of humor, dramatic interest, etc. Only a very few actually turn this into moral edification.

Yet despite their foul mouths and evil fantasies, the two young men portrayed somehow get inside your heart and there is at least the hope of redemption, a yearning for it, in this story. There is certainly room for Christian reflection and discussion here.

Of course you are correct. We need to ask then whether our spiritual condition derives the most benefit from watching fictional portrayals of real life and allowing fantasy characters to get "inside our hearts". I am open to the possibility that some Christians may be moved to a change of heart, and thus reach out and bring Christ's love to someone who would otherwise have been ignored. If this is, in fact, our goal, then the activity is good and edifying. If, on the other hand, we derive entertainment from watching adultery, fornication, murder, vulgarity, profanity, etc., then is this not sin?

Sometimes, as in the case of Bullet Proof, I say "In short, this is a sophomoric exercise in obscenity." And as in Female Perversions, "what it means, I haven't a clue." But you have to pay some dues, so to speak, to have the right to say even that.

Please understand that my inquiry is quite sincere. I am not a hermit. I have a television and watch it. I occasionally go to movies and enjoy them.

Someone (one of the Fathers?) said that the beginning of sin was the desire for the knowledge of good and evil. The images of lesbianism, group sex, etc. and even the title of Female Perversions are things that enter our minds and affect our lives, even from the discreet references in your review. Aren't there some things that we simply avoid? Do we need to see situations like this on film so that we will be able to be compassionate conveyors of the love of Christ?

I would appreciate your comments on this, and you may feel free to post this to the other forum.

Jon's second reply (Rdr. Timothy's words, quoted for clarity, appear in italics).

The issue, of course, is not whether we isolate ourselves from neighbors and coworkers to avoid profanity and such, but rather, what we choose for entertainment.

When I first began this quest as a campus minister and magazine editor, I was a Calvinist and, as such, was ready to say flatly that Christians have no business going to the movies for entertainment! (One of Calvinism's emphases, especially among Puritans, was "redeem the time," always, all time.) Now I guess I have a little more forgiving definition of entertainment, though not much. In the sense that the most serious consciousness-raising bull session in the dorm or coffeehouse can be the most "entertaining" event in a week or a lifetime, I can allow movie viewing for entertainment.

I know very few people who share that view—even my Orthodox friends mostly go to movies for escape (and I sometimes offer my press passes to "escapist" movies to some of them, as I think they're not worth serious consideration)—but trying to move them in the direction of redeeming the time they spend on or with movies is what my film "ministry" is all about. I used to teach Sunday school classes in Christianity and current culture, using the movies as the main illustrations, and I did get quite a few people asking me the right questions about movies even years afterward through that. But alas, my present parish has no adult Sunday school or alternative outlet for me to do this. But then we didn't have the worldwide web in those days, either!

Often—at least in the movies that matter—there is a strong moral point made—and I find ironically that that's true of the movies with the most jolting content early in their storylines—Pulp Fiction and Chasing Amy are excellent examples. Often we have to draw the "sermon" out of the film, (most storytellers train themselves not to be "didactic"), but in the best of those it doesn't take much to make it apparent to most people.

...We need to ask then whether our spiritual condition derives the most benefit from watching fictional portrayals of real life and allowing fantasy characters to get "inside our hearts". I am open to the possibility that some Christians may be moved to a change of heart, and thus reach out and bring Christ's love to someone who would otherwise have been ignored. If this is, in fact, our goal, then the activity is good and edifying. If, on the other hand, we derive entertainment from watching adultery, fornication, murder, vulgarity, profanity, etc., then is this not sin?

Yes, it is...where is the verse in (St. Paul's Epistle to the) Romans along these lines, "they not only do the same but take pleasure in those who do (evil deeds)"? But I think the most demoralizing movies are sometimes the "loveliest" rather than the "ugliest." Dr. Zhivago—all is lovely and light, so lovely that I've known many who metaphorically covered their ears when I talked about it justifying adultery. Also Camelot—how many want Guenevere and Lancelot to live happily ever after? I have heard the same is true of The Bridges of Madison County, which I missed. Chasing Amy is ugly to listen to, by contrast, but ends on a very strong condemnation of infidelity—not quite as Christians define it, but much higher than most daytime TV talk show audiences define it. Dostoyevsky was ahead of his time, compared with English authors, in using mild profanity and realism in his stories. I think he would be closer to a Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), were he a moviemaker today, than to Tarantino's Hollywood critics. More of Dostoyevsky's characters, but certainly not all, would be Christians or would-be Christians however. :-)

Please understand that my inquiry is quite sincere. I am not a hermit. I have a television and watch it. I occasionally go to movies and enjoy them.

Someone (one of the Fathers?) said that the beginning of sin was the desire for the knowledge of good and evil. The images of lesbianism, group sex, etc. and even the title of Female Perversions are things that enter our minds and affect our lives, even from the discreet references in your review. Aren't there some things that we simply avoid? Do we need to see situations like this on film so that we will be able to be compassionate conveyors of the love of Christ?

More than once I have said, "I refuse to go see a movie entitled, ——." And I would hope that Christians generally would avoid spending money and commiting an evening to anything titled Female Perversions; that was one that I almost stayed away from, and perhaps should have. It is based on a psychology textbook of the same name, by the way, which suggests a serious purpose, and it might have had a redemptive purpose and even attempts to do so, but its secular humanist frame of reference prevents that from prevailing. No, my purpose is not to encourage anyone to see movies. Rather it is to urge them, if they are going to see movies, to see better ones, and to see them better.

I would appreciate your comments on this, and you may feel free to post this to the other forum.

Many thanks; I likewise appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Obviously...this is one of my favorite topics.

Another email list member writes: Just curious ... as for movie events / art and such, what did you think of Pulp Fiction?

I felt Pulp Fiction was a major event, with highly insightful commentary on current culture, man's alienation from mankind and God, and the need for redemption. Of course the Samuel L. Jackson character's theology was seriously flawed, but at least he believed in a God and came to believe in His providence, a major breakthrough. And, in a post-Christian cultural context, this was the right kind of vehicle, despite its violence, violent language and ugliness, for conveying this highly didactic message.

Sling Blade is much easier to like and I do like it better—it rates the rare 9 on my 10-point scale (the only 10 I've ever given was for The Hiding Place :-)) and Pulp Fiction would get an 8. I'm not sure whether I ever wrote a review of Pulp Fiction; when it came out I was writing reviews mainly to fill space when there were holes to fill in the newspapers I was editing. If there were no empty spaces, some movies never got reviewed. But my sons, who both love it and have seen it numerous times, and I have discussed it so much I have "reviewed" it quite thoroughly in that sense.

After seeing this film, I tried, but failed, to piece together all the details of the plot. Who is spying for who in the period before the war? Apparently all the archaeologists were making maps for the British. Caravaggio was also a British (or Canadian) agent.

Count Almasy later trades the maps to the Germans in exchange for gasoline for his plane. This makes him a traitor, perhaps, but not a spy. So who took the pictures of Caravaggio that were in the German interrogator's possession? Is one of the archaeologists a double agent?

Is this explained in the movie? Given the movie's emphasis on the gradual unraveling of all the other secrets of the plot, I more or less assume that everything would be explained by the end of three hours, but maybe Minghella doesn't have the fanatic attention to detail that Tarantino has. Is there any place I can find the answer to my question other than waitng for the video to come out and watching it five times?

Good question, Nick. As my review indicated, I was left with unanswered questions as well. Perhaps some of our readers will chime in with some insight or opinions?

I mentioned on an email list a few days before the Oscarcast that the only thing I could see stopping a big win by The English Patient might be the fact that "the hero (Count Almasy) is based on a real-life character who was a Nazi sympathizer." To this, a fellow member of the list replied, quite wisely, "But was Almasy really the hero? Didn't his intrigues and betrayals destroy the lives of everyone around him? Wasn't the real hero the nurse who sacrificed her own priorities for the sake of others?" I had to agree he had the better take on it, and am glad I had this chance to put it forward.

NEWS INDEX	TRAVEL	MOVIES	RELIGION	VIEWPOINTS	CALENDAR
VALLEY LINKS	NEWS LINKS	SOFTWARE	JOBS	ABOUT SVT	AD RATES