St. Luigi Guanella from AOP

Here's a little bit about a Saint of the Church and the Salesian Family.  Though he was only in the Salesian Congregation for three years before the Lord called him to work for the developmentally challenged, we still consider Don Guanella one of our own.

Movie Review: "The Master" // I Knew Charlie Kane, and You Sir Are No Charlie Kane

In 1941 Orson Welles, dubiously dubbed the "Boy Genius" by a skeptical press, made a movie, Citizen Kane, that was not only an artistic milestone, but also an act of courage (or folly, depending on your point of view).  For his first Hollywood production the 25 year old Welles told the story of a powerful man of his own time who actually had the ability to destroy his career before it really began.  William Randolph Hearst controlled a newspaper empire whose influence struck fear into the hearts of politicians and Hollywood moguls alike.  Kane was a fictionalized account of Hearst's life, but cut close enough to the bone that he was nearly able to force the major studios to buy the negatives and prints in order to destroy them, or else face lawsuits and reams of bad publicity and scandal stories.  Welles won the battle; Kane was released and he won a screen writing Oscar, along with co-writer Herman Mankiewicz.  He was also essentially run out of Hollywood; Orson Welles was never again given full artistic control over a major studio production. 

Paul Thomas Anderson also began his career as a wunderkind, in the 90s, making edgy, imaginative films that pushed the envelope, both in terms of style and substance.  Far from being run out of town, he has been hailed for his work.  2007s There Will be Blood, a searing indictment of capitalism and organized religion, was rightly praised.  In Daniel Plainview, Anderson created a villain for the Occupy generation, brought to life by the incomparable Daniel Day Lewis; a frightening mix of greed, treachery and self loathing.

Needless to say, I was looking forward to Anderson's follow up effort, The Master.  The early buzz was that he was making a thinly veiled examination of the early years of Scientology and it's founder L. Ron Hubbard.  A brave move considering how many Hollywood players are Scientologists, and how the controversial religion is know to hit back hard against its critics. This could have been a very risky, possibly career threatening, move on the writer director's part.

Somehow, I don't think P.T. Anderson is going to have to worry about getting sued, or getting financing for his next picture.  More importantly, I'm sure he'll still be able to get lunch reservations in Beverly Hills, no problem.

The Master is a very well made film, with great performances, especially by Joaquin Phoenix, that I'm sure will get noticed at awards time.  Anderson does his usually inventive job as a director.  I did not get to see it in 70 mm, notable because it's the first time that wide screen format has been used in sixteen years.  The problem is not the style; the quality is clear on any sized screen.  But the substance lacks the bite I was anticipating.  Anderson made a bold choice of topic, and then went soft on the delivery.  

The story focuses on Freddie Quell (Phoenix), a disaffected World War II veteran with a serious drinking problem and an accompanying difficulty in holding down a job.  After being run out of a sharecroppers' barracks when someone has a bad reaction to his moonshine (made with paint thinner, among other toxins), Freddie stows away on a yacht being used by Lancaster Dodd, AKA the Master (Philip Seymour Hoffman).  He's the founder of The Cause, a Scientology like philosophy - religion that teaches the existence of past lives and alien invasions.  A bond forms between the two men as Freddie passes through the stages of the Cause's initiation.  His loyalty leads him to bully and beat critics of the movement, as well as to make legitimate, if weak, efforts to improve his own lot in life.

That's fine, as far as it goes, except that everybody, but for the most ardent believer, knows that Dodd is "making it up as he goes along," as the Master's own son acknowledges.  It's clear that Dodd himself doesn't even believe his own line.  He's a fake, defrauding rich widows, giving them false hope that his past life therapy can cure some forms of cancer.  In There Will be Blood Anderson had no problem portraying an equally fraudulent evangelical preacher as a manipulative, greedy, and generally creepy dude.  Here Dodd is blustery but lovable; a crook who seems to have a real affection for the people he's robbing.  The Cause is phooey, but by and large benign, and any violence against its enemies is isolated, motivated by Freddie's personal devotion to the Master and not a reflection of some institutional policy.  We are let in on the fact that the Cause is nonsense, but the lies and deceptions have no consequences.  Anderson sets the table for us, but can't get himself to serve the meal.  There is something dishonest about The Master that makes all its artistic merits hollow.    

It's not that I'm eager for a Scientology hatchet job, but since Anderson has turned a jaundiced eye on religious opportunists in the past, why put on the rose colored glasses this time?  Could it be the dearth of evangelical Christians in Hollywood, and that he actually has to deal with Scientologists in his everyday life?  I'm sure that the likes of Tom Cruise and John Travolta aren't happy that their religion's founder is presented, even in a fictional form, as a false prophet, but at he same time he's far from being shown as an evil genius.  Dodd is a guy just trying to make a buck, who gives some poor souls a purpose in life along the way.  What's so wrong about that?

What's wrong is that it isn't brave.  I'm not sure what Anderson has risked in making this film.  The hypocritical and corrupt priest or minister is practically a stock character in the movies today, and as creative as he is, Anderson hasn't been afraid to play on that stereotype in the past.  I admit that even I get tired of Christians complaining about our mistreatment in today's mainstream entertainment.  But here, the cliche applies; if this were a film about the Catholic Church or some Pentecostal congregation I don't think he would have shied away from eviscerating his targets.   But here he trades on some pre-release buzz to build anticipation and then doesn't have the guts to go all the way with it.  I had other problems wit the film, like the inability to believe the depth of the relationship between the two protagonists.  But I could overlook something like that if  the over all tone of the movie rang true, and it just didn't.
  
In the case of The Master we have form but no matter.  A splash is being made, but without any real turbulence to give a sense of danger.  Paul Thomas Anderson is a creative film maker, but not nearly the risk taker that he appears to be.  He offers the sizzle but denies us the steak.    P.T. Anderson, you are no Orson Welles.

Render Unto Benjamin

 

Recently I wrote a tongue in cheek appraisal of the superficial way politics and religion are presented on Facebook.  My point was that the confluence of the two topics on our favorite social media platform usually takes the form of pithy (and too often awkward and not so pithy) slogans proclaiming, among other things, that Jesus was a hippie who commanded His followers to pay their taxes.  I’ll leave the first point for another time, but Jesus’ attitude toward taxation does deserve attention now.  When I first started seeing variations on this theme popping up on my newsfeed, I was a bit confused as to which verse of Scripture was being referred to.  After a while I finally figured out they’re talking about when Jesus told the Pharisees to “render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt. 22:15-22, Mk.12:13-17, Lk. 20:20-26)  Those who quote this passage are usually trying to justify big government social programs, and the need for higher taxes, especially on higher income earners.  No, I didn’t get it at first, but I’m a bit slow on the uptake, especially when Scripture is being twisted beyond recognition.

I had trouble figuring it out because this reading has been used to justify both the paying of taxes as well to justify their conscientious withholding.  For example, I know someone today who is in trouble with the IRS for not paying his taxes.  He’s not one of the 1% and he doesn’t have any off shore accounts. Truth be told he’s not evading anything; he’s pretty open about his refusal to file a return.  He won’t pay federal income taxes because some of the money goes to fund the military industrial complex. He has no problem with food stamps and Medicaid, but predator drones and cruise missiles are another story.  The way he sees it there is a line to be drawn in how much Caesar should be cooperated with before it infringes on the proper way to serve God.  Is this how I would put into practice the Gospel if I were subject to federal taxes?  Probably not, but this line of thinking is not unprecedented in Christian thought, especially among Christian anarchists.  

In light of this, what did Jesus mean by His words on taxes?  There is divergence of opinion, as we have seen, but to understand it we have to take this passage in context.  Jesus is being confronted by adversaries trying to trap Him in controversies.  Pharisees didn’t believe that taxes should be paid to Rome since they went to support a foreign occupying force.  Herodians were essentially Jewish collaborators with the Romans, who supported the tax.  If He said go ahead, pay the tax, the people would turn against Him.  If He said no, you shouldn’t pay them, then He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities.  This was not the only time Jesus was being cornered by opponents, and as usual His response was to turn the tables on His accusers.  

After He’s questioned about whether taxes to Rome should be paid or not, Jesus asks to see a coin.  On it was the image of Tiberius Caesar, the emperor.  The fact that the Pharisee had a coin in his possession said two things.  First, that he was already participating in the economic and political life of occupied Judea, cooperating with the Romans.  He was sharing in the benefits of Roman commerce, and rule in general (think roads and aqueducts), so he shouldn’t gripe about paying taxes to them.  Second, he could be accused of blasphemy because the Romans claimed the emperor was divine, so such coins represented graven images in the traditional sense (thus the need to exchange them for Temple currency before entering the sacred space).  If he was so indignant at the situation he would never have had that coin on him to begin with.   The money has Caesar’s image and inscription, it belongs to him.  If you are active in the economic life of the community, sharing its benefits, unless you plan to go off and join a commune in the desert, pay your taxes and shut up.  

Jesus is not making any comment on what the upper marginal rate should be, what the role of government is in supplying a social safety net or what limits there are to cooperating with the secular authorities.  What Jesus does here what He always does in these situations; He changes the conversation.  He is not going to be drawn into political or religious controversies. When asked about the legality of divorce, He tells them to read Genesis to see what God intended from the beginning. When the woman caught in adultery is presented to Him for stoning, He tells the crowd to examine its own conscience.  When a person approaches Him, asking Jesus to force his brother to give him his share of the family inheritance, He tells him to avoid avarice.  When Peter was questioned about the payment of the Temple Tax, Jesus pretty much tells him that they shouldn’t have to but to do it anyway for appearances sake.

The Gospel has political implications, this is true.  But Jesus leaves the details up to us.  If we should avoid one thing, it is the absolutizing of political positions, identifying them with moral precepts.  The Scriptures seem to indicate that Jesus bristled at such things.  We form our conscience, allowing the Gospel to influence our entire life, both public and private.  It may lead us to take the difficult stand, like my friend with the “tax problem.”   It may lead us to more of a  compromise solution.  But what Jesus is calling all of us to faith and honesty, about ourselves and about the world we live in.