Prayer Request for Middle Eastern Christians from AOP

An Ode to the Little Way: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" // Movie Review

 

In a holiday movie season filled with controversies, one of the biggest has surrounded the latest Peter Jackson directed homage to the J.R.R. Tolkien legend, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  One complaint is that Jackson shot his film at a higher frames per second rate, which renders the print clear to the point of looking like a video tape.  Many have argued that it looks too clear and bright, losing the subtlety of film and rendering the sets cheap looking and swift movements choppy.   Did I find these criticisms valid?  Darned if I know.  I went to see The Hobbit prepared to discuss the whole 48 frames per second broo-ha-ha, but it ended up that, in spite of the extra scratch I spent to see it it in IMAX 3D, it was still projected in the traditional 24 fps format.  More on that at the end.

The more pertinent complaint many have is that Jackson has taken what is a rather modest book and stretched it out into a three film saga, like his Lord of the Rings trilogy from a decade ago (the two sequels will come out in succession in 2013 and '14).  But back then he actually had three separate novels to work from, and some at the time complained that he cut too much out, focusing on the action and omitting much of the whimsy of the source material.  Here he's padded the story with episodes that appear in other short stories about Middle Earth written by Tolkien.  Never having read, to my admitted shame, any of it I didn't notice the difference.  But in a way this was a happy fault, because I simply enjoyed the ride, and appreciated the little lessons sandwiched in between the orc, troll and goblin attacks, without worrying about how it matched up to the book.

The story follows Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman playing the younger Bilbo), a prosperous hobbit who has grown complacent and comfortable with his solitary life and routine.   This is all turned upside down when the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, reprising his role from the Rings series) pushes him to venture beyond the bucolic shire and into an adventure.   The quest is to recapture the homeland of the dwarfs which is presently occupied by a dragon.  The fire breather jealously guards an enormous stash of gold that once belonged to the dwarfs.  Bilbo is the last one anyone would imagine as the adventurous type; he's obsessed with his dishes and doilies, and keeping his well stocked pantry in order.  Gandalf sees something in him though and is convinced that he's just the hobbit for the job of burglar, even though Bilbo hasn't ever stolen a thing in his life.

Bilbo is not the only one who doubts he belongs on this quest.  Thorin (Richard Armitage), leader of the 13 dwarfs, and rightful dwarf king, is none too pleased at having this inexperienced homebody as a part of his group.  When the mystical elf Galadriel (Kate Blanchett, another hold over from The Rings, along with Christopher Lee who plays the wizard Saruman), asks Gandalf why he chose the "halfling" for such a dangerous mission, he relies,

"Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay... small acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps because I am afraid and he gives me courage."

In this quiet moment from an otherwise busy adventure fantasy we see the Catholic sensibility that Tolkien brought to his stories.  Gandalf here encapsulates both the Beatitudes of Jesus and the Little Way of St. Therese of Lisieux.  Jesus turns the notions of the world on their heads; it is the meek who will inherit the earth, those who weep who shall laugh, and the poor who shall inherit the Kingdom. Jesus uses those the world considers weak to shame the strong, and before this first part is over Bilbo does exactly that.

This simple line of Gandalf's also reminded me of the Little Flower, who sought holiness in the little things she had to do.  It is by doing the small, seemingly insignificant, things faithfully that we become saints.  It is by daily fidelity and acts of charity, especially to those who may annoy us or when we least feel like it, that gives the real opportunities to grow close to God.  When this simple love is the guiding principle of our lives darkness doesn't stand a chance.

Speaking of darkness, we also see our old friend Gollum, along with his infernal ring (Andy Serkis, again via computer wizardry).  We need to remember that The Hobbit actually takes place before The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  No one knows how that mysterious trinket will play into things yet, but you get the idea that Gandolf knows it's no good.

As I wrote at the start, I saw The Hobbit in the standard 24 frames per second format.  Even so, the print did seem clearer and brighter than normal which for the most part was a plus, since the 3D glasses tend to dim the screen. There was a problem though in scenes with great contrasts of shadow and light; the brights were glaring, rendering the images overexposed.  Also, at the beginning I did notice a certain blurriness when objects were moving fast.  As the movie went on I noticed it less and less.  Whether it was my eyes adjusting or the images were meant to be a bit obscured, I don't know.  If it was like this in the standard format I'm guessing the pluses and minuses will only be amplified at 48 fps.    

In the end, a big endorsement.  I left the theater excited like when I was a kid, which doesn't happen that much anymore.  I'm not going to recommend a format, though for me the IMAX didn't really add much (which I thought it did for the latest James Bond movie).  If you haven't read the book I hope this encourages you do so (I am right now).  If you have, try to put the book out of your head and just judge it for what it is and not for what it isn't.

There is a whole other theme to explore, on spiritual warfare, that is pertinent to our spiritual life.  I'll get back to that at a later time. Until then, enjoy what is left of this Christmas Time, and may you all have a blessed and prosperous New Year.

Frank Sinatra - Adeste Fideles

The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire)

Arguably the greatest secular Christmas song of all time (with all due respect to White Christmas) with its greatest interpreter.

Josh Groban - O Holy Night

Apocalypse When?

The weather here in Jersey has been a bit erratic; Friday, December 21, for instance, it was stormy in the morning, followed by blue skies before noon, and then rather raw and overcast in the afternoon.  Nothing, though, to the suggest the much hyped Mayan end times that was supposed to go down that day.  Well, it's Sunday the 23rd, and we're still here.  I'm shocked at how many people I know, all rather sensible souls, who have been truly edgy over the impending apocalypse that wasn't. 

I believe it was St. Augustine who wrote that every age is allowed to think that they are the last in order to keep them from complacency.  While ours is not the only age that thought the end was nigh, there is no doubt that we are in a period of heightened expectations concerning the End of Days.  It seems that right now there are two schools of thought in Catholic-Christian circles concerning the eschaton.  One reads the Bible, and the Book of Revelation in particular, with an absolute literalism that ignores the obvious metaphorical and symbolic aspects of the book.  These people create elaborate time lines and try to match up current events with Biblical prophesy to determine where we're at in relation to the Second Coming.  The other side totally spiritualizes the notion of the end of the world, claiming the Bible speaks of events that have already past and posits that these oracles are talking allegorically or metaphorically about the continuing change of epochs and ages; for the first century Jews the fall of Jerusalem was like the end of the world, as was the sack of Rome for 5th century Romans.  Our society will pass eventually as well and it will seem like Doomsday to those living through it.  At best what we are hoping for is some kind of "golden age" where people return to God and form a truly just society.

I'm no scholar, I'm just a humble parish priest, but both ends of the spectrum seem off.   Second Peter mentions that the "elements will be dissolved by fire" (3:10).  The letter speaks specifically of a new heaven and new earth where the just will live.  That all humanity will share in the Resurrection, and that there is a Final Judgement that goes along with it is central to Jesus' teaching.  We should beware not to try to treat the Scriptures like a newspaper, at the same time not everything in the Bible is a metaphor.  Both Peter and Paul, especially in the fourth chapter of the latter's First Letter to the Thessalonians, write in rather unambiguous terms about the last things.  Jesus spoke in parables and John saw amazing visions, but the two Pillars of the Church broke it down quite plainly.  But remember, Jesus told us that no one knows the day or the hour of his return.  He does seem to mix prophesies about the end time with those concerning the fall of Jerusalem.  People have made a living off of trying to predict the End of the World based on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict or, back in the day, the progress of the Cold War.  It's a fools errand, so don't be duped. It's not that both views are completely wrong, but that they are by themselves incomplete and tend to lead people into erroneous views on our collective and communal destiny.

So, what's the answer?  Simply be ready.  Follow your vocation in life the best you know how.  Do your daily duties with diligence and care.  Be faithful to your commitments.  The rest will take care of itself, because in the end it's all in God's hands.  But most of all, Be Not Afraid!

And, just for a little fun, and Oldie but a Goodie by our friends at REM

Handel, With A Side Of Fries.

Rachel Cries For Her Children

 

We had an "Active Shooter" drill at our grade school yesterday morning, much like the fire drills you may remember from your school days.  My emotions were mixed; it's the smart thing to do in light of the Sandy Hook tragedy, but devastatingly sad to think it's necessary.  The eighth graders I was with aren't dumb; they're old enough to figure out that bullets can break locks and closet doors can't stop high caliber rounds.  I tried to assure them that while there is no such thing as 100% security, there are things you can do to be smart and safer in an emergency (I'm not sure they believed me).  As I left the building after class I was filled with a mixture of sadness and rage.  When the Cold War ended I had hopped that the next generation would grow up with less anxiety.  I thought we had a chance to live in relative peace and security.  Then 9/11 shattered all that, and now these random acts of violence that are invading our social sanctuaries are leading to dread greater than Khrushchev or Brezhnev ever inspired.

We are searching for meaning, and the answers seem distant.  People ask where God is, and so do I.  I have long ago reconciled myself to the idea that God's plan is bigger than we can take in from our limited vantage point inside time and space.  Also, that we have free will, and He respects us so much He allows us to exercises it, even when it hurts us and others.   God is not a slave driver; He wants us to follow His will, but will not force us to do so.  And yes, on days like Friday, and yesterday, I wonder why He couldn't have made an exception, at least this once.

While I question God, I always end up coming back to us.  We were given this world, so instead of questioning God so much I tend to ask what are we doing with it?  Specifically, we were given stewardship over the earth.  Think of it as a lease agreement or a business partnership, but much deeper.  I'm not a deist; God didn't walk away after He signed over the deed.  He is still a providential guide.  It's still His plan at work, leading to a final end point of history.  But He gave us a lot of responsibility to organize things down here.  A very enigmatic question Jesus asks in the Gospel is when He returns, will the Son of Man find faith on earth?  This implies, at the very least, that we will arrange our world according to God's plan and designs as we understand them.  So when the End comes, and the King returns for his "inspection," will what He sees reflect that ideal.  As a Catholic I'm not writing of some Sharia style government, but one that has the Divine Law in mind, and certain core values as guiding principles.  One that understands its limitations, and allows God to walk with us.  Our contemporary, "Post Modern" world view does not allow for this type of arrangement, and we are now paying the price.  Human beings are the center of the new universe, and reason is our god and we are now reaping the results.  

When I was in grad school I was told that we need to have a values free approach to education.  It is not the schools place, so the reasoning goes, to tell children what is right and wrong, out side of very broad notions of decency and decorum.  But things like promoting a set of virtues, including faith, and even patriotism, are considered passe impositions of a bygone, unenlightened  age.  The trouble is that there is no such thing as values free education.  If you take one set of values away then it will be replaced, knowingly or not, by another.  There are no vacuums in a classroom apart from those used to clean the rugs.  We have replaced the traditional values, rooted in faith (in a general way) and patriotism with a secularized, individualistic hedonism, centered on a cult the of the state.   There is no reference point for family, community or God.

What caused this young man to act as he did in this particular case is complicated and we are still gathering information.  Evidently the mother was a member of her local parish.  Maybe God was a part of his upbringing.  It would be wrong for me to apply all the ills of society to this case.  But there is a bigger picture; a culture that is becoming more fragmented, dislocated, with young people living in more isolation.  One of our summer camps reported that it is getting more and more difficult to get their campers to play together in organized activities, so many are use to playing alone, or with just one other person, on a video console at home.  A small, trivial example of a real problem. In the larger sense we need to ask if we are we better socialized and more humane now than sixty years ago?  In some ways yes, but in a whole lot more ways, no.

We are convinced that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that those who complain about restoring traditional values want to "go back to the '50's"  Well, no, I wouldn't want to go back to Jim Crow or the sexism that existed back then.  I love the technological advancements we've made.  All and all today is pretty good on those fronts.  But this isn't living.  Wondering if your child will be leaving school in a bus or a hearse, or if you'll make it out of the movie theater in one piece is not progress, nor is it a fair exchange for the social advancements we've made. 

Don't get me wrong.  I hear from all sorts of people who lament the "good old days,"  and I understand that those days weren't always so good.  But there was a rootedness that people had, a deeper sense of family and community responsibility that is simply lacking today. Those that think a family is who you choose and the government is the one thing we all belong to are deluding themselves.  This has not worked, and it will only get worse.  These attitudes are contributing to an impersonal society, where life is cheep.  There needs to be a radical restructuring of society, keeping the best of what we have while restoring core values of faith, family and patriotism (as opposed to nationalism or leader worship).  Only then will things begin to turn around.  I'm not a Utopian.  There will always be people who do evil things.  But as the President has said, that isn't an excuse to do nothing. 

I have not mentioned guns.  Yes, we need sensible gun control laws.  I doubt the framers really intended for the citizenry to be armed with these types of gruesome weapons.  But we can eliminate every gun from the land, but it will not solve the deeper issues effecting us as a society.  It begins by renewing our lease with God.

We had the Christmas Pageant at our school this morning, much like the ones you may remember from your own school days.  I was filled with joy and contentment as I watched the children sing and dance.  After various classes sang Christmas songs from around the world, a group put on an adaptation of The Nutcracker.  I looked at those children a little differently this year.  I saw more clearly the innocents, promise and spark of Divine life within them than before.  It's sad that it takes a tragedy to do that.  I also thought of the life ahead of them, and my prayer was that they live in a world a little less cruel, violent and warped.  A pretty meager prayer, I admit.  But it's really in our hands, and much loftier goals are possible if we say yes to God, and let Him be our guide.

Finals and Suffering | Columbia Catholic Ministry

The Mysterious Eyes Of Our Lady of Guadalupe

Word on Fire in Mexico: At Our Lady of Guadalupe

The Queenship of Mary: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

We are in between two great feasts of Our Lady, the Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Guadalupe.  Just the right time for a reflection on Our Lady from Fr. Barron.

The Hobbit, Movie Dialect Coaches and The Holy Spirit | Columbia Catholi...

Mary Immaculate, Patroness of the United States

 

Today we celebrate the great Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, which here in the United States is our patronal feast.  I've often wondered why Mary under this title was chosen to be the patroness of our country. It was declared so in 1846, by the Council of Baltimore.  That's eight years before the doctrine was actually defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854.  That does not mean that the belief that Mary was preserved from the moment of her conception from all stain of original sin isn't a very ancient one in the Church, but it was simply at that moment that the Pope, prompted by the Spirit, decided to make a formal doctrinal pronouncement on the matter.  One could say that the dogma was given heavenly approbation when the Blessed Mother identified herself to St. Bernadette with that very title at Lourdes four years later.  But still the question persists: why did the United States bishops make the Immaculate Conception our Patroness?  On the one hand Mary is an obvious choice.  Who wouldn't want her motherly protection? Or, put better, what sane person wouldn't want it?  But why under that title?  Why not Our Lady of Perpetual Help, or Our Lady of Victory, or even Our Lady of Guadalupe, for the apparition that happened in our very hemisphere?  Even though the decision was made long ago, I've come to see that it wasn't an accident.  The U.S. bishops may have made the choice, but the Holy Spirit is the one who knew who we needed as a nation, not so much in 1846, but right now, on the doorstep of 2013.

Mary under this title has been used in the Church to promote the virtue of sexual purity.  From the beginning of his work with young people Don Bosco, for example, implored his boys to seek her protection against sexual temptations.  In general he promoted purity as the virtue Salesians should be known for, much like Franciscans are known for poverty and Jesuits for obedience.  As religious and priests, chaste celibacy frees us to be more docile to the Spirit.  With our hearts committed to no one else but Christ, we are free to serve all we meet.  We have no particular earthly love, and are so made channels of the Divine love, which took on flesh and gave His life for the salvation of the world.

There is another aspect to the virtue of purity as well.  From the Beatitudes we read, "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." (Mt. 5:8)  This has traditionally been seen as a reference to sexual purity.  Any sins of a sensual nature though, be it gluttony or drunkenness as well as sexual sins, lead us inward.  They are about satisfying a longing that can never be filled in this life.  Eating, drinking and sex are good things, in there place and under our control.  But when they become the object of our lives they take control.  We become like addicts.  We order our lives around them, caring little who we harm as long as we get our fix.  In the case of sex we can view other people as objects to be used instead of persons to be respected.  But we not only hurt the other, we hurt ourselves.

Two examples from surfing the web recently:

There is an article I read the other day extolling the virtues of the "friends with benefits" culture.  The author seemed rather proud of the fact that people in those kinds of relationships were more likely to employ "safe sex" measures, the virtue of the hook up age.  But buried at the end was the line that more of these people said they were less satisfied sexually than those in committed relationships, who were also less likely to be worried about "safety."  Another thing that got me thinking was an excerpt from a recent biography of Mick Jagger that ran in a newspaper.  His ex-wife, Jerry Hall, reflecting on the turmoil that follows Jagger, whose womanizing is legendary, stated, "I feel sorry for Mick.  Sexual promiscuity just leads to chaos, and you have to clear it up. I wish he’d find happiness, but I’m not churning inside about it.”

What both these anecdotes point to is the fact that making sex the central object of our lives, or, in a way, reducing it to just another bodily function, leads to unhappiness and a profound sense of dissatisfaction with life, and all around emotional confusion.  But what's more it keeps us from seeing spiritual realities around us.  As we sow more and more in the flesh, we fail to see the wonders all around us.  We stop seeing the world with the eyes of a child, and are less trustful and desirous of the things of God.  We also become suspicious of the promises of prospective life partners.  As Catholic philosopher Janet Smith has said, those who are promiscuous, even moderately so, have lied and been lied to so many times over they find it hard to trust once the "right one" when he or she comes along.

In the end we lose the vision of God because we stopped looking for him.  We become so caught up in the latest pleasure (that never really satisfies) we fail to seek that which is eternal.  Because the treasure we have put our entire self into attaining has turned to rust we stop believing that there is anything genuine.

I could continue, but I've rambled on too long.  I will return to this at a later time, because there is much more that could and should be said.

But back to the main question; Why is the Immaculate Conception the Patroness of the United States?  I believe that it is because we have become embroiled in a radically over sexualized culture.  The bishops in Baltimore in 1846 didn't know the Sexual Revolution was coming, but the Holy Spirit did.  Mary Immaculate is here to remind us, not simply of the ugliness of vice, but of the beauty of virtue.  Her purity enabled her to say yes to God freely.  Bernadette's innocents and transparency allowed her to hear the Virgin's words and report them without guile or doubt.  Don Bosco's single hearted devotion to Christ allowed him to start a movement, by Mary's inspiration and the Spirit's power, that continues strong to this day.  They knew not to confuse contentment, which passes, with true happiness, that is eternal.  This is a lesson we as a people need to learn as well. 

Mary Immaculate is more than the patroness we may want; she is truly the one we need. 

God and The Power of Myth // "Life of Pi" Movie Review

Life of Pi was not on my "Movies to See" list, but I was urged to go by a parishioner, who gushed about the action and told me, "you'll get the all the God stuff.  It went a little over my head." Well, there is plenty of both "God Stuff" and action here, though you don't have to be into the one in order to enjoy the other.  And though its religion is a bit muddled, its basic message of seeing God working, even in the bad that happens, and the importance of myth as a conveyor of a deeper truth, is solid.

The story, told in flashbacks to an interviewer, follows Piscine Molitor Patel (he cleverly adopts the mathematical nickname Pi in order to stop his classmates from making fun of his name), a young Indian boy growing up in the French part of India (I did not know such a thing existed before this).    His father (the local zookeeper), in the spirit of the "New India" is staunchly secular, warning his son that religion is darkness.  His mother is a practicing Hindu, though as an adult Pi reflects that this was probably more a matter of culture than faith.  As a boy he reveled in the vibrant ceremonies and mesmerizing myths of the Hindu God's like Vishnu and Krishna, told to him by his mother.  He is hooked on God, if you will, and soon Pi discovers Catholicism, and a little later Islam.  He doesn't reject any of them, but incorporates all of them together: Hinduism supplies the myths, Catholicism offers the concrete love of the God made Man, and in Islam he finds mystical spirituality (this is the most problematic part of the presentation, and I don't mean to down play it, but it didn't kill the movie for me, all the same).

His father, facing economic hard times, pulls up stakes, deciding to move the family to Canada.  Taking a cargo steamer across the Pacific, animals and all, the family is wiped out when the ship is sunk in a typhoon.  Only Pi survives, along with a hyena, a zebra, an orangutan and a Bengal tiger, all stuck on a small lifeboat.  Before long it's down to Pi and the tiger.

At this point anything I write will be giving things away.  Just see it, suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride.  But be mindful of the kids (I'll get to that later).

What is most shocking about the film is that it actually presents organized religion in a positive light.  It is through the outward expressions of faith, be it the Hindu festivals, Catholic iconography or the Islamic call to prayer ringing through the streets that leads Pi to his relationship with God.  He is spiritual, not in spite of religion but because of it.  

Obviously, from the Catholic perspective, once you accept Christ there is no more crying out to Shiva.  You may appreciate aspects of the Hindu or Islamic traditions, especially their prayer life, but Christ is the only Way, Truth and Life because he IS those very things.  Pi's mixing of religious faiths is a tip of the hat to our contemporary notion of religious relativism, and the idea that we can make a personalized faith to fit our tastes.  But Christ demands a commitment.  He is not like other religious or spiritual teachers who claimed to know a way; he said he actually was the Way, as I said before.  Jesus is unique in that dimension of his teaching.  I only hesitate in giving a full throated endorsement for kids, who are the movies target audience, because of the mixed message on Christ.  And also for the intensity of the scenes with the Tiger, but more on that later.

The other positive aspect is the role myth plays in Pi's life of faith.  When Pi finally hits dry land and is sent to the hospital he's questioned by representatives of the shipping company as to what happened.  He tells his story, but they can not believe it.  They tell him that he needs to give them an explanation of the events that will not make them look like fools with their bosses.  He then gives them a much simpler, believable, if more brutal tale.  Back in the present day he asks his interviewer which story he prefers.  He replies, the first, more astounding account.  Pi responds, "And so it is with God."

We live in a scientific age, and this is not a bad thing, for sure.  But what Fr. Robert Barron calls "scientism," the belief that science is the sole means of finding the truth, is bad.  It limits us, making us ignore the other ways of seeing the truth, either through music, poetry, art, drama or story.  Pi's struggles on the boat, his discovery of God and himself, is something greater than can be told by just supplying facts in the conventional way we think of them.  Which story he gives is true then?  The answer is both.  And you could argue the more fantastic tale was actually the truer one.

Christ knew this, and explained all his major teachings either by way of parable or in some form of metaphor or simile.  There was no Prodigal Son, but can you find a better, more nuanced treatise on forgiveness in the history of Western thought?  There was no Lazarus starving at the door and no rich man in he house gorging himself, but is there a better doctrinal pronouncement on generosity and social responsibility in any Church document?

When we turn to the Old Testament things get tricky.  When it's suggested that Jesus used parables, so God could have done the same with stories like Jonah and the Whale or the story of Job some Christians get nervous.  But they are falling into the scientism trap without knowing it.  The Truth of Scripture is not in the "factual" details but in the bigger picture. We have to remember that the Bible is a library, not a single work, and so God communicates in different ways through the various books.  Each has to be taken on its own terms; I'll read the Books of Samuel differently than the Book of Jeremiah, and that differently than the Psalms.   Many people get hung up on if Jonah and the whale was a true story, and miss a much bigger point (several bigger ones, actually) than if a man can survive three days in the belly of a "great fish."  (The answer: If God wants him to.)   

Pi grew up on myth, he knew their power to convey truth and was able to filter his experience through that lens.  This offers a truth deeper and more complex than can be offered by reason alone.

In the end, I recommend Life of Pi, with the caveat about the religious relativism.  Prepare your children, and talk about it afterward.  I can't think of a main stream movie in recent memory that has treated God, religion, and religious people with such compassion and respect.  That alone makes it worth cheering for.   

 ***

As for the suitability of Life of Pi for youngsters, though it's being marketed to younger audiences, and has a PG rating, the scenes on the boat are intense.  There is little if any gore, but the suspense is something else.  I felt real dread in the middle of the movie. Even though there is a point where Pi and his four legged partner seem to come to a peace of sorts, you're never quite sure if the big guy is going to snap.  I'm not sure what the cut-off should be, but know your child, and really young children, under 10 for sure, should probably be steered clear.       

Lou Gehrig and the Season of Advent | Columbia Catholic Ministry

"Lincoln" Movie Review

There are few figures in U.S. history more polarizing as Abraham Lincoln.  This might come as a bit of a surprise to any readers from the northern United States or from other countries, but anyone from the South would know what I mean.  Depending on where you were brought up Honest Abe is seen either the Great Emancipator: the freer of slaves who preserved the Union, or a tyrant who trampled the Constitution while waging a war of aggression against sovereign states.  Then there is the middle ground of intellectuals who deny that slavery was a cause of the Civil War, or that Lincoln freed anyone in bondage.  The reasoning goes that the War was fought to definitively establish the power of the Federal Government over that of the individual states, and the fall of slavery was a byproduct of such a conflict.  I've always been skeptical of this third, revisionist, view, but that very prominent thesis is conspicuously absent from the new Steven Spielberg directed film Lincoln.  What we have is a rather straight forward telling of a pivotal month in the life of our 16th President.  While Lincoln is always a sympathetic figure, we do get a more complex picture of the man, and can see why some stood against him, even if we never doubt for a moment that they were wrong.

The setting is Washington, D.C., January 1865.  Abraham Lincoln, who has just won reelection, feels pressure to have a proposed constitutional amendment formally prohibiting slavery passed through the House of Representatives before the end of the month.  The consensus is that the Civil War will be over by February, and then the Emancipation Proclamation will be challenged in court as an unconstitutional wartime overreach by Lincoln.  The Senate has already passed the amendment handily the year before, but the House is much more reluctant to follow their lead.  He needs a three quarters majority of a divided chamber to accomplish his goal. Democrats are firmly against it, the Radical Republicans are enthusiastically for it.  But "conservative" Republicans are more ambivalent about the whole thing (I put that in quotes because I'm not sure such a thing existed back then).  If there is proof the administration is negotiating peace terms, they'll vote for it, if not they'll vote against it (it gets more complicated than that, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it right there).  Lincoln needs to swing 12 votes to the "Yeah" column, and the film is taken up how that happened.  Honest Abe is still honest, for the most part, but is not above using promises of patronage jobs and stretching the truth at times to get the job done.  He employs some unsavory characters as his agents while keeping himself above the fray.  He not only has the fate of a nation in his hands, he is struggling to keep his family together.  Through it all we see a man of great calm, good humor, and more than a touch of melancholy, who nonetheless is sly enough move the alternately slippery and intractable gears of government.

In some ways this is a difficult movie to review.  It has an insanely talented cast, many of whom obviously showed up, in some cases for brief cameos, simply because of the film maker and his topic.  The sets and costumes are meticulously designed.  The dialogue is crisp, while staying stubbornly nineteen century in tone and style (one critic I saw didn't like this, but I found it refreshing). There really is little not to like in this film, unless you are looking for Saving Private Ryan style action, which does not exist here (one brief battle scene at the start is intense, but doesn't rise anywhere near to that graphic level).  I can't call this the best film made by any of the participants involved, or the best movie of the year even, but it is such a well crafted labor of love (Spielberg spent 15 years getting this to the screen) only the most hardened Scrooge could find fault with it.  

The great strength of the film is it's cast, and there are just too many names to mention, so I'll stick with three stand out performances among many.   Daniel Day-Lewis is his usual remarkable self in the title role.  Much was made of the high pitched voice he employes in an attempt to stay close to how contemporary witnesses described Lincoln's tone and timbre.  I found it a non-issue; after the first scene I didn't think about it again the rest of the film.  In general Day-Lewis does his typical job of immersing himself in the role and having you forget he's acting.  After a short time he was Lincoln for me, and that was that.  Sally Field, as Mary Todd Lincoln, brings depth and humanity to a character that could have been played simply as an overwrought neurotic.  The real hero of the movie is Representative Thadeus Stevens, the radical Republican abolitionist (accent on radical) played by Tommy Lee Jones.  He doesn't trust Lincoln but recognizes the gravity of the moment and puts his full efforts behind a cause that is not just a matter of principle but, as we find out, is also intensely personal.

Lincoln is one of those movies that deserves a second viewing, for no other reason then it's one of the few mainstream films that deals in ideas, in firm notions of right and wrong and the complexity of human relationships.  It's at once about big ideas and small intimate moments.

Lincoln's religious views are not really explored, and neither are those of the abolitionists, which is too bad.  We get slogans about natural law from both sides, but that's about it.  It's true that Lincoln was never baptized, nor was he a believer in any organized religion, but he was far from the atheist some present day intellectuals try to say.  One reading of his Second Inaugural shows a clear belief in a providential God.  I don't take this as a slight by Spielberg, who is one of the few religiously sensitive film makers out there.  But it's helpful to understand that the historical Lincoln saw the severity of the Civil War as a divine judgement on the entire United States, not just the South, for having tolerated slavery for so long.  After emancipation and abolition, his goal was reconciliation.  The great tragedy is that his assasination kept him from  completing that mission.

Needless to say, I recommend Lincoln.  It's educational without being didactic, inspirational, but also surprisingly humorous.  It is the perfect confluence of director, subject matter and leading man, as well as of a great cast in general.  A must see in between Christmas shopping and parties.