Sunday, February 21, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
What are the Practices of Lent? (#AskFrBarron)
A gentle reminder from then Father (now Bishop) Robert Barron on the three classical practices of Lent: Prayer-Fasting-Alms Giving.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Doritos: A Pro-Life Fifth Column or Just a Clever Ad?
 |
| The Most Dangerous Snack Chip in America |
Anyway, I digress.
Through the miracle of You Tube I saw the spot the next day. To be honest, I thought it was a little creepy, and was amused that some in the pro-choice crowd (NARAL in particular) were upset because they said that the commercial "humanized" the fetus. I thought it turned the fetus into a monster of sorts, but maybe that's my twisted point of view.
But enough about what I think, because obviously that isn't the majority view, and it isn't how abortion activists saw the commercial either. My reaction to their reaction is two fold.
1. Popular culture "humanizes" un-human things all the time. The fancy term for it is anthropomorphizing. Disney is the king of this: think Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Bambi and Dumbo for starters. These are animals that are given human qualities, like the ability to talk, reason, and experience emotions the way people do. It's done with inanimate objects too, but I'm going to stick with examples from the animal kingdom. Disney isn't the only one to do this of course. We have the Warner Brothers cartoon universe that features Bugs Bunny (my personal favorite) and Daffy Duck. There are others I could mention like Tom and Jerry and Woody Woodpecker. You get the point, though. No one worries about humanizing a mouse or an elephant. But try "humanizing" something we all agree is at least genetically human, and everyone loses their minds, as the popular meme goes.
I've always had a suspicion that at least a few animal rights people formed their opinions because they were brought up seeing animals portrayed in cartoons and other entertainments with human qualities. When I was a kid the live action movie Benji, about a little cute mutt dog, was wildly popular. While our titular canine hero wasn't overtly anthropomorphized, the story was told from the dog's perspective, and the viewer was made to identify with the pooch's ups and downs the way you would as if he was a human character. Believe me, at the point in the movie when Benji gets kicked in the gut by the bad guys I cried, not just because I loved dogs (which I still do) but because the movie had successfully made an emotional, human connection between me and the dog.
When it comes to dogs and cats the devise is pretty harmless, and even in the case of more dangerous critters like lions and tigers and bears, the conceit is fine. Most people are able to separate the anthropomorphizing of animals for artistic or literary purposes from the reality that non domesticated animals are non domesticated for a reason. But sometimes I wonder. When I hear about some poor soul who gets gets killed or mauled by a wild animal at a game preserve because he or she trustingly and unadvisedly approached it, or has a pet chimp that shouldn't be kept as a pet turn on them, I ponder if they didn't watch the Lion King once too often as a kid. This sounds flip, but I don't mean it to be.
This is a very long way around to say that the argument that the Doritos commercial is dangerous because it humanizes a human fetus is absurd on the face of it. It's more likely that injuries and deaths have occurred from the anthropomorphizing of raccoons and tigers rather than from humanizing of what is human. No one is recommending, including me, that we should ban depictions of Rocket Raccoon from Guardians of the Galaxy or take Tony the Tiger off of Frosted Flakes boxes. Worrying that cutesy depictions of savage beasts, or even mildly aggressive carriers of rabies, could be harmful to the gullible is silly, and worrying that humanizing a fetus is somehow just as if not more dangerous is beyond ridiculous.
Which brings we to my second point:
2. If the pro-choice movement is scared that a junk food commercial is going to change public opinion on the humanity of the pre-born human, then they don't have much of an intellectual or moral leg to stand on.
You see, they know the power of both humanizing and de-humanizing language. They like the throw around terms like "blob of tissue" and "product of conception" because they know the majority of people will only accept abortion on demand as law if the pre-born child's humanity can be successfully denied or at least obscured. This is why there is fear of the widespread use of ultrasound technology among hard core pro-choicers. It's hard to deny the humanity of something that looks so human. This is why the Planned Parenthood baby parts scandal is so damning, because blobs of tissue don't have livers and hearts, or functioning brains and spinal cords that transmit pain signals. The more that these things are known the less likely the public will be to simply accept the ability to abort an unborn baby as an unlimited right.
There is still a long way to go to change minds and hearts. Abortion is big business masquerading as a human rights issue, and the vested interests are not going to let the cash flow dry up without a fight. Then there are those, like Justice Ginsburg, who see abortion as part of a social engineering campaign, to keep "populations that we don't want too many of" from proliferating. In fairness there are those on the conservative side, like the late talkshow host Bob Grant, who favored legalized abortion because it would, theoretically, keep the poor from reproducing, thus easing the need for social welfare programs. And there are those who simply see it as an expedient way to solve an inconvenient problem. When someone is desperate or confused they will take short cuts around the truth, and if they're callous to boot, they won't even worry about what's true.
Advocating for abortion "rights" is in someway predicated on the dehumanization of the pre-born child. Anything that might shed light on the lie that what grows inside the mother's womb is simply a cluster of insentient cells must be extinguished, even if its a commercial for a snack chip.
The creator of the spot based it on his own experience of being at his wife's ultrasound session and thinking that a fetus craving Doritos would be a funny gag for a 30 second ad. If fact the baby in the commercial is taken from his child's ultrasound (with computerized manipulations, of course). I don't know what his views on abortion are, but obviously he didn't have to be convinced that the child growing in his wife's womb was human. Again, whether he and his wife make the connection between the fetus' obvious humanity and the ability to legal destroy it is anyone's guess. But militant pro-choicers do, and they shutter. I don't think that they're afraid that if people start to believe that fetus' are human that maybe they can be convinced that elephants fly and horses talk. Maybe they're afraid that the public at large will say that they have a right to be born.
1st Sunday of Lent, Year C - The Temptation in the Desert
The Mass of the first Sunday of Lent traditionally features
the Gospel reading of Jesus’ temptation in the desert. This year we hear Luke’s
account (4:1-13), which is rich in details of this encounter between the Son of
God and the evil one. As we begin the discipline of Lent we may be tempted to
give up the penances or sacrifices we have started. Much temptation is a
product of our weak human nature. Some, though, is the result of demonic powers
trying to keep us from growing closer to God. For our human frailty we need to
develop a spirit of discipline and self-control. But for demonic influences we
must remember what St. Paul tells us; “our struggle is not with flesh and
blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of
this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens” (Ephesians 6:12).
Therefore we need to use the spiritual weapons that we have been given; prayer,
fasting, alms giving, Confession and the Eucharist. If we feel tempted, then we
know it is time to pray, relying on the power of God to strengthen us.
If we look at Sunday's Gospel reading we see that the devil
tries to tempt us in very basic ways. He tried to tempt Jesus with bread while
he was hungry. The bread can represent any sensual pleasure or bodily comfort.
While these things aren’t bad, when they become the center of our lives they
take us away from God, the only one who can give us lasting satisfaction. Then
he tried to tempt Jesus by offering him power over the world. Then he tries to
tempt our Lord by appealing to his pride or thirst for glory, because he has
command over the angels. But Jesus rejects all three temptations.
There are other ways the devil tries to lead us off the
right path. The devil tries to divide people and communities into factions,
causing rivalries and dissention. The word demon, in fact, comes from the Greek
word meaning to tear apart. He also tries to convince us that he doesn’t really
exist, or isn’t really active in the world. The greatest temptation that the
enemy uses is to convince us that God will not forgive our sins. If he can
convince us of that then we may despair and don’t return to our loving,
merciful Savior who is eager to embrace us.
We should not be tricked by any of the enemy’s deceptions.
While it is true that not all temptation comes directly from the evil one, we
should know that the devil does exist, and is functioning in the world. But we
should always remember that Satan isn’t stronger than God. The difference
between the power of God and the power of darkness is infinite. We should never
despair of God’s mercy. We should always rely on Him and the spiritual weapons
of prayer, fasting, alms giving, Confession and the Eucharist. With Jesus we
should never be afraid.
Friday, February 5, 2016
The Force Awakens Revisited SPOILER EDITION Plus a Quick Take on The Donald
I was going to write a post on the Donald Trump phenomenon, but have decided it isn't worth it. I found that as time slipped away on me in the late days of 2015 and beginning of 2016 others were beating me to the rhetorical punch. There isn't any use screaming in an echo chamber, even if you came to your conclusions independently of the others in the room. Let's just say those who dismiss him and his followers lightly, or try to discredit Trump by comparing him to Hitler are making a big mistake. He is taping into a mood, much like Bernie Sanders is from the left; a mood of mistrust in the establishment that perceives that the government hasn't been listening the people. It's early, and the shifting political sands of this campaign season have already begun to ungulate. My gut feeling is, even if Trump and Sanders aren't the surprise nominees, the last two standing won't be who we expect, and, though admittedly unlikely, may not even be in the race yet. This is the uncertainty that arises when the people feel alienated from the political process and decide to do something about it. Such movements are dismissed at our own risk.
___________________________________________________
It's been a busy three weeks, but I did manage to squeeze in a second viewing of Star Wars: Episode VII-The Force Awakens, and here are a few follow up reflections.
The movie has been out since before Christmas, so I won't let myself be encumbered by keeping secrets. If you haven't seen it yet I can only imagine that you've just returned from an Antarctic expedition, and so haven't been in the neighborhood of a cinema, or else you simply don't plan on ever seeing it. So, for the former, stop reading, and by all means, see it, and for the latter, I'm not sure why you'd want to continue reading, but I hope you do.
So, Han Solo gets murdered by his son. This is beyond a doubt the biggest "secret" we were made to keep, and the one that least surprised me. As soon as Solo headed down that walkway I knew he was done for. It was just a matter of would it be some tragic slip and fall accident, or an out and out assassination (my proverbial money was on patricide). I was a little surprised that the character was killed off so early in the sequels, but it makes sense, though more from a real world stand point as opposed to a story one. All the same, one can make an argument that it does help the story in the long run.
Harrison Ford, the actor who originated the role which shot him to super stardom, comes off as tired and a bit jaded. Not in the movie; he's fine there, but rather in interviews. While the Han Solo of the series goes from being a skeptic to a believer in the mythical Force, the Ford of our universe really couldn't care less. He mocks, in his understated style, the debates over "who shot first" in the Cantina Scene from Episode III, and pretty much admits that its about the pay day for him at this point. I'm sure he has affection for the character and the series, and he does express humble gratitude that Star Wars continues to mean so much to people after all these years, but he knows the world doesn't need an eighty year old Han Solo, which is what he'd be pushing if he saw the new trilogy through to the end. He knows wisely that it's time to take a bow and pass the torch to the new generation of heroes.
But there are two other compelling reasons for Solo's early, tragic exit from a Galaxy Far, Far Away. First is that Ford wanted to kill Han off after 1980's Empire Strikes Back. There was a concern that he wasn't going to reprise the role a third time. Also, he felt that Han Solo sacrificing himself for the rebellion would really give the character a dramatic arc that was, well, dramatic. As Ford saw it the selfish, greedy mercenary should go out as a selfless martyr saving his friends and the rebellion. Great idea, but thankfully George Lucas prevailed on that point and we got Han back for one more ride on the Millennium Falcon, while at the same time going out the way he wanted, more or less.
The other reason why Han exiting now makes sense is that Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) can take his proper place in the story. Star Wars is supposed to be about Luke really, but Ford's charisma and the character's machismo overshadowed the young Jedi in the original trilogy. As good an actor as he is, Hamill simply doesn't have the movie star screen presence of Harrison Ford, who may not have been a star when Star Wars came out, but did have more experience than his two co-stars. While it's true that Disney, who now owns the rights to the franchise, didn't use George Lucas' story plans for the new film, it was his idea originally to have a trilogy sequel with Luke as a Jedi mentor. They may not be using the specifics of Lucas' outline, but now Hamill gets to play Luke as elder wise man without having to compete with the larger than life Han Solo.
Other random thoughts:
FIRST: Young, tough and inexperienced. My original review criticized the acting, but on a second viewing I think the performances are better than I thought at first blush. I still think Lupita Nyong'o gives the best performance, but otherwise the problem isn't the actors, it's the script. Dialogue and characterization were never the strong points of the series, so I can give it a pass. What the script gets right, and our three young leads (Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Adam Driver) convey convincingly, is the idea that they are inexperienced, yet paradoxically world weary youths trying to appear more mature than they really are.
This is especially true of Driver's Kylo Ren. He want's to emulate Darth Vader, his maternal grandfather; the very embodiment of controlled, calculated, evil, but he just doesn't have the composure. I'm not sure Vader ever really lost his cool, even when he was angry (one might argue that throwing Emperor Palpatine down the Death Star's reactor shaft at the end of Jedi qualifies as being out of sorts, but who knows?). He might yell or bark orders once in a while, but generally if you got on his bad side, or messed up an order - watch your throat: you knew a Sith Force Choke was coming, and he might not say a word, let alone raise his voice, as he coolly squeezed the life out of you. Here, Kylo Ren tears up the place Charlie Kane style twice upon the reception of bad news. One time his tantrum makes Storm Troopers stealthy slink the other way so as to avoid his wrath. These tantrums show, not how evil the Sith wannabe is, but how truly insecure and spiritually incontinent he is. He presumes to offer training in the ways of the Force to Rey (Daisy Ridley), when in truth he really hasn't mastered it himself.
As for parallels with Grandpa, there was light within Vader, but it took three movies to get him back. There is clearly good within Kylo Ren fighting with the dark, in spite of offing his father, which makes me wonder if his turning back won't come sooner.
SECOND: One and done for Abrams is a big thumbs up. The choice of J.J. Abrams to direct the first outing of the new trilogy was wise. But it's probably also wise that another director, Rian Johnson, is directing the next film, which has already begun principle photography as I write. I say this not because Abrams didn't do a good job, quite the opposite. It's just that he seems to be effective at rebooting a franchise rather than carrying it forward: he knows how to link the past with the present (think having Leonard Nimoy play "old" Spoke in Star Trek 2009, and the inclusion of the original Star Wars cast here). In general he is the master of the hommage, as evidenced by his effective tribute to Steven Spielberg in Super 8, as well as call backs to Episodes III through V here. But when it was time for a Star Trek follow up he seemed to get stuck recycling elements from previous movies in Out of Darkness. I enjoyed that film, but there was a disappointing "re-imagining" of the plot to Wrath of Kahn, arguably the earlier franchise's best movie, as opposed to taking the Starship Enterprise to a place no one has ever gone before.
The Force Awakens has plenty of so called fan service: props, references and plot devises that remind the hard core devotees of the earlier movies, which is expected and good. But Abrams hasn't necessarily proven that he knows how to move beyond such pandering, as necessary as it is, and present an truly original story once the old series is up and running. I know nothing of Mr. Johnson, but a new director taking the reigns, with Abrams serving as a producer, might offer a better chance that we're not just going to get a rehash of Empire the next time out.
THIRD: Re-arranged characteristics, too many characters,. This is more an observation than an criticism. What I noticed at a certain point was that our three new protagonists are not simply reincarnations of Luke Leia and Han, but that each seems to have elements of all of them. Rey is from the desert planet, like Luke, but she's a bit more hip, like Han, and assertive like Leia. Fin (Boyega) is a deserting Storm Trooper, who you might expect to be a bit hardened by the experience, but seems to have the golly gee innocents of Luke. Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), the resistance fighter pilot, has the swagger of Han Solo, but the faith of Luke or Princess Leia. Again, no one sees a Star Wars movie expecting character development, but the original trilogy wasn't devoid of it, and my guess is that as the new movies proceed we'll see each character develop their own individual traits a bit more finely.
What I will knock a bit is that we are introduced to a lot of characters, mixed in with the old, and the screen just isn't big enough for all of them. We barley get any of Oscar Isaac's Poe Dameron: the clear successor of Harrison Ford's Han Solo. Like Harrison 39 years ago, Isaac is the most experienced and, arguably, charismatic actor of the new cast, and could ride this part to stardom. But I was left wanting more. We are given a new secondary villain, Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie) who ominously stalks Fin at the beginning, but otherwise does nothing. There's also a general somebody played by Domhnall Gleeson who's kind of a rival to Kylo Ren, and Andy Serkis doing his stop capture performance shtick, as the new emperor's hologram (excuse me, it's Supreme Leader, not emperor).
It's not that any of it is bad necessarily, it just seems crammed in. I understand that there are at least two more movies coming, and a number of stand alone films featuring individual characters, so I'm sure the producers are just trying to get us acquainted before thrusting "new product" upon the public. But simpler is better, and gets me to care more about what's going on. But I know, it's about merchandising and sequels, not art and entertainment.
I don't want to end on a cynical note. I did enjoy The Force Awakens, and look forward to the sequel slated for late next year. I didn't have the thrilling experience of the first time around, but in a way I felt it more deeply, especially the fateful encounter between Han Solo and Kylo Ren. In spite of there being too many characters, I did care about what happened to Rey, specifically, and and an eager to find out exactly what her relationship is with Luke Skywalker.
What hasn't changed is my recommendation. See it, enjoy it, feel it.
___________________________________________________
It's been a busy three weeks, but I did manage to squeeze in a second viewing of Star Wars: Episode VII-The Force Awakens, and here are a few follow up reflections.
The movie has been out since before Christmas, so I won't let myself be encumbered by keeping secrets. If you haven't seen it yet I can only imagine that you've just returned from an Antarctic expedition, and so haven't been in the neighborhood of a cinema, or else you simply don't plan on ever seeing it. So, for the former, stop reading, and by all means, see it, and for the latter, I'm not sure why you'd want to continue reading, but I hope you do.
So, Han Solo gets murdered by his son. This is beyond a doubt the biggest "secret" we were made to keep, and the one that least surprised me. As soon as Solo headed down that walkway I knew he was done for. It was just a matter of would it be some tragic slip and fall accident, or an out and out assassination (my proverbial money was on patricide). I was a little surprised that the character was killed off so early in the sequels, but it makes sense, though more from a real world stand point as opposed to a story one. All the same, one can make an argument that it does help the story in the long run.
Harrison Ford, the actor who originated the role which shot him to super stardom, comes off as tired and a bit jaded. Not in the movie; he's fine there, but rather in interviews. While the Han Solo of the series goes from being a skeptic to a believer in the mythical Force, the Ford of our universe really couldn't care less. He mocks, in his understated style, the debates over "who shot first" in the Cantina Scene from Episode III, and pretty much admits that its about the pay day for him at this point. I'm sure he has affection for the character and the series, and he does express humble gratitude that Star Wars continues to mean so much to people after all these years, but he knows the world doesn't need an eighty year old Han Solo, which is what he'd be pushing if he saw the new trilogy through to the end. He knows wisely that it's time to take a bow and pass the torch to the new generation of heroes.
But there are two other compelling reasons for Solo's early, tragic exit from a Galaxy Far, Far Away. First is that Ford wanted to kill Han off after 1980's Empire Strikes Back. There was a concern that he wasn't going to reprise the role a third time. Also, he felt that Han Solo sacrificing himself for the rebellion would really give the character a dramatic arc that was, well, dramatic. As Ford saw it the selfish, greedy mercenary should go out as a selfless martyr saving his friends and the rebellion. Great idea, but thankfully George Lucas prevailed on that point and we got Han back for one more ride on the Millennium Falcon, while at the same time going out the way he wanted, more or less.
The other reason why Han exiting now makes sense is that Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) can take his proper place in the story. Star Wars is supposed to be about Luke really, but Ford's charisma and the character's machismo overshadowed the young Jedi in the original trilogy. As good an actor as he is, Hamill simply doesn't have the movie star screen presence of Harrison Ford, who may not have been a star when Star Wars came out, but did have more experience than his two co-stars. While it's true that Disney, who now owns the rights to the franchise, didn't use George Lucas' story plans for the new film, it was his idea originally to have a trilogy sequel with Luke as a Jedi mentor. They may not be using the specifics of Lucas' outline, but now Hamill gets to play Luke as elder wise man without having to compete with the larger than life Han Solo.
Other random thoughts:
FIRST: Young, tough and inexperienced. My original review criticized the acting, but on a second viewing I think the performances are better than I thought at first blush. I still think Lupita Nyong'o gives the best performance, but otherwise the problem isn't the actors, it's the script. Dialogue and characterization were never the strong points of the series, so I can give it a pass. What the script gets right, and our three young leads (Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Adam Driver) convey convincingly, is the idea that they are inexperienced, yet paradoxically world weary youths trying to appear more mature than they really are.
This is especially true of Driver's Kylo Ren. He want's to emulate Darth Vader, his maternal grandfather; the very embodiment of controlled, calculated, evil, but he just doesn't have the composure. I'm not sure Vader ever really lost his cool, even when he was angry (one might argue that throwing Emperor Palpatine down the Death Star's reactor shaft at the end of Jedi qualifies as being out of sorts, but who knows?). He might yell or bark orders once in a while, but generally if you got on his bad side, or messed up an order - watch your throat: you knew a Sith Force Choke was coming, and he might not say a word, let alone raise his voice, as he coolly squeezed the life out of you. Here, Kylo Ren tears up the place Charlie Kane style twice upon the reception of bad news. One time his tantrum makes Storm Troopers stealthy slink the other way so as to avoid his wrath. These tantrums show, not how evil the Sith wannabe is, but how truly insecure and spiritually incontinent he is. He presumes to offer training in the ways of the Force to Rey (Daisy Ridley), when in truth he really hasn't mastered it himself.
As for parallels with Grandpa, there was light within Vader, but it took three movies to get him back. There is clearly good within Kylo Ren fighting with the dark, in spite of offing his father, which makes me wonder if his turning back won't come sooner.
SECOND: One and done for Abrams is a big thumbs up. The choice of J.J. Abrams to direct the first outing of the new trilogy was wise. But it's probably also wise that another director, Rian Johnson, is directing the next film, which has already begun principle photography as I write. I say this not because Abrams didn't do a good job, quite the opposite. It's just that he seems to be effective at rebooting a franchise rather than carrying it forward: he knows how to link the past with the present (think having Leonard Nimoy play "old" Spoke in Star Trek 2009, and the inclusion of the original Star Wars cast here). In general he is the master of the hommage, as evidenced by his effective tribute to Steven Spielberg in Super 8, as well as call backs to Episodes III through V here. But when it was time for a Star Trek follow up he seemed to get stuck recycling elements from previous movies in Out of Darkness. I enjoyed that film, but there was a disappointing "re-imagining" of the plot to Wrath of Kahn, arguably the earlier franchise's best movie, as opposed to taking the Starship Enterprise to a place no one has ever gone before.
The Force Awakens has plenty of so called fan service: props, references and plot devises that remind the hard core devotees of the earlier movies, which is expected and good. But Abrams hasn't necessarily proven that he knows how to move beyond such pandering, as necessary as it is, and present an truly original story once the old series is up and running. I know nothing of Mr. Johnson, but a new director taking the reigns, with Abrams serving as a producer, might offer a better chance that we're not just going to get a rehash of Empire the next time out.
THIRD: Re-arranged characteristics, too many characters,. This is more an observation than an criticism. What I noticed at a certain point was that our three new protagonists are not simply reincarnations of Luke Leia and Han, but that each seems to have elements of all of them. Rey is from the desert planet, like Luke, but she's a bit more hip, like Han, and assertive like Leia. Fin (Boyega) is a deserting Storm Trooper, who you might expect to be a bit hardened by the experience, but seems to have the golly gee innocents of Luke. Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), the resistance fighter pilot, has the swagger of Han Solo, but the faith of Luke or Princess Leia. Again, no one sees a Star Wars movie expecting character development, but the original trilogy wasn't devoid of it, and my guess is that as the new movies proceed we'll see each character develop their own individual traits a bit more finely.
What I will knock a bit is that we are introduced to a lot of characters, mixed in with the old, and the screen just isn't big enough for all of them. We barley get any of Oscar Isaac's Poe Dameron: the clear successor of Harrison Ford's Han Solo. Like Harrison 39 years ago, Isaac is the most experienced and, arguably, charismatic actor of the new cast, and could ride this part to stardom. But I was left wanting more. We are given a new secondary villain, Captain Phasma (Gwendoline Christie) who ominously stalks Fin at the beginning, but otherwise does nothing. There's also a general somebody played by Domhnall Gleeson who's kind of a rival to Kylo Ren, and Andy Serkis doing his stop capture performance shtick, as the new emperor's hologram (excuse me, it's Supreme Leader, not emperor).
It's not that any of it is bad necessarily, it just seems crammed in. I understand that there are at least two more movies coming, and a number of stand alone films featuring individual characters, so I'm sure the producers are just trying to get us acquainted before thrusting "new product" upon the public. But simpler is better, and gets me to care more about what's going on. But I know, it's about merchandising and sequels, not art and entertainment.
I don't want to end on a cynical note. I did enjoy The Force Awakens, and look forward to the sequel slated for late next year. I didn't have the thrilling experience of the first time around, but in a way I felt it more deeply, especially the fateful encounter between Han Solo and Kylo Ren. In spite of there being too many characters, I did care about what happened to Rey, specifically, and and an eager to find out exactly what her relationship is with Luke Skywalker.
What hasn't changed is my recommendation. See it, enjoy it, feel it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)