Archive for the 'Movies' Category

Dirty Harry, vegan

Taking a break from a day of exercise, errands, and watching the women’s college world series to note this surprise from an article about Clint Eastwood in this morning’s Times:

People ask him to autograph rifles, but Eastwood is no Charlton Heston. A vegan, he was distressed to hear Hillary Rodham Clinton boast recently about bagging a bird. “I was thinking: ‘The poor duck, what the hell did she do that for?’ I don’t go for hunting. I just don’t like killing creatures. Unless they’re trying to kill me. Then that would be fine.”

I had no idea — but I am delighted to discover — that the former mayor of my home town (for whom I did not vote) was a fellow vegan. PCRM, Farm Sanctuary or PETA need to sign Clint up pronto. I’m already imagining some terrific PSAs.

On a only distantly related note, I saw a bear on my trail run this morning; there are still a few left in the San Gabriels, but it is always a spine-tingling delight to come flying around a curve and see one of these magnificent creatures just yards away. It, uh, made my day.

“Affirm and redirect”: how “Smart People” gets older men, younger women exactly right

The first post I ever wrote on “older men, younger women” was inspired by a movie, Love Song For Bobby Long. The most hits I’ve had on any post so far in 2008 was also movie-inspired: Age is Never Just a Number.

Right before we left on Spring Break, my wife and I went to see Smart People. It was a bit of a disappointment, largely because the two leads (Dennis Quaid and Sarah Jessica Parker) seemed miscast in their roles as a college professor and physician. The two supporting cast members, Juno’s Ellen Page and the sublime Thomas Haden Church, did their best to redeem the film. Church plays “Chuck”, a middle-aged ne’er-do-well who moves in with a widower prof (Quaid) and his overachieving daughter, Vanessa (Page).

Ellen Page is as pitch-perfect as ever as Vanessa, a socially awkward over-achieving young Republican who mothers her father and studies frantically for the SAT. Her monumentally self-absorbed father largely ignores her evident unhappiness — but uncle Chuck doesn’t. Chuck is troubled by his niece’s robotic, joyless behavior, and he starts a concerted campaign to get Vanessa to have fun. He gets her stoned one night, and then another night takes her to a bar. As they leave the bar, a tipsy Vanessa grabs her uncle and kisses him passionately. Chuck pushes her away immediately, horrified that she has misunderstood his interest in her. Much of the rest of the film (and indeed, the best scenes in this mediocre picture are all between Page and Church) is concerned with the way in which Vanessa and Chuck work through their awkwardness engendered by that kiss, and the way in which Vanessa comes to understand what it was and is she means to her uncle. Continue reading ‘“Affirm and redirect”: how “Smart People” gets older men, younger women exactly right’

Top Ten Films of 2007

I’ll admit I haven’t seen all the films that have been highly recommended this past season, but if you want to know what my favorites were of those I did see, the list is below the fold. Continue reading ‘Top Ten Films of 2007′

Age is never just a number: on “Juno” and covert older men/younger women boundary violation

My wife and I finally got around to seeing Juno this past Saturday night. It was as delightful as promised. Other bloggers have already dealt with the issues of sexual agency and teen pregnancy raised by the film, and the question of whether the picture carries a subtle “pro-life” message has been widely debated. I’m not going to add to the fine commentary already out there. But I was struck by one aspect of the film that dealt with an oft-posted on topic here, older men/younger women relationships.

Warning: mild plot spoiler below the fold. Continue reading ‘Age is never just a number: on “Juno” and covert older men/younger women boundary violation’

“Fixin’ to make a fire in the dark and the cold”: some notes on loving “No Country for Old Men”

Though I haven’t been to see many films lately, the best thing I’ve seen this fall — hands down — is No Country For Old Men. Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Kelly Macdonald, and Woody Harrelson, it’s a rich, engrossing, and for me, deeply satisfying picture.

Before I saw the film, several friends who had seen it told me that they had loved the first two-thirds but “hated the ending”. I went into the theater with their warning in mind, but found to my relief and surprise that the ending was one of the best things about the movie. Plot spoilers below the fold, folks, so click at your own risk. Continue reading ‘“Fixin’ to make a fire in the dark and the cold”: some notes on loving “No Country for Old Men”’

Notes on Bergman, Walsh, sexual decision-making and homosociality

I’m in my office with a big stack of summer grading to do, and thus little time to post. I’m scatterbrained more than usual, perhaps knowing that once I’m done grading, my real vacation begins!

I’m reflecting this morning on several things, including the deaths of Ingmar Bergman and Bill Walsh. When I was in college, I watched (at my mother’s insistence) a tape of the former’s “The Seventh Seal”. I was transfixed and moved and stunned, and more than two decades later, it remains one of my favorite films ever made. I’m not a movie buff, and most of the rest of the Bergman oeuvre leaves me cold, but I watch “The Seventh Seal” at least once a year.

Bill Walsh coached the 49ers throughout my adolescence; I was raised a loyal Niner fan and followed them obsessively throughout the 1980s. My interest in professional football began to diminish just as Walsh retired in 1989. I don’t think I can name more than three current players on the 49er roster; I can still recall — without prompting — the names of each player in the marvelous 1984 secondary (Wright, Lott, Williamson, Hicks.) Walsh was my coaching hero, and though he was a head coach at Stanford, my fellow Cal alums know that long before he served in Palo Alto, he was an assistant coach at Berkeley in the early 1960s.

But in addition to thinking kind thoughts about these two very different influences on my adolescence, I’m also struck by this New York Times article on The Whys of Mating.

…thanks to psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin, we can at last count the whys. After asking nearly 2,000 people why they’d had sex, the researchers have assembled and categorized a total of 237 reasons — everything from “I wanted to feel closer to God” to “I was drunk.” They even found a few people who claimed to have been motivated by the desire to have a child.

Here’s the good part:

The results contradicted another stereotype about women: their supposed tendency to use sex to gain status or resources.

“Our findings suggest that men do these things more than women,” Dr. Buss said, alluding to the respondents who said they’d had sex to get things, like a promotion, a raise or a favor. Men were much more likely than women to say they’d had sex to “boost my social status” or because the partner was famous or “usually ‘out of my league.’ ”

Dr. Buss said, “Although I knew that having sex has consequences for reputation, it surprised me that people, notably men, would be motivated to have sex solely for social status and reputation enhancement.”

Well, it may have surprised the good doctor, but it isn’t a surprise to any of us who do gender studies. I’ve often praised Michael Kimmel’s use of the term “homosociality”. Homosociality is the notion that many heterosexual men engage in sexual activity as much to earn status with other men as for sexual pleasure itself. Having sex with women (particularly those who are perceived as “high-status” in the eyes of male peers) is as much about increasing the measure of one’s own manhood as it is about private satisfaction or erotic and emotional connection with another human being.

The study cited in the Times was done on students at the University of Texas, Austin. The men surveyed were generally of college-age, a time in men’s lives when they are particularly susceptible to homosocial pressures to win status. This study is a helpful reminder of the ubiquity of those pressures — and of the damage that homosociality inflicts on men and women alike. For those of us committed to working with teens and young adults, it’s still more incentive to focus our efforts on deconstructing young men’s desperate, heart-breaking, soul-destroying desire to win favor in the eyes of their male peers.

Challenging homosociality is near the top of the priority list for me in my men’s work. For those of us who want to be genuine egalitarians, what matters is not merely what we profess. Men who want to be real change agents need to treat women (and speak about women) the same way when they are “alone with the guys” as when they are in “mixed company.” Many women know what it’s like to have a boyfriend who is sweet and charming when she’s alone with him, but a jerk when he is surrounded by his friends (this is usually her bitter introduction to homosociality.) The great challenge is to be radically consistent, to be the same man always — with the brothers of Delta Kappa Epsilon, with one’s grandmother, with one’s girlfriend, with one’s teachers. I’ve seen young men achieve this time and time again, but rarely without colossal effort, and rarely without earning scorn from their peers. But there’s tremendous value in matching one’s language and one’s life. The damage that not doing so creates is equally tremendous, and the fact that women often bear the brunt of that failure is difficult to deny.

Oscar thoughts

Just a quick note about the Oscars:

This was one of the more disappointing years for film that I can remember. Unlike last year, when I saw at least a dozen films I liked, I had a series of frustrating and bewildering movie-going experiences over the past few months. Highly-touted films like “Borat”, “Babel”, “Little Children”, and “The Departed” all left me decidedly underwhelmed. Though each featured marvelous individual performances, the overall quality of these celebrated pictures struck me as considerably less than the sum of their parts.

Hands down, the best film I saw all year was “Pan’s Labyrinth”, with “The Queen” taking runner-up and “Little Miss Sunshine” taking third. (Of all the major nominated films, I’ve seen each and every one save for “Half Nelson” and “Letters from Iwo Jima.”) Though at times it’s difficult to watch, “Pan’s Labyrinth” was mesmerizing. It ought to have earned a nod in the best picture category.

If I had been giving out awards last night, and could have nominated whomever I liked, I’d have given these in the major categories:

Best Director: Guillermo Del Toro, “Pan’s Labyrinth”
Best Supporting Actor: Leslie Phillips, “Venus” (nipping Jackie Earle Haley by a hair.)
Best Supporting Actress: Adriana Barraza, “Babel”
Best Actor: Will Smith, “The Pursuit of Happyness” (nipping Whitaker by a nose)
Best Actress: Helen Mirren, “The Queen” (the only award given I agreed with utterly, though Penelope Cruz takes my breath away)
Best Picture: “Pan’s Labyrinth”

A note about race and manners

A good weekend all around.  We went to see Venus last night; Peter O’Toole was indeed as terrific as advertised.  I enjoyed the film more than my wife did; as hostile as I generally am to older men-younger women romances, I bought the challenging, often squirm-inducing aspects of the story.  And I appreciated that it was surprisingly unsentimental.

I’m thinking this morning about handshakes, perhaps because I dreamt about them last night. 

Actually, I’m thinking less about handshakes and more about manners.  I grew up in a family in which manners were very much part of our civil religion.  “A gentleman always makes other people feel comfortable” was a central maxim of my childhood.  There was a good deal more about making others feel relaxed and welcomed than there was about “standing up for the truth”.  Our kind of people could hold a wide variety of views on religious and political matters, but OKOP always were raised to master the social graces.  (My dear uncle Stanley, a noted Communist and philosopher whose work is still widely read, regularly went to meetings of the radical left dressed impeccably in a Brooks Brothers suit.  He could betray his class,  but not his upbringing — if that makes any sense.)

In my childhood, we were regularly told that “if you have good manners, you can go anywhere.”  My grandmother told us that a gentleman (or a lady) should be able to have tea with the Queen in Buckingham Palace; a gentleman or a lady should feel equally at home on a stool in a dive bar in the Mission District.  “If you have lovely manners”, she told us, “you can go anywhere and fit right in.”  (I’ve sat on a lot of barstools in my nearly forty years.  I still await my invitation from Her Majesty, but my grandmother’s point is well-taken.)

I think manners popped into my head because I was also thinking about race, particularly after reading this article in yesterday’s paper about interracial relationships on television.  It’s an interesting piece about the ways in which the current crop of television depictions of interracial romances tend to minimize or even ignore some of the very real pitfalls that such relationships can present.

I’m married to a woman who is of mixed ancestry; she can “pass” for white, black, or Hispanic.  Our children, when they are born, will be a glorious mix: indigenous Colombian,  Jewish, English, Scots-Irish, Croatian, Nigerian, German, Flemish, Welsh, Czech, Spanish.  And I can’t help but wonder whether or not they will they will appear “white”.  My love, of course, is not conditional on race or appearance.  But I know that we live in a world where perceptions about race can still be very powerful. I know that we live in a world where “blackness” is still charged with significance.  And I know that if my children appear to be black, they may face a certain set of obstacles in the world that they will not face if they more closely resemble their European heritage.

What does this have to do with manners? In my family (which was entirely white in my childhood, much less so now), we were told again and again that “if you have good manners, people will welcome you anywhere you go.”  I’ve been to five continents and most corners of this country, and I’m happy to say that my grandmother’s words have proved true.  But I also know that folks around the globe notice my pale blue eyes before they notice my manners.  I have had friends very close to me whose skin is darker than mine and whose easy graciousness surpasses my own.  They have not always had the welcomes I have had. 

I will teach my children many of the lessons I learned.  We will work on chewing with the mouth closed; we will learn to master increasingly complex table settings.  We will learn that the key to good party manners is not being interesting, but being interested.  We will definitely devote several hours to handshake instruction, teaching that firm, polite grip that avoids the twin disasters of the “dead fish” or the “bonecrusher.”  And if they’re like their father was, my children will find the lessons boring and exasperating at the time they are taught; they will come to be immensely grateful for them.  And oh God, how I hope that they will live in a world where whatever their outer appearance, those manners will serve them well and cause them to be welcomed wherever they go.

And just maybe, they’ll get invited to Buckingham Palace.

 

 

A happy weekend

More thoughtful post later, but I want to begin by reporting that it was a happy and successful weekend.

At All Saints Pasadena, our thirty-hour fast to raise funds for Episcopal Relief and Development went very, very well. We had 24 kids participate; we made sandwiches for shelters; walked the labyrinth (an eleven-twist labyrinth, made of cloth, that we keep around the church); Saturday morning, we drove down to the African-American Museum near USC to see a photo exhibit on Rwandan orphans — organized and curated by two of our parishioners. The kids were very moved, and so was at least one of their youth leaders. We finished the fast with a Saturday evening church service and some delicious communion bread; the body of Christ is never more savory than after 30 hours of no other food!

And Sunday, my wife and I spent the whole day together. No getting up early for church; no getting up early to run. We slept late, read the paper together, and went to an early matinee of the wickedly fun Notes on a Scandal. (Dench and Nighy were marvelous, but the relationship between Cate Blanchett and her pubescent student was, well, unconvincing.) After that, it was off to the Huntington Library for lunch and a visit to the new John Constable exhibit; lots of his big “six-foot” landscapes from the Tate and the National Gallery. (I thought of my father, who was fond of Constable and Turner.)

We finished the day by dropping in on a youth group Super Bowl Party, before heading home to a quiet dinner, snuggling on the couch, and two episodes off one of our old Sopranos DVDs.

I can’t remember the last time when we’ve actually had a fun day like this — usually, we have to leave the country in order to get quality time together, away from our various obligations and avocational duties. Yesterday, we made such a day happen, and I am very happy.

Off to teach.

Why pornography bothers me more than depictions of violence: a response to Dethboy

In addition to this long one from yesterday, the other post I’ve had percolating in my head is about porn and violence. It comes in response to something I hear quite often from folks: why is it that so many Christians seem so concerned with pornography, and less concerned with violence. For example, in response to my post on “anxiety and arousal” last week, “Dethboy” writes:

…the dirty secret of porn (is) that most of it is actually not that bad…

The most graphic pornography I have ever encountered entailed a woman having needles inserted, one by one, into her breasts, and then extracted. There was a trickle of blood, and it was expressed that it was painful, but overall, the atmosphere was erotic but clinical, precise. Compare this to Saw II, or Hostel, or Turistas. Is seeing someone have sex as negative an impact as seeing someone get thrown into a pit full of needles, have their kidney cut out while their awake, or have their eye torn out in graphic detail? Is seeing a woman get facialed as upsetting as seeing a man impaled on a spike? Would you rather have your children see a woman having sex, or a man being shot in the face? Hugo stands in the middle of a burning house, demanding that, right now, the candle be put out on the night stand, because it’s the *real* problem, not the walls catching fire or the ceiling caving in.

I’ve missed the horror films Dethboy references, but I get the point. “Porn is just about sex”, folks say; “violence is so much worse.” Surely it’s misplaced puritanism to get so worked up about pornography and to be less concerned about violence. There’s a thoughtful response to that, one that others have made (one that my brother Philip makes quite eloquently), and in this post I want to get to it.

Let me be clear that I have little stomach for graphic violence. I hated pictures like Natural Born Killers, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction because of the violence — bloodshed so relentless that it vitiated any redeeming artistic qualities the films had. I went through a brief period in early adolescence where I liked scary movies, but that ended by the time I was old enough to drive. I view the current revival of low-budget horror films as a cynical attempt by Hollywood to maximize profits by working with C-list actors and D-list writers to produce films that can generate quick and massive returns.

I’m willling to sit through heavy violence as part of a larger story; I actully liked last year’s “A History of Violence”, and I’ve sat through my share of war movies in the “Saving Private Ryan” and “Letters from Iwo Jima” vein. And of course, I’m also comfortable with sex scenes in movies, particularly when those sex scenes serve the primary purpose of advancing the plot and providing a depth to the characters, rather than serving merely to titillate. (The graphic sex in “A History of Violence”, for example, fit that bill.) I’m not by nature prudish! I am reluctant to see the bodies of others exploited on screen for my pleasure, whether that pleasure comes in the form of chills (as in a slasher film) or arousal (as in porn). When bodies tell a story, that’s somehow radically different than when they serve only to arouse or shock.

But the thing about depictions of violence in films, television, or in print is simple: it is the graphic depiction of something that we know to be fundamentally bad. To use Dethboy’s example, everyone recognizes instinctively that throwing someone onto a bed of needles is wrong. There is never an instance where to do so is good and loving. In certain instances, killing a bad guy might be justifiable, but most of us are aware that violence itself, while perhaps necessary, is never an a priori good. The violence we see in these films is violence of the sort few of us will ever engage in, Lord willing. The violence we see depicted is what the vast majority of us would never want done to us, and would never want to do to another.

But sex is different. Most of us will have sex at some point in our lives, with ourselves or someone else. Most of us want to have sex, and most of us (it is to be most fervently hoped) will have very good sex at some point with someone we love very much. Sex is, at its best, spine-tinglingly, earth-shatteringly, transcendently good. And most of us know that, or very much want to know it!

Porn lies. Porn misrepresent sex. It takes something that is fundamentally good and joyful and mutual and makes it selfish. It teaches a strong connection between the bodies of others and one’s own pleasure without demanding an iota of concern for the well-being of the other. Ask women whose husbands and boyfriends regularly use porn: are they better lovers as a consequence? Though they might pick up a “trick” or two, they are also far more likely to be distant, remote, and concerned with their own pleasure as a consequence.

Pornography is ultimately more harmful than depicted violence because of the far greater likelihood that those who watch porn will want to imitate what they see. Dethboy refers to “facials”: the ubiquitous habit in modern porn of ejaculating onto a woman’s face. When I was growing up, facials weren’t common in porn. And none of my male friends with whom I talked in great detail about sex talked about the practice; now, I hear frequently from young women whose boyfriends are eager to “try it”. Most of the women, understandably, are at best ambivalent about having their faces and their hair splattered! “Facials” are just one example of a “learned behavior” from porn.

When we see axe murders in the movies, only a tiny fraction of us (thank heavens) will say “Gosh, I’d like to try that!” When we see porn, and particularly when the young watch porn, they are far more likely to draw inspiration from what is shown. (Think about it, people: A young man, watching “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” with his girlfriend, is very unlikely to have an insatiable urge to trundle down to Home Depot, buy a Husqvarna*, and dismember her. Watching the male star of “Cum Bunnies of Cleveland VII” ejaculate on the faces of his co-stars may spark a more imitative response!) For those who watch porn regularly, particularly in adolescence, their sense of what sex is and of how it is supposed to work is deeply affected by what they see. And what they see is almost never loving or mutual. What they see, alas, is a lie.

So yeah, porn bothers me more than violence. And while watching a horror movie might give a teen a night of bad dreams, watching porn may help shape a whole worldview about men, women and pleasure. I’m pretty clear which is more harmful.

*Though you wouldn’t think if of effete little OKOP me, I know quite a bit about chainsaws, having spent much of my childhood on a ranch, clearing brush with an enthusiasm that would put our president (a famous brush-clearer) to shame. And based on years of experience, I’m a great and loyal believer in Husqvarna saws, another fine product from the socialist democracy of Sweden. This is the one I currently covet.

Sick, and getting to watch two favorite films

I’m fighting a nasty, end-of-the-semester cold. I’m sitting in my office, taking a break from grading.

Yesterday, I stayed home sick and watched movies. And back-to-back, watched two of my favorite films of the past decade: The Apostle, and The Widow of St. Pierre. I’ve seen both films many times, and never fail to be deeply moved. The latter film features not only the brilliant Juliette Binoche, but also Daniel Auteuil, who, from the standpoint of this straight (albeit vaguely metrosexual) married man, is perhaps the sexiest man alive. “Widow” (make sure to watch it with subtitles, not dubbed into English), is a marvelous meditation on many things: fate, redemption, marriage — and, of particular interest to me, masculinity. It is at or near the top of my “all-time favorites” list.

Another post soon.

A note on Diana and “The Queen”

It’s a rainy morning here in Pasadena, I’m behind on a great deal of paperwork (anyone who has been in my cramped, messy office can understand why), and I’m adjusting to posting here at the new blog.

I’m way behind on my emails. My wife and I were away with my family in Northern California for the Thanksgiving holiday, and I didn’t check my inbox until yesterday afternoon. It will be a while before I get back to everyone who’s written. Thanks for understanding.

I promise a more serious post later today — about race, class, affirmative action, and student essays for college admission — but for now, a note about the film The Queen. We saw it last night and loved it; Helen Mirren was marvelous, of course, but Michael Sheen’s Tony Blair nearly stole the picture. Sheen bears only a slight resemblance to the PM, but he nailed his mannerisms and the inflections in his voice, particularly when stirred up or excited. It’s a marvelous picture. It’s at movies like this that I remember that one of the gifts my late father gave his children was the right to a British passport. My brother, alone among the four of us, chooses to make his home in England, but the rest of us feel at least some attachment to the nation that gave my father’s family refuge in the darkest days of the 1930s. I am Her Majesty’s subject, and have the documents to prove it.

The film, of course, deals with the immediate aftermath of Princess Diana’s death in the late summer of 1997. As luck would have it, I flew into Manchester Airport on the very day Diana died — Sunday, August 31. I was traveling to a medieval history conference at Durham University, and had to drive the several hundred miles from Manchester to Durham in the pouring rain. It was my first experience of driving on the “wrong side” of the road, and to do so in a downpour, jet-lagged, while listening to the BBC coverage of the terrible accident and its aftermath was positively surreal. It was an amazing thing that my life didn’t also end on the same day that Diana’s did!

I was 14 when Diana and Charles married; six years younger than the Princess, I had an almost obligatory crush on her from the time their engagement was announced in February 1981. I was exactly the right age to be mesmerized by her. I followed her story for years and years, and like many, was saddened by the divorce. (The separation from Charles came in the Queen’s annus horribilis of 1992, the same year my first wife and I split up.) And I can say without question that if the 9/11 terrorist attacks are the single most shocking event of my lifetime, Diana’s death in that Paris tunnel ranks a close second. No shuttle explosion, no assassination attempt, no earthquake — no other historic happening is as vivid in my memory as those stunning days in 1997.

I signed two condolence books: one in Durham, and one in Carlisle. In one day, after the conference let out, I drove all over the north of England, seeing everything from the Lake District to Hadrian’s Wall to Fountains Abbey to York. I gave a paper at the conference (it ended up being published here), but I barely remember what the damn thing was about. That week was about Diana and the extraordinary reaction to her death.

Not merely disliking, but absolutely hating “Borat”

Last night, my wife and I took her younger brother and niece to see "Borat."  The buzz has been tremendous, and though I had some reservations based on what I had heard, the kids were eager to watch the film and we were, well, willing.

I can think of only two other films that I found so viscerally upsetting: "Natural Born Killers" and "Pulp Fiction."  I saw them both in the theater, and left both literally shaking with rage at the filmmakers.  "Borat" joins these other two in a small category I have for Films I Did Not Merely Dislike But Actively Loathed.  I’m quite confident I’m in a distinct minority among my friends and readers, but so be it; you can share your impressions in the comments.

I include Borat along with the above-mentioned Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino films for a simple reason: all three pictures were, from a creative standpoint, magnificent.  I left the theater last night convinced of Sacha Baron Cohen’s subversive talent; what I question is his apparent radical lack of sympathy for his fellow human beings.  Look, I get the point he was trying to make; Cohen was eager to expose what he sees as the dark, bigoted, hypocritical underbelly of Red State America.  (And man, was he selective in the targets of his satire — he’s every bit as much a propagandist as Michael Moore.)  But while I can appreciate satire, I dislike it when it comes tinged with active cruelty.  What I don’t like about Sacha Cohen’s hit picture is the same thing I don’t like about Tarantino’s films: while they are exceptionally watchable movies, they are shot through with a nastiness, a puerile sadism, that reminds me of little boys plucking insects’ wings.

Did I laugh at Borat?  Of course.  But laughter is not an endorsement of the concept.  If you made me sit through a ninety-minute porn flick, I’d probably get turned on — and that physiological response would hardly be an endorsement of the film.  I could watch a bad horror flick and "jump" at the scary bits, but my momentary fear wouldn’t prove the quality of the movie.  Laughing at some of the scenes in Borat was similar for me; it felt more like an uncontrollable reflex than an actual appreciation for the work itself.

What made me angriest, in the end, was Cohen’s extraordinary arrogance.  Like many immensely talented artists, he seems to view ordinary human beings as props rather than as his brothers and sisters.  Deception, manipulation, public humiliation are all acceptable as long as the end product serves to make his rather obvious and banal point: human beings are awkward, judgmental, hypocritical, and flawed.  I may be the only person who watched this film whose heart went out to the crowd at the rodeo, to the Chi Psi brothers in the RV, to the Southern dinner party, to — particularly — the Pentecostals.   As nasty as some of the remarks were from the fraternity lads, for example, I found myself far more sympathetic to the objects of Cohen’s derision than to the filmmaker himself.  In the end, all of his subjects, for all their unpleasantness, displayed the gentle naivete and gullibility so characteristic of Americans.  Cohen, for all of his impressive skill and his willingness to take risks, displayed something even uglier: a genuine hostility towards humanity. 

To be sure, many great satirists have been misanthropes.  Perhaps it’s why I loathed Mencken and Karl Kraus when I read them in college.  (For me, sincerity is the most underrated of modern virtues and ironic detachment a particularly tiresome vice.)  Perhaps Cohen now has joined the ranks of the great misanthropic satirists. His talent is immense, his work undeniably provocative and funny.  But I absolutely cannot get past the sadism and the heartlessness that seems shot through the fabric of his work, and I am still angry at him and his picture this morning.

Discuss in the comments. 

Two — whoops, three — more notes

Two quick Sunday notes:

I’ve had a big upsurge in MRA (men’s rights advocate) comments this week. I’ve banned a few for trolling and will happily ban more.  Hint, lads: using words like "misandrist" will get you knocked out of here in five seconds flat.  Double standard?  Perhaps.  But this is not a free speech forum; this is a Christian feminist space, and those who are hostile to faith and feminism need to respect the focus and purpose of this blog.  Send me vitriolic emails if you like; call me a Stalinist; express your deep disappointment in me elsewhere in the numerous MRA forums, but please understand that unless you bend over backwards to demonstrate civility, you’re outta here.   Comments questioning this policy will also be banned.

Second: my readers who know All Saints Pasadena well will appreciate this.  Mutuality arrived in the mail this week; it includes an article by me.  In the short bio I submitted to the magazine, I described myself as an "evangelical Episcopalian" who worships and volunteers at All Saints Pasadena.  The dear editors of Mutuality reworded my bio, so that All Saints Pasadena — a flagship church of the progressive mainline — is now referred to as "an evangelical Episcopal church."  An understandable error, but for those who know ASC Pasadena, a whopper.

Oh,and #3: you must go see Little Miss Sunshine.  Now.   I mean, Toni Collette is just about my favorite actress in the whole damn world, and I’m in love with Steve Carell, but the whole cast is sublime.   I haven’t laughed and cried with such simultaneous intensity in years.  You’ll thank me for the recommendation.

“The inner darkness of the redeemed”: in defense of Mel Gibson

By now, most folks have heard of Mel Gibson’s arrest this past weekend for drunken driving.  The mainstream media and the blogosphere have posted most of the details of his arrest and its aftermath, including reports of his vicious, misogynistic, anti-Semitic tirade directed at sheriff’s deputies.  It’s an ugly episode, clearly, and one for which Gibson was right to apologize profusely. 

This morning, while driving to work, I listened to the radio.  The hosts of one program were positively gleeful about what might happen to Gibson, whom they called a "fake Christian" and a "hypocrite."  "He’ll never work in this town again", they said, and there was a note of hope in that prediction.  Some bloggers I know (no names to be mentioned) have seemed filled with schadenfreude at what took place.   Gibson is not well-loved on the left, particularly in the aftermath of Passion of the Christ.  It’s widely assumed that he is one of Hollywood’s most influential cultural conservatives, and to have him humiliate himself in the fashion he did this weekend seems, well, too delicious a topic to resist.

I am not a Gibson fan.  I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the Anglo-Scottish wars of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and I can’t ever remember being as offended by a movie as I was by "Braveheart", for which Gibson won an Oscar.  The historical license he took was perhaps no worse than that taken by other directors who make epics, but it was about what was then my chosen field — and I was angered and dismayed.  I liked the "Passion", I’ll admit, even as I struggled with the strong and unrelenting violence.   I honored the craft behind the story-telling, even as I was troubled by many aspects of the film.

But this morning, I find myself in considerable sympathy with Mel Gibson.  As someone who drank heavily and embarrassed himself many times as a result, I know this about alcohol: it lies.  One of the great mistakes folks make about those of us who are addicts is that we are more honest when we’re loaded — that drugs or booze reveal our secret thoughts.  Thinking back over my years of heavy drinking, I recall being told (after the fact) of dreadful things I had said while loaded.  I said things I did not mean, and hadn’t even thought.  Sometimes, when drunk, anger poured out in every imaginable direction.  My drunken words did not always reflect my real convictions; they reflected an inchoate rage at the world.

I have no idea if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic or not.  He may well be.  But what he said when he was drunk doesn’t count as evidence that he is.  When I was drunk, I regularly told strangers on the street how much I loved them, and how grateful I was that they understood me. I once told a paramedic that I was sure he was Jesus, and I wanted him to wash my feet!   Did those words reflect my innermost sober beliefs?  Of course not.  And I have no reason to think that the ugly things Gibson said while loaded in Malibu this past week reflect how he really feels.

I’m reacting protectively to this story because, of course, I recognize parts of myself in Mel Gibson.  I’m not as handsome or as successful or as conservative, but I know what it is to be an addict who undergoes a profound religious conversion. I also know what it is to struggle with relapse, with shame, and with anger.  If I were to relapse as Mel did, and my words while drunk were to become public, I would be deeply and profoundly shamed.   My relatively small number of readers include a contingent of critics (most of whom are men’s rights advocates), some of whom would no doubt be gleeful at what they would see as my comeuppance.  In a very minor way, I know what it is like to suddenly be revealed as human and flawed!

Above all, I’m angered at those who question Gibson’s faith.   Those of us who walk with Christ are not instantly given the power to turn from all forms of sin.  Though grace comes into our lives, our struggles will often remain with us for as long as we live in human flesh.  Conversion is not an instant process, but rather a gradual, painful one filed with stories of temptations resisted — and temptations not.  Walter Wink was right:

Christians have never dealt well with the inner darkness of the redeemed.

When we come to Christ, we become a new creation.  But that creation is still in an earthen vessel, in mortal flesh, still subject to sin and to darkness.   One of the great realities of the Christian journey is that many of us stumble, post-conversion.  It isn’t all sweetness and light on the other side of being born-again.  The inner darkness doesn’t always vanish even after we embrace Christ as our Savior.  For Mel Gibson, as for many of us, the struggle to live in to our redemption can be a day to day battle.  By grace and will together, we win that daily struggle most of the time.  But at one time or another, most of us, in one way or another, will fall.  The measure of a person’s faith is not whether she falls, but whether she repents in the aftermath of the fall, and redoubles the effort to live a Christian life.

I’m praying for Mel Gibson this morning.  I may not think much of his movies, but he is my brother and does not deserve the calumny, the schadenfreude, and the scorn he is enduring this week.