If you care about spirituality, go see "The Nativity Story." Much of the film is more understated and muted than the typical church Christmas celebration and may challenge some of the holier-than-thou notions we have of some of the Biblical characters. It film also lacks Santa Clause, reindeer and any remnant of snow. But it’s the most accurate cultural telling of the story we’ve had since "A Charlie Brown Christmas," and stays true to the Biblical record for the most part.
I also liked it because it’s a rare, meaningful film that will be highly valuable for families and teens. As Mary is told of her betrothal to Joseph, she is confronted by the fact that she doesn’t have a hand in choosing. "You are to consider him your husband in all ways," her father says, but she must wait on the issue of "that which leads to family." Mary storms off, in a way that seems natural for a teenager but unnatural for the icon we know as Mary, The Mother of Jesus.
She’s not only a frustrated teen but also an anxious one when she miraculously becomes pregnant. "Are you frightened?" asks her cousin Elizabeth. "Yes," she says with candor and clarity. "Elizabeth, why is it me God has asked? I am nothing," Mary says.
Pastors and priests have sermonized and homilied for years, trying to emphasize how embarrassing it must have been for Mary and Joseph when she was found to be pregnant. But I think the visual image of the bashful Mary and the humiliation and disappointment of Joseph will get through even to the current ( and somewhat permissive) American audience.
She gains courage, of course, from both the angel and the promise of a sign from Elizabeth. Her parents are unimpressed. "Elizabeth has a baby," Mary offers, "even in her old age."
"Elizabeth has a husband," replies her dad. Mary's mother says, "They could stone you in the streets."
"Father," Mary says as respectfully as she can, "I have broken now vow … I have told the truth. Whether you believe is your choice, not mine."
Such it is for all of us, regarding the Christ child. And such it is that "The Nativity Story" is a must for all who desire to learn about the role of Christ in their own spiritual journey.
First, there is the news that religious groups are feeling pressure about not pulling their support for "The Nativity Story" based on lead actress Keisha Castle-Hughes being pregnant out of wedlock. Then comes the news that Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life" and pastor of Saddleback Community Church, is receiving complaints from evangelicals for inviting Sen. Barack Obama to speak at his church.
There used to be a time when the spiritual journey and politics weren’t inexorably linked. And there was a time when acting was just acting, and actors had their own personal lives separate from their work.
I miss the clarity.
If a young woman gets the high honor of playing the part of Mary--and if the movie tells the wonderful story of "The Birth"--I don’t see why a church or religious groups should need to boycott the story of Jesus because of activities in the personal life of Castle-Hughes. Christian groups didn’t support the movie or pick the cast, but they sure should be allowed to support the story!
As for Rick Warren’s issue, I think evangelicals and others in the Christian Church should be careful: When they start criticizing the author of the best-selling religious book (aside from the Bible) in all of history for inviting a probable presidential candidate to discuss solutions to AIDS, they run the risk of becoming the very pharisees that missed the story of Jesus the first time around.
"Our goal has been to put people together who normally won't even speak to each other," said Saddleback in a statement, according to the Associated Press. "We do not expect all participants in the summit discussion to agree with all of our evangelical beliefs ... the HIV/AIDS pandemic cannot be fought by evangelicals alone [and] will take the cooperation of all--government, business, NGOs and the church."
I’m going to order tapes of Obama, and I’m going to take my kids to see "The Nativity Story," and hope that doesn’t get me in trouble with my church friends!
"The Nativity Story," director Catherine Hardwicke's film version of the Gospel stories of Jesus' birth, had its world premiere on Sunday at the Vatican. (It opens in the U.S. this week.) Some 7,000 people, including Hardwicke and several high-ranking cardinals, attended the showing--but not Pope Benedict XVI or Keisha Castle-Hughes, the 16-year-old Australian actress who plays Jesus' mother, Mary.
As it turns out, Keisha, like Mary in the Gospels, is pregnant out of wedlock. But unlike Jesus, who was conceived by divine power while Mary remained a virgin, Keisha's unborn baby has an all-too-human father, her 19-year-old boyfriend, Bradley Hull. So the reports started flying that the spectacle of a high-school-age, obviously non-virgin Mary had proved too much for the pope.
The U.K. Guardian reported that a disapproving Benedict had boycotted the Vatican premiere. The Detroit Free Press reported rumors that Keisha had been dropped from the invitation list by offended Vatican officials. There were even suggestions that scandalized Catholics and evangelical Christians planned to stay home from the movie after the news of Keisha's pregnancy broke in October.
At this point, Bill Donohue, the never-word-mincing president of the Catholic League for Religious, jumped into the fray, accusing the media of cooking up the stories that Benedict had refused to see the movie and Keisha had been shunned. "Despite what some think, Christians do not turn their backs on unwed mothers: They provide services for them," an inflamed Donohue wrote in a press release.
Donohue was undoubtedly right about the pope's reasons for his no-show. The Nov. 26 premier of "The Nativity Story" took place less than 48 hours before Benedict's highly publicized trip to Turkey, which was fraught with uncertainty until the last minute because of security concerns. As for whether Keisha Castle-Hughes was dropped from the Vatican's invitation list on account of her pregnancy (or told it would be a good idea not to appear), we'll probably never know what really happened.
The New York Times, however, reported a statement by Keisha's publicist that she was busy working on another movie--and who doesn't trust the New York Times? Furthermore, both the Catholic and the evangelical media remain positive about the movie, as does the secular press. Consider this Nov. 29 headline in Australia's Herald Sun: "Pregnant Actor 'Great Virgin."
Going beyond religion, the radio rabbis use their own unique perspectives to provide an alternative to the medium’s usual banter between the left- and the right-wing population. The rabbis, both seasoned media personalities who have appeared on everything from our own Beliefnet.com to Bridges TV to Frontline and The Today Show, will try and uncover the hidden agendas buried deep on both sides of the right/left divide. Topics are said to span from reinstating the draft, to God on the political ropes, to the shootings over PlayStation 3.
Perhaps one of their future shows will be broadcast from a pub, just so Idol Chatter can use the line: "Two rabbis and a radio walk into a bar…"
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 3:30 PM | Permalink |
Former “Seinfeld” actor Michael Richards has barely finished trying to convince the public--as well as the entertainment community--that the racial slurs he uttered at a nightclub do not mean he is racist. But now he is facing new allegetions regarding anti-Semitic remarks he made several months ago.
Richards newly-hired crisis expert, Howard Rubenstein, has admitted that Richards shouted anti-Semitic comments during a performance last April. But he blames Richards' tirade not on his obvious anger management issues, but rather on the fact that he was only "role playing" while on stage.
And while Jewish leaders may not be expressing the same outrage over Richards’ remarks as they did over Mel Gibson’s road rage a few months ago, they are taking Richards to task over something else: Richards claims that he can’t be anti-Semitic because he is Jewish. Jewish organizations have refuted Richards ties to Judaism by pointing out that his family is not Jewish (Richards was actually raised Catholic), and that Richards has not formally converted to the religion.
Rubenstein, however, has continued to defend Richards claim to be a Jew by saying that Richards has had two significant Jewish mentors in his life and agrees with the beliefs and customs of Judaism. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, responded by saying "You can't feel Jewish. It's not a matter of feeling."
Seems to me like no one--from Jesse Jackson to the Anti-Defamation League--is feeling the love for someone who was once one of the most beloved sitocm stars of the '90s.
It is not cool to dress up as Maria Von Trapp from “The Sound of Music” for your high school halloween costume day, but I didn’t care. Julie Andrews (who played Maria) was, and still is a woman I admired with a voice I still adore. So, though I knew at the time it wasn't cool, I did it anyway. And now I've learned that maybe I was cool, after all.
Entertainment Weekly's new "Inspiration Issue" reveals that Gwen Stefani loved Maria as much as me: "I’m like a Trekkie, but for the 'Sound of Music,'" says Stefani, music superstar, and popular clothing designer. "The first time I ever went on stage, at a high school talent show, the dress I wore was the dress that Maria wears when she sings 'I Have Confidence.' The drop-waisted tweed dress. I had that dress. I made it."
It’s nice to see that the pop music maven and fashion icon isn’t embarrassed about what really inspires her. No gushy Oprah moment here.
EW, apparently hoping to join the marketable and profitable "inspiration" bandwagon, interviewed numerous artists for the feel-good issue, including director Christopher Guest ("For Your Consideration," and actor Heath Ledger ("Brokeback Mountain"). Suprisingly, the directors seem to have been inspired mainly by other directors and films. Catherine Hardwicke director of "The Nativity" and "Thirteen" counts "Harold & Maude" as an influence). Actors are inspired by other actors (Djimon Hounsou by Morgan Freeman), and singers by other singers (Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz cite's Robert Smith of The Cure as his idol).
But, the real delight is in the unexpected inspirations. Will Ferrell ("Stranger Than Fiction," "Talladega Nights") cites fitness guru Jack La Lanne as his "creative role model," saying that La Lanne "was the guy who did one-handed push-ups and dragged tugboats with his bare hands. That guy knew how to live life."
Some of the reader responses at the back of the magazine are also priceless, especially one from "Enrique": "I was inspired by the season 1 finale [of "Lost"] to start meeting people in airport bars," he writes. Eventually those airport bar meetings led Enrique to his fiancee.
While much of the entertainment produced these days could be called less than inspiring, it’s fun to see what molded the artists that we love. The best interview of the issue is horror-meister Stephen King meeting with the creative team behind "Lost": J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. The "Lost" gang was so excited that they brought copies of King’s books for him to sign, all except Abrams who was crestfallen because he forgot. King was also totally psyched to see the trio, since he is such a huge fan of the show.
It’s always nice to see that even media giants are just little kids when they meet their idols.
Every season, The Real World lets us into the lives of seven strangers "picked to live in a house, work together and have their lives taped to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real." But what happens when the people who stop being polite are Christian?
On the season premiere of Real World Denver, we met Stephen, a 22-year-old Protestant and Davis, a 23-year-old Southern Baptist who was also gay. The rapport between the two men was fluid as they discussed faith and finding a church in Denver. But the skies soon darkened over their blossoming friendship when Davis announced he was gay.
Five of the roommates, none of whom had professed to be Christian, welcomed Davis with open arms. But Stephen expressed much disappointment and slight disgust. After a critical discussion with Davis, Stephen said, "I think it is wrong that you are gay." Davis responded, "What if I said, I think it’s wrong that you’re black?" The argument raged on for a few minutes and then was settled with perfunctory apology to keep the house happy.
I was nervous to see how both would act under the circumstances. Stephen’s lack of compassion appalled me. As Christians, we are taught to “Love the sinner and not the sin.” Davis's comment--that he didn’t believe God created the Biblical law that cites homosexuality as a sin--also shocked me.
This episode ignited a tailspin of discussion among my friends. At the end of it all, all I could think was this: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (John 8:7)" Stephen can’t judge Davis, because while he isn't homosexual, he may commit other sins. Sin is sin, and Davis’s homosexuality does not trump other sins. But Davis should study the scripture deeply to understand what was God's divine will--this God he presumes to believe in.
Of course this show is edit-heavy, so they would make the conservative Christian out to be a judgmental hypocrite and the homosexual Christian clueless about his alleged eternal damnation. So I'm going to give these two men the benefit of the doubt by watching a whole season, which is usually more time than any of us get to prove our own naysayers wrong.
Twenty-eight years was a long time to wait for a new album from Yusuf Islam. Back in the 1970s, the artist (then known to the world as Cat Stevens) won over audiences with pop hits like "Wild, Wild, World," "Peace Train," and other folk-inspired songs. His recently released album, "An Other Cup," vaguely remembers that music while developing a sweet sound of its own infused with Sufi stylings and spiritual overtones.
It takes some getting used to, this new music of Islam. The infectious, rollicking pop beats have given way to mellow, dreamy rhythms and lazy guitar strumming. The lyrics are easy on the ears as well, with lines like "One day at a time, we can look the future in the eye" (from "One Day at a Time") and "Greenfields and golden sands, that’s all I need; that’s all I want …" (from "Greenfields, Golden Sands").
One song, "The Beloved," invokes the artist's Islamic devotion, as it praises the Prophet Muhammed with lines like: "He was born to be the beloved, a will of the Divine." Even though this is a pop album, it is permeated with Islam’s love for spirituality and his faith. Yet religious love doesn’t overwhelm the album, as Islam allows his old folk roots to shine through on numerous tracks.
Listening to this album with Cat Stevens on the brain would be a mistake. He left that life behind when he converted to Islam. But the musical persona of Cat Stevens can be faintly heard in this album. It’s a decent (though not incredibly awesome) first step after nearly 30 years way from making commercial pop music.
Nine chapters into NBC's new drama "Heroes" and I'm utterly hooked. "Heroes" is reminiscent of X-Men, revolving around individuals all over the world who discover that they have special and occasionally frightening powers.
The last several episodes revolved around a rather cryptic yet humorous command: "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World," a task taken up by several heroes together including Hiro (the utterly adorable boy from Japan who can bend time and space), Peter (who can take on the powers of whatever hero is nearby), and Isaac (who paints the future) . Claire Bennet, the cheerleader in question, holds the power of regeneration, even after death.
In fact, we've seen Claire quite literally "rise from the dead" several times now. Given Claire's particular power, it's rather unclear how anyone might have threatened her life in the first place. But the "Homecoming" episode marked the moment these heroes long feared, with the evil Sylar (who we have yet to meet face to face) setting his sights on killing Claire after the homecoming game.
Though there were certainly efforts all around by the heroes, ultimately Claire did a pretty good job holding her own in the salvation department. So at least for now, they saved the cheerleader. But here's what I want to know next: Will her life perpetually be in danger, or was this a one-time threat? How exactly will Claire save the world? And will "Heroes" follow in Buffy's footsteps, giving audiences a smart, courageous girl "chosen one"--another girl savior? Of all the heroes, is Claire somehow the most important of all?
If you haven't tried "Heroes" yet, you should. The series will surely appeal to X-Men and Buffy fans alike. Even "Gilmore Girls" devotees should tune in since Peter Petrelli is played by none other than Milo Ventimiglia, who played Rory's bad-boy boyfriend Jess for several seasons.
Advertise any film as a mixture of romance, science, and fantasy, and I'll come running, no further questions. And so it was with 'The Fountain,' directed by Darren Aronofsky ('Pi, 'Requiem for a Dream'), starring Rachel Weisz and Hugh Jackman (both favorites of mine). This movie weaves three stories together: One "reality-based," a second that might be labeled (loosely) as historical fiction, and a third that seems something of a "new age fantasy." I saw the film during the very first showing on its opening day, November 22nd.
Though unclear at first, eventually viewers find out that the primary story revolves around the "real life" dimension of a husband (Tommy) and wife (Isabel) who are madly in love, yet face the tragic certainty of the wife's death from brain cancer. Tommy is coincidentally a gifted cancer researcher and is pushing himself to the brink of madness to discover a cure for the tumors riddling Isabel's body--before her time on earth is up. Note the emphasis on "time on earth," which is essential here.
For Isabel, the line between life and death, present and past, reality and fiction, earth and heaven is very thin and certainly traversable if one is willing to believe the journey possible. Much of the movie involves Isabel begging her husband to stop his race for a cure and spend their last remaining but potentially magical days together. Most important of all, she wants him to read her novel, and ultimately write its last chapter after her death.
Isabel's novel, titled 'The Fountain,' is the vehicle that moves the story between Tomas, the Spanish conquistador who quests to find the fountain of youth for his Queen, Tom the astronaut who journeys into space (seemingly via Buddhist meditation) to find a dying star and, presumably, spiritual enlightenment, and her real-life scientist-husband Tommy, who seeks to overcome "the disease of death" through his research.
Each story is about a kind of eternal life, and each centers around the Tree of Life spoken of in Genesis 3:22: "And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." Each character--Tomas, Tom, Tommy, and even Isabel herself, quests toward their own idea of immortality through a different and ultimately spiritual path.
The most beguiling view of all is perhaps that of Isabel, who believes that if a tree is planted over her body in the ground, she will not only become part of this tree but also of all the life the tree will touch--her essence ultimately soaring through the sky with the birds. (But the beautiful-sounding tree growing from the nourishing body is made utterly disturbing when we see a tree literally grow from the body of the conquistador after he drinks the sap from the Tree of Life at the Fountain of Youth.)
Is 'The Fountain' a beautiful story of love and life conquering death? Of a way to find life through death? Or just a terribly weird and hokey new age film that is, at times, unbelievably difficult to follow? I still can't decide.
One thing I know: Unlike most movies of this sort, I won't see it again. Once was enough.
As with every other year, Thanksgiving Day signaled the go ahead for radio stations to begin playing endless Christmas music, and the arrival of midnight sparked shoppers to begin the now-traditional mad-dash of buying for the holidays. But the lead-up to this gift-giving season has been a bit unusual for the widely-known charitable Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, which delivers toys to needy children during the holiday season. The typically benign and beloved organization has been the center of an intense religious controversy over Jesus.
A Bible-quoting, foot-tall Jesus doll, that is.
A Los Angeles-based toy company, one2believe, offered to donate 4,000 of the battery-operated "Messengers of Faith" dolls, which its website assures will offer children "key selections from John, Mark, Psalms, Luke and Exodus … all recorded in an easy-to-memorize format so that parents, pastors and educators alike can use Messengers of Faith to teach children these vital lessons from the Bible in a fun, entertaining way!" (The equivalent Mary, David, Moses, and Esther dolls were not offered as part of the donation--Jesus was the doll of choice for the Toys for Tots drive. But of course you can order them!)
One2believe's mission is explicitly Bible-based, and its website states the following on its homepage: "The spiritual development of our children depends largely on how well they grasp and understand the Bible stories. Just as in the days of the Judges in Israel we believe that teaching Bible stories to a child is the precursor to a relationship with God. In fact, we believe this so strongly that we have gone to great effort and expense to develop a number of resources and tools for parents and Christian educators so they can effectively teach the Bible stories to their children and students."
These resources and tools include the Jesus dolls--toys that the Marines organization initially rejected for Toys for Tots because of their obvious religious associations. This rejection caused big headlines and a widespread backlash against the organization.
The Associated Press reported the initial story, explaining that: "The charity balked because of the dolls' religious nature. Toys are donated to kids based on financial need and 'we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations,' said Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Va. As a government entity, Marines 'don't profess one religion over another,' Grein said Tuesday. 'We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family.'"
Yet just days later Toys for Tots reversed the decision, according to The Washington Post in an article, "Reversing Course, Marines to Accept Jesus Doll Gifts." The change in attitude about the dolls seems largely due to family requests to receive the dolls for their children.
The article says that "When the decision to reject the toys got out, the toy company began receiving hundreds of phone calls and e-mails from organizations and people who would like to receive the dolls. 'The phones are ringing off the hook. There is a new e-mail every few seconds. It is unbelievable,' said Michael La Roe, director of business development for the company. 'We had someone write in from Okinawa, Japan. The word is spreading all over the country and, in some cases, all over the world.'"
So the talking Jesus doll saga seems finally resolved, but one thing that remains unclear to Toys for Tots: How to accomodate so many requests, and get enough of these dolls into the hands of families who want them this Christmas.
While Mel Gibson blamed his anti-Semitic rant a few months ago (most would say unsuccessfully) on a drunken lapse of judgment, Michael "Cosmo Kramer" Richards' only excuse for his racial epithets directed toward two African-American men is that he was angry because he was being heckled in the middle of a performance. The entertainment website TMZ acquired footage of Richards spewing various racial epithets during a stand-up comedy routine at The Laugh Factory nightclub last Friday--and by Monday night Richards, with the help of friend Jerry Seinfeld, was on David Letterman apologizing for his behavior and swearing he was not a racist.
So yesterday I was fully prepared for the media backlash to bury Richards in a pile of well-deserved criticism, just like it did to a certain other hate-spewing Hollywood figure recently. But other than the occasional soundbyte in which a moderately famous comedian or some Hollywood pundit mildly criticized Richards for his behavior, the backlash failed to materialize. Barbara Walters did not use the "Hot Topics" portion of "The View" to announce she would no longer watch "Seinfeld" re-runs. Denzel Washington did not make a public statement calling for Richards to have a meeting with the NAACP to begin the healing process. As far as we know, uber-agent Ari Emanuel didn't tell a single one of his clients not to work with Richards in the future. Worst of all, last night Leno only dedicated one joke in his monologue to Richards' fiasco before quickly moving on to other subjects.
All of which has left me feeling more than a little bit baffled. The man was doing stand-up. In a club. Where comediens often are heckled. Stating that hecking is an excuse for racial slurs is, in my opinion, about as strong of an excuse for his behavior as a student saying "a dog ate my homework." Pardon me, Hollywood, but your hypocrisy is showing. While I am well aware that Richards is not as successful as Gibson, and I understand Richards hasn't exactly announced that he will be playing Atticus Finch in an upcoming remake of "To Kill a Mockingbird," I still can't fathom why Hollywood isn't showing more outrage over this hate speech.
Such an underwhelming lack of response by some of the most visible players in Hollywood brings up uncomfortable questions I don’t have the answers to. Questions like: Are some slurs more forgivable than others? Is the level of outrage over such slurs linked somehow to how much future worth their career is to Hollywood? And the biggest question of all in my mind: Would the outrage be greater if more Hollywood players were African-American and had more of a voice??
Kirk Franklin just won the American Music Award in the Contemporary Inspirational category, adding to his crowded shelf of Gospel Music Association Dove Awards and Gospel Grammys. Yay, Kirk! In fact, his fellow nominees in the categories are very deserving in themselves: Casting Crowns and Aly & AJ.
What none of these artists deserve is to be lumped into the same award category. Casting Crowns is middle-of-the road white-boy pop rock, while the exceedingly pure Aly and AJ's cover of "Walking on Sunshine" anchors the soundtrack of Disney's remake of its own "Herbie the Love Bug."
Once upon a time, gospel, Christian rock, and inspirational performers were grouped together because their tiny independent labels were only fit to compete against each other. Not anymore. Kirk's first thank you went out to his label Zomba, a mainstream subsidiary of recording giant BMG. The distribution available to Christian Nashville groups rivals any other artist. Instead of a sampler pack of Christian acts—one from each genre within the Christian universe—the AMAs and everyone else ought to free Kirk and the rest of the Christian crowd to compete in their natural categories.
With every winner from Rascal Flatts to Mary J. Blige fulsomely praising God for their brand new statuettes, future Christian winners in the R&B, country, rock, and rap fields will fit right in.
In the beginning, there was TLC's Shalom in the Home, starring well-known rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Now, prepare for television to bring another rabbi into your home--in this case, Rabbi Irwin Kula, whose new national public television special, "The Hidden Wisdom of Our Yearnings with Irwin Kula," represents an attempt to help people use Jewish wisdom to "cope, find purpose, and discover growth," as a press release claims.
Rabbi Kula is president of CLAL - The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, a leadership training institute, think tank, and resource center, and is a much sought-after speaker and commentator on public culture and religion in the public square. The show is based on Rabbi Kula's new book, "Yearnings: Embracing the Sacred Messiness of Life," and will be available in almost every major city nationwide.
If Rabbi Kula's name sounds familiar, it might be your active "Today" show memory kicking in: He was recently featured in an interview by Matt Lauer about the concept of forgiveness in the wake of October's shootings at an Amish schoolhouse. Unlike Rabbi Boteach, Rabbi Kula does not seem to be courting celebrity endorsement, although his book has received accolades from such leading authors as Harold Kushner, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, and Mitch Albom, and Rabbi Kula himself was named by both Fast Company magazine and PBS' Religion and Ethics Newsweekly as one of the new leaders shaping the American spiritual landscape.
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 12:56 AM | Permalink |
We've always been made to understand that Sacha Baron Cohen, a.k.a. Borat, is a satirist, not a simple comedian. Otherwise, his anti-Semitic jokes and poo-poo gags would be, well, just that. But this week, Cohen found out the cost of making a serious point.
Residents of the Romanian town of Glod, a stand-in for Borat's Khazakstani village, and two American college students have filed lawsuits against Cohen and his production company, aimed at having themselves removed from the film. They say the producers misrepresented the nature of the film and induced them on false pretenses to say and do things they wish they hadn't. (The college students also say the producers made sure they were liquored up for the shoot.) Fox, which distributes the film here, has called the lawsuits "fatuous."
The natural defense of a joker like Cohen is he was only kidding--"Geez, can't they take a joke?" But in a Rolling Stone interview that appeared last week, Cohen presses on with his social-conscience defense. His treatment of Khazakstan, which at one time threatened its own lawsuit, reflects badly not the Central Asian nation, says Borat, but those dim enough to believe any country could be so backward. As for his racist and anti-Semitic American dupes (who apparently are that backward), they deserve what they got. The essence of racism, he says, is apathy. "I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite," he says to Rolling Stone. "They just had to be apathetic."
But is it apathy that's on view here? What gets Borat's victims in trouble is that they are nice enough to engage with Borat. By the time he gets ugly, they've gone too far with the idiot to put on the brakes without causing more trouble than he's worth. In a recent Slate column, Christopher Hitchens suggests that it's not racism that makes Americans go along with Borat's nonsense, but our tolerance. "It's that attitude of painfully maintained open-mindedness and multiculturalism that is really being unmasked and satirized by our man from the 'stan," writes Hitchens.
Apathy, at any rate, is only half the point. Racism is part of the human condition. We educate our children and ourselves about it precisely because it's alive in us all, ready to chime along with a voice strong enough to make it vibrate. To stoke these human feelings in a couple of drunk frat boys in a trailer isn't much of a feat, or much of a surprise, or much of a satire. The Germans didn't just have to be apathetic, in other words, they needed someone to articulate their racist suspicions. In "Borat," Cohen plays that role. If his unsuspecting victims have a race problem, Borat's it.
Hollywood lost a cinematic legacy yesterday when the director of the such critically acclaimed movies as "M*A*S*H" and "Nashville," Robert Altman, passed away at the age of 81. For decades, Altman set himself apart from other directors by developing a non-linear form of storytelling and by often using long sequences of overlapping dialogue among his characters. It's a style of filmmaking that many younger directors copy today, but back in the 1970s was anything anything but typical.
Though Altman never experienced huge commerical success, and was not even recognized by the film industry with an Oscar until earlier this year, Altman has left behind a body of work that examines the best and worst of all segments of society. And while I never cared for his abrasive political and personal rantings, Altman successfully achieved what all revolutonary artists attempt to do: He shaped our culture and redefined an art form by insightfully questioning the conventions of society ("Gosford Park" ), religion ("A Praire Home Companion"), corporate America ("The Player"), and politics ('The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial") with a point-of-view that was unique, and for better or worse, steadfastly uncompromised in its worldview.
For me, the Altman films that I liked best where the ones that celebrated the creative process. These films--which include "The Company" and "Vincent and Theo"--are not considered his very best, but I think they reveal the true passion he had for beauty of art in it's purest form to communicate truth.
And if you'd like to read what other film critics have to say about Altman's life and work, I encourage you to go here and here.
When facing a movie like "The Ten Commandments: The Musical"--based on a recent stage production and set for DVD release this week--I always approach it from two angles: (1) Is the product a good/entertaining one?; and (2) Is it true to the text?
The first good sign for this production is its enormously talented cast. The amazing Alisan Porter plays Miriam (you can also catch her in the Broadway revival of "A Chorus Line"); Aharon Ipale stars for his second time as the Pharaoh Seti (first time was in"The Mummy"). Michelle Pereira ("Yokebed," Moses' mother, or as I was taught to pronounce it, Yokheved) and Kevin Earley (Ramses) also turn in passionate performances. Some voices are so phenomenal that they can even make cheesy lyrics (Joshua, a slave, rebels with "you can't tie a rock to my soul") forgivable.
I admit, I snickered when I read the words "Val Kilmer IS Moses in 'The Ten Commandments.'" But the truth is that Kilmer wasn't all that bad--perhaps because he's played Moses once before (in 1998, for Dreamworks' "Prince of Egypt").Kilmer does a lot of the "talky singing" that's usually assigned to characters tasked with major plot exposition, wherein each musical phrase is packed with more words than human lung capacity should be able to handle. Thankfully, "Top Gun's" Iceman is not expected to perform complicated musical arrangements and choreography.
But the production suffers because its heart, its Moses, mostly reacts to the musical going on around him. The quality of his voice is certainly not at the same level as the highly trained cast that surrounds him, but it was fine. But is 'fine' enough for a musical? I mean, I have a fine voice, but I'm not auditioning for Broadway shows where the marquee would boast: "'Queen Esther: The Musical' featuring Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Kelly Clarkson, Josh Groban, and Esther Kustanowitz."
Textual accuracy is more complicated. Bible stories represent the bedrock of contemporary Judeo-Christian faith; and biblical purists will just have to make some spiritual concessions when watching this musical. The dramatized story, both in the DeMille epic and here, tacks on a love triangle (Ramses is to marry a woman who's in love with Moses; she sings about it in "A Love that Never Was.") The brotherhood storyline is also a major hook for promotion: "Two men. Raised as brothers. Divided by history."
But the story has never needed this Hollywood touch, nor does it need a post-Red Sea crossing reconciliation between the brothers, who proclaim their love forever. Pharaoh even proclaims, "Moses, your God is God." (Never happened in the Bible.)
When Moses is banished after slaying the Egyptian taskmaster, the entire cast drifts into a musical number, one at a time, wondering "What about us, what will we be without him?" While, this is a very effective song of loss, it's not terribly biblical. Similarly, I watched the plague sequence three times, and I'm not sure all 10 are included. Some story elements that are not in the straight text in Exodus do exist in biblical legend--for instance, the possibility that Bithia/Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh who draws the infant Moses from the water, exited Egypt with the Hebrew slaves and was present at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. On the other hand, I doubt any of the Midianites, Moses' in-laws, were Asian or blonde, which may make me a racist, a biblical Purist, or both.
Were Egyptian slaves really dressed so scantily? With wardrobe by BCBG Max Azria, never has slavery looked so abtastic. With all those expo
sed midriffs, it's no wonder that when the Children of Israel engage in nostalgic yearning for the Egypt they'd left behind ("Where is the land of milk and honey?"), their primal moan quickly enables the sheer libido of the people to physically manifest as a golden calf.
There will be those who decide, after hearing a voice of God that sounds not wholly unlike a vocoder-infused staccato rap, to call it a day. But then again, the music successfully highlights how remarkably layered the Exodus story is, both in terms of the human pathos involved and the faith themes. Moses is not just a man threatening the economic system of Egypt by trying to free its slaves, he was raised in the Egyptian palace as the son of Pharaoh's daughter, which ups the stakes. Whether or not the actual story sets up Pharaoh and Moses as literal brothers, the story is still about freedom and about the men who represent Gods.
Plus, Val Kilmer in a tallit (prayer shawl)? To a Jewish girl with "Top Gun" memories, that's totally hot.
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 5:13 PM | Permalink |
The first image you see in Stanley Nelson's new documentary "Jonestown: the Life and Death of the Peoples Temple" is a row of smiling young faces--black and white, teens and 20-somethings--taken under a blue and sunny sky. They look as if they could do anything--even carve out a utopia in the jungles of Guyana. Yet within months, they would all be dead, victims of the largest mass suicide/murder in American history.
On Nov. 18, 1978, 913 people, more than 200 of them children, died in Jonestown, Guyana. They had gone there with the Rev. Jim Jones, a charismatic preacher who wanted to establish a self-sufficient, interracial socialist community. Instead, after the shooting deaths of five visitors, including California Congressman Leo Ryan, they either swallowed a cyanide-laced punch or were injected with the poison. The film is Nelson's attempt to trace the Peoples Temple from its roots in Jones's first pulpit in Indiana to its zenith in San Francisco and, ultimately, its horrifying end in the jungles of Central America.
What is really lovely about this film is that it tries to focus not only on the terrible and sad end of the Peoples Temple, but also shows the sense of joy and accomplishment many members felt in the work they were doing--planting crops, building homes, teaching the young, caring for the elderly. Nelson got some great interviews with survivors, eyewitness, ex-members and their families, and their stories lend great depth to the pictures and footage.
But Nelson does not successfully answer the question of why so many people--more than a 1,000--stayed with Jones as he slipped into abuse. The survivors tell of sexual assault and humiliation, public beatings, financial shenanigans and downright lies (footage of Jones supposedly healing a wheelchair bound woman who was actually a church secretary). The viewer cannot help but want to shout "Why the hell did you stay?" at the screen. One survivor explains that by the time the abuse was at its worst, most members felt they were in too deep to leave. They had given up homes and family to join Jones. Others were afraid of a "hit squad" that would target them if they left.
I don't find these answers satisfying. As a reporter, I have written several times about Jonestown and have interviewed several survivors. The one thing I have come away from those interviews with the sense that these people were not weird, stupid or crazy. They are just like everyone else--a fact that, to me, intensifies the horror of what happened to them. Nelson could have spent a few more minutes showing how many people stayed with Jones because they were completely dedicated to the dream of a perfect, integrated world that he promised them--even as his daily actions undermined that dream's very foundation.
So was it suicide or was it murder? Certainly, the children, too young to make a choice between life and death, were murdered. But whether the adults willingly took the poison or did so because they were forced to--by armed guards ringing the pavilion where they died--is still being debated among survivors. The film doesn't try to answer the question, relying on eyewitness accounts that report people swallowing the poison themselves as well as injecting it into the young and the elderly. It's an appropriate choice because no one can claim to know the answer to the question of murder or suicide unless they were there. Seeing this film is as close--thankfully--as any of us will get to being there.
Last season, the VH1 celeb-reality series "Breaking Bonaduce" found ratings success by exploiting former "Partridge Family" star Danny Bonaduce as he spiraled out of control. There was no end to the footage in which Bonaduce was abusing alcohol, steroids, and other substances, all the while emotionally abusing his wife, Gretchen.
Some equally salacious footage started off Season Two, but last night's episode began to ducument Bonaduce's quest for spiritual answers to his problems. The episode followed Bonaduce as he read his Bible daily, met with a pastor over coffee, and went to church with his family.
Teasers for feature Bonaduce episodes give even more hints of Bonaduce finding religion. But all of his newly-acquired goody-two-shoes behavior can only mean one thing for the fate of the series itself: "Breaking Bonaduce" is destined to be canceled.
At least that's what Bonaduce himself has alluded to in a recent interview with Anderson Cooper. In that interview he said that there would absolutely be no Season Three because there is a "life altering change" at the end of Season Two that would make Season Three impossible.
All I can say isthat if Bonaduce does indeed become born again, I really hope he doesn't have Stephen Baldwin's phone humber.
I'm not saying it was our call to boycott O.J. Simpson's gruesome upcoming book and his accompanying Fox interviews that did the trick. (I'm sure you know that O.J. planned to reveal that if he had killed his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, this is how he would have done it.)
But perhaps it was the power of Idol Chatter (and, well, more likely the huge outpouring of outrage and horror from the American television-watching public) that led to the glorious news I heard today: News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch announced that the media company is canceling the television special, "If I Did It," which was set to air during crucial November sweeps.
Hallelujah! For once, the public has spoken, and the entertainment and media industry has listened! After a dozen Fox affiliates announced that they wouldn't be airing the interview, the word came down from the top that the whole creepy project would be canceled. In the words of Murdoch, "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project."
Ill-considered? I'll say.
He went on to apologize to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman for causing them any pain. An apology doesn't seem enough, but at least we have that.
The kicker to this story is that late on Monday, HarperCollins also decided to cancel publication of the book as well. CNN.com reported that though early sales of the book was strong (it broke the top twenty last week), it had fallen to Number 51 by the time the cancellation was announced. The publishing company also said that though some copies had been shipped to stores, they would be recalled and destroyed.
And that's it. I would say that this was a boycott that did its job. The sooner we forget about this and get on with daily life, the better.
The current James Bond movie is clearly different from most of the other 23 Bond (21 official) movies. The actor is different. The tone is different. The villain(s) is (are) different. There's no "Q," and though "M" is the same actor (Judi Dench), even she has a new edge to her.
That said, it's an important film for true Bond fans because it probably lands closer to the original Bond of the Ian Fleming novels than any of the prior movies, except perhaps for "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love." I won't give away the details in this blog, but you need to see it. This guy is certainly nothing like Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan--and is probably more like Connery than any of the others, except for the hair. He's young. He's raw. He's human. He confounds those close to him. And he's a hero.
For the spiritually driven Bond fan, I think "Casino Royale" offers a potential bonus impact. This franchise couldn't have endured this long (45 years, going on a third generation of fans and its sixth lead actor) if all of us didn't have some kind of attraction to the idea of a Savior or Hero who transcends the normal bounds of human limitation to achieve the nigh-impossible for the benefit of others and his country. We're coming up on the Christmas season, and many of us will celebrate--or at least tolerate--an Americanized, Christmas-ized version of Jesus and the Christmas story that may or may not be true to The Original. Jesus Christ was not the watered-down, numbed, and muted version of himself that our culture--and even some of our churches--embrace.
Any time we get to re-discover anew the truth of who Jesus was--and is--then it's a good day. I know it wasn't the producers' intent, but if "Casino Royale" rocks some Bond-fans' notions of the true identity and character of this film's Savior, and if that can bleed over into a re-examination of Jesus as He impacts our own faith journey, then this may truly be a meaningful and Merry Christmas, and more than just a Happy Holiday.
The relatively minor Jewish holiday of Purim is having its moment in the cinematic sun. First came "One Night With the King," a dramatization of the Book of Esther, which is read in synagogues on Purim and whose story the holiday commemorates. Now comes "Home for Purim," a small independent production about a 1940s Southern Jewish family whose matriarch is dying of cancer and dreams of one last Purim together with her family--including her estranged lesbian daughter. And it's getting some surprise Oscar buzz.
Well, sort of. Actually, the movie is "For Your Consideration," and it's the latest send-up from Christopher Guest, maker of the immediately classic mocu-mentaries "Waiting for Guffman," "Best in Show," and "A Mighty Wind." Here, ditching the mocu-mentary format for a straight-up comedy, Guest and crowd skewer Hollywood and its vapid, ego-driven personalities. The movie focuses on the making of, yes, a small indy picture named "Home for Purim"--and what happens to this modest artsy production and its low-key actors when awards buzz comes its way.
Though the characters and set-up offer plenty of laughs, it's the on-set scenes that prove most hilarious here. We see much of "Home for Purim," and somehow, in Guest's hands, the mere presence of a Southern Jewish family dropping Yiddishisms and Jewish terms--a kvelling here, a nebbish there--was enough to keep me and the other critics at my press screening in stitches; this even though my own father comes from a 1940s Southern Jewish family and my grandparents mixed their thick Southern accents with plenty of Yiddishisms and Jewish terms. "Your coming home today was a dang mitzvah," the father says to his son, a line that, minus the "dang" could easily have come from either of my paternal grandparents.
The main inside joke here is that despite offering spot-on Jewish authenticity, Purim is hardly the type of holiday that would draw dispersed, estranged family members back home or around which a dying mother would center her last hope. This underscores the overwrought, over-the-top nature of the drama and provides for more than a few laughs. The song the family sings at their festive Purim meal--complete with groggers (noisemakers) for blotting out evil Haman's name--is worth the price of admission just for the one scene.
Beyond the Jewish riffs, "For Your Consideration" mercilessly mocks every Hollywood type, from the washed-up actor to the vapid publicist to the slick agent to the earnest screenplay-writer to the creatively clueless studio suits. Unlike Guest's previous efforts--where the likes of dog shows and folk musicians are not exactly everyday comic fodder--this film often relies on well-worn, oft-used stereotypes, they still draw laughs here, no matter how familiar they are.
Though Guest's movies always have their tender side beneath the parody, it's even more pronounced in "For Your Consideration," which even provides something of a moral message. It's easy to see how sudden Oscar buzz would affect a small production featuring a mixture of young wannabe stars and old over-the-top career actors. Once the prize is dangled before them, that sense of mission--of art for art's sake, of throwing oneself at a small project with limited expectations--melts away, as individual ego takes over and each principal actor believes the buzz must be focused on himself or herself. As y
ou'd expect, jealousies arise, corporate interest--and meddling--is upped, and the result is far different, for the film and its players, than what was intended.
But don't read too much into it. Mostly, go see "For Your Consideration" for the sheer joy of laughing out loud at the movies. Watch a clip:
I saw a promo for Monday night's "Studio 60" episode and couldn't help wondering: Is this the week that the show--to coin, or at least adapt, a phrase--jumps the cross?
As you probably know, "jumping the shark" has come to refer to that definining moment when a good TV show has gone bad, reached its peak and started downhill, pulled a stunt so absurd that it smacks of out-of-new-ideas desperation--like the Fonz water skiing in leather jacket and jumping over a shark, the archetypal and defining "jumping the shark" moment. To adapt the phrase, I'd like to propose jumping the cross as that defining moment when a TV show trying to cater to the coveted Christian crowd proves beyond a doubt its lack of authenticity, that its religious commitment is only skin deep, drawn up by secular writers without a real clue what it means to write authentic spiritual characters and storylines.
In the case of "Studio 60," fans were disappointed when Harriet--the Christian character central to the show--voiced unapologetic support for premarital sex. But that was a throw-away line to a reporter and hasn't been picked up again in the show. This coming week, however, Harriet apparently agrees to, or at least considers doing, a lingerie photo shoot. I have a feeling that, if she goes through with it, or even considers it seriously, Harriet, and "Studio 60" as a whole, will lose whatever credibility it has among religious viewers, and that will be a shame. The cross will have been jumped.
I'm still a fan of the show, and of Harriet, so my money is on the promo being over-sexed, and overselling that storyline. It's hard to believe that the show's creators would be that clueless; they've carefully crafted Harriet as a hip, fun, intelligent, and imperfect character who is also a passionate Christian and voice of morality and compassion--and I can't believe they'd throw that away for a cheap lingerie-shoot episode. (It would be great to see her wrestling with temptation, as long as she maintains her essential, core values and isn't too gleeful about the opportunity she's considering.) But it is sweeps time, and I am sure others, including some of my fellow Idol Chatterers, would disagree with me on this one.
What can be said about the news revealed this week that football star turned B-list actor turned murder suspect in the "Trial of the Century" O.J. Simpson will be soon releasing a book called "If I Did It"? The book is a hypothetical telling of how he would have murdered his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman back in 1995, if only he'd actually done it.
Umm, extremely bad taste? Revolting? Shameless? Puke-inducing? Sick , sick, sick? Yes, all that and more. Now, he's not saying that he did it, but if he had gruesomely murdered his ex-wife (and the mother of his children, who must be thinking, "What the h*ll?"), this book will explain how he would have done it.
You may be wondering why this sensationalistic news (there will, of course, be an O.J. interview on the Fox network during sweeps weeks) should even make into this Idol Chatter blog.
Think of it this way: This blog is about the intersection of pop culture, religion, faith, and spirituality. This book of O.J.'s is so removed from faith and spirituality, so indicative that this man has not a moral, faith-ful bone in his body, that it's like a horrific 10-car pileup of pop culture, faith, and spirituality. If we had one, O.J. would definitely make into the Idol Chatter Hall of Shame.
Please, I urge you to join the O.J. boycott. Don't read this book, don't watch his interview. Though there are immoral people in this world like O.J., I must believe that there many more good souls.
Bray's interest was apparently sparked by Rob Corddry's satirical "report" inspired by the game, "This Week in God: God Kills Pt. 1," which aired a few months ago on "The Daily Show" (do watch it--it's very, very funny). Though "Eternal Forces" is a Christian video game (set in New York city--that city of hedonistic evil--18 months post-rapture), players contend with a surprising amount of violence in their attempts to stay alive amid the reigning chaos, according to Bray. Most shocking of all, players can take lives as they protect their own. You can fight evil forces with prayer, which "really enters in this whole new dimension called 'spiritual warfare,' said Troy Lyndon , CEO of Left Behind Games. "You can actually play the entire game without firing a shot.'" But Bray reports that you can also:
[C]reate a band of soldiers who'll protect Tribulation Force territory from Carpathian incursions. But they're supposed to use minimal force. Every time they kill, even if it's justified, it weakens their moral fiber. Force them to kill too often, and they'll fall away from the faith and move to the Dark Side.
The game's ambivalent attitude to violence comes naturally to Lyndon, whose son has served tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. "The more I've talked to my son, the more passionate it's made me about understanding the realities of war," said Lyndon. "When our kids are coming back from overseas, their hearts are affected. Their hearts are harder.... It's a horrible thing."
Lyndon agrees that something had to be done to put the Taliban and Saddam Hussein out of business, but he doesn't like the way the conflict has morphed into an endless cycle of atrocities. "I don't know what the answer is," he said. And Lyndon has injected that same moral ambiguity into the game."
Moral ambiguity is apparently what sets "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" apart from other, non-Christian video games for Bray: "It's easy to jeer at a group of Christians seeking to make their mark in an industry that so often celebrates amoral savagery. Yet you can't help respecting the effort that went into Left Behind: Eternal Forces. Like Ned Flanders, the absurdly pious neighbor on "The Simpsons," the game is odd and sometimes annoying, but with a good heart."
Though watch Rob Corddry's report and, in addition to a laugh, you might instead find yourself rather disturbed, despite all the satire.
Okay, this summer’s drunken anti-Semitic rant was a P.R. faux-pas. But just as Mel Gibson overcame his more veiled anti-Semitic reading of the Gospel in "The Passion of the Christ" by coaxing support for the deeply Catholic film among evangelicals, he's determined to overcome his Cuervo Nacht jabbering by showing his new film, "Apocalypto," to minority audiences.
So far, to the wondering surprise of National Public Radio and the perturbation of The Los Angeles Times, his campaign is working. The Latino Business Association, a Los Angeles group, gave Gibson its Chairman’s Visionary Award. "If that's all it takes to overlook its honoree's notorious anti-Semitic ramblings this summer," the Times’ editorial page announced, "the group is clearly a cheap date."
The Times followed that crack, however, with an account of how much time and effort Gibson is willing to put in. Currying favor with Native Americans as well as Latinos, the director has done Q&A sessions at small screenings as far afield as Oklahoma City and Austin, Texas. Sure, Gibson has a habit of digging himself a deep hole. But it may not matter when you’re the hardest wooing man in show business.
The basis for the new film "Zen Noir" is a kind of funny concept. A noir-style detective investigates a murder in a Buddhist temple. When he asks questions, he gets slippery, koan-type answers. "My name isn't me," says one Buddhist. When pressed, the robed man says, "Articulate Lotus Flowing From the Source," which later turns into "call me Ed."
The dame the detective inevitably falls for is a bald American Buddhist swathed in dark robes who meditates on death—"So what are you, anyway? Some kind of nun?" he asks. And there's an old Asian man who enigmatically throws around small oranges, wields a green foam bat, and repeatedly asks, "What murder?" when questioned. Early on, the detective reads his notes in noir-y voice-over, "Cushions, candles, incense, bells. Suspect possible cult activity."
But like a typical latter-day "Saturday Night Live" skit, the joke could have been contained within the first few minutes. To keep it going, though, writer, director, and producer Marc Rosenbush—who was encouraged to make this debut feature film by friend David Mamet—sees the pork-pie-hat-wearing, tough-talking ("It's time to kick some bald, Buddhist ass") detective through a spiritual transformation.
It starts with a chat with the old man, "I'm not like you people," says the P.I. The teacher starts to differ, and then, off comes the pork-pie hat. We see for the first time that he does, in fact, have something in common with these meditators—he's bald too! The teacher reaches up and rubs both of their heads, nodding.
Entirely shot in what looks like a single loft space, "Zen Noir" gives new meaning to low-budget. In lieu of changes of scenery, the camera often rests contentedly for long moments on a potted orchid in the temple—or those oranges—presumably to lull us into a meditative state. It's so low budget that the first DVD screener we received didn't work. And about a half an hour into the second, it too pixilated and froze.
Instead of being relieved, though—as I would have been in the first 15 arm-chewing minutes—I was surprisingly frustrated. Spoiler Alert: See, the detective had just gotten Jane, the bald, meditating dame (apparently not a nun), out of her robes and onto a massage table. And during the moment when, had this been a regular noir, they would have shared a smoke, she says that he asks a lot of questions, and that she has one for him: "What's your name?" He laughs and is about to answer when his face clouds over and he says, "I forget." We are to assume that he is having a pre-enlightened moment in a Buddhisty, leave-your-mind sort of way.
That's when my DVD died. Though I managed to skip to the beginning of another chapter for a quick, blurry moment to see our P.I., in robes of his own, eyes closed, meditating—on the nature death, murder, love?
Since I couldn't watch the rest, I wasn't able to find out whether his transformation was long-lasting, or if the end justified the verrrry slow means. But I can see this so-bad-it's-good film climbing to cult status. A kind of "What the Bleep" for noir-loving spiritualists.
The HBO documentary "Thin" aired last night, telling the story of four women struggling with anorexia and bulimia. A film directed by Laura Greenfield (also the author of "Girl Culture"), "Thin" introduces viewers to Shelly, a nurse who has been in and out of clinics many times; Polly, a photographer also with many prior experiences as an in-patient; Brittany, the youngest, at 15; and Alisa, a mother of two--all of whom are so broken by their struggle with eating disorders that the audience will sense they are at the point of life and death. In fact, Alisa says flat out that being thin is more important than anything else in her life, including her children, and Brittany's fear of becoming "fat" is so utterly potent that she regularly expresses the wish to die in lieu of gaining any weight.
These are four women who have lost all faith in themselves. It's awful to encounter the severity of their brokenness.
"Thin" is ultra-heavy on the drama, the intense emotion, the "I'm being watched by cameras" over-reactions by the women featured. (Though, granted, living with an eating disorder is dramatic by nature.) Regardless of this, for those unfamiliar with eating disorders, "Thin" is sure to prove eye-opening about the sad realities of the distorted body images so many women live with, which drive them to desperate measures in their eating, exercising, and purging. Ideally, this set of viewers will decide to look beyond the documentary's melodrama to see the story that needs to be heard, and the terrible reality of women crushed by societal pressures to fit a certain body type.
For those who know eating disorders all too well, however, I am not sure that watching "Thin" is a good idea. Yes, it could serve as a cautionary tale, a "this could happen to you" warning to get off a destructive path if you are already headed down this particular road. But "Thin" lacks hope overall--it sends a message, and perhaps truthfully so, that it is almost impossible to conquer an eating disorder, that next to no one recovers fully to live a normal life, and that once broken, the bodies of these women are broken forever.
If you still have hope for yourself or your child, if you still have faith that it is possible to conquer this struggle, you might consider skipping "Thin" when it re-airs or comes out on DVD. It could shatter your faith in the possibility of recovery. It is really the story of four women at the end of their ropes--and it does little to show that any of them find a way out of this deepest of dark places.
Do we control our future? Or is everything that happens to us decided by fate? If there is a creator, do we have a dynamic or static relationship with him--or her? Such deep, philosophical questions don't seem like the stuff of a Will Ferrell movie, but his latest flick, "Stranger Than Fiction," will surprise many of his fans with a more thoughtful, restrained--yet still absurd --take on one man's attempt to control his destiny.
We've all heard little voices in our heads from time to time, but hopefully none quite like the one IRS agent Harold Crick hears. Harold's life is perhaps not much more exciting than yours or mine: He has worked the same job for years, he takes the same route to work, eats the same food for breakfast. But his predictable life takes an unpredictable turn when he begins to hear a voice in his head, which narrates his every move and predicts Harold's imminent death.
We soon learn that the voice Harold hears is the voice of a successful, eccentric, and reclusive author Kay Eiffel (actress Emma Thompson) and that Harold is a character in her latest novel. The only problem is that while Eiffel always kills her characters at the end of her novels, she is having trouble figuring out how to kill Harold. As Harold tries to alter the course of his life to prevent his death, he encounter a wacky literature professor (Dustin Hoffman), a feisty and sexy baker (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and, finally, the author of his life story, Eiffel herself.
It takes a leap of faith to go with the premise of this movie and embrace this kind of alternate reality, but if you do, "Stranger Than Fiction" makes it worth your time. The characters and the plot are smart-funny, not goofy-funny, like other Ferrell movies , and the story is not as bizarre as past movies with a similar premise--films like "Adaptation" or "Being John Malkovich," for example. Instead, the movie cleverly explores the aspects of our lives that are affected by whether or not we believe in free will or predestination. Even better, we see a touching relationship develop between the author and the character she created, which certainly has serious spiritual implications about the true worth of any one person's life.
The only disappointment is that for all of "Fiction"'s sharp storytelling and clever references to historical figures--Harold Crick is most likely linked to the teachings of Francis Crick, for example--it doesn't have the courage to give us the ending that Harold (not to mention the audience) deserves. The movie would be far more interesting and worthy of water cooler talk if Harold's realization about his life had played out as the author always intended.
Still, "Stranger Than Fiction" is a refreshing story in the midst of a lot of recent releases that look and feel too familiar. Even if it may not be quite as profound as it wants to be, there's enough truth in "Fiction" to make me want to recommend it.
Are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes going to be married before they get to the altar? The couple has booked a romantic, 15th-century castle north of Rome, and international singing star Andrea Bocelli will sing. Katie's dad has even overcome his misgivings and wishes for a Catholic wedding and agreed to give Katie away.
But unless the Italian government is working from a special rulebook for celebrities, the religious ceremony--a Scientologist minister will officiate--will have to be preceded by a civil marriage. "A religious marriage is not so easy for non-Italians," says a website that arranges dream weddings in Italy, especially if you are not Catholic. "If you wish to marry in a non-Catholic church," says italy-weddings.com, "it is almost impossible to do so without first obtaining a civil marriage license."
Because of Italy's strong historic association with the Roman church, even mainstream Protestant clergy are not automatically licensed to marry in Italy, much less Scientologist ministers. Insiders dismiss reports that the wedding won't be legal, saying the couple has done "all the necessary paperwork." But that phrase, associated on most wedding-in-Italy sites with registering your civil bond, only lends support to the idea that a civil bond will unite the pair before Scientology pronounces them man and wife.
The "Bachelor: Rome" has taken a page out of "The Real World's" playbook, and it may result in a fairy tale ending. The producers upped the ante this year by finding an actual prince, Prince Lorenzo Borghese--ancestor of Pope Paul V and heir to the Borghese cosmetics fortune--for the ladies to fight over. But unlike previous season--which featured the Woman Who Just Wants to Be Married clones--the producers have cobbled together an exacting group of women who fit the reality-TV world stereotypes: The Bitchy Rich Girl, The Crazy Party Girl, the Virgin. One would think they've been watching a bit too much MTV.
But, luckily for viewers, several of the women rise above these stereotypes, especially Sadie, The Virgin. A perky, blonde publicist from California, Sadie "came out" as saving herself for marriage early on in the competition, even though she felt it might be detrimental to her chances of receiving a rose. It turns out that it was anything but detrimental, and audiences cheered when Lorenzo, who could be dubbed Prince Valiant, let it be known that he respected her and her decision--and he has rewarded her by selecting her as one of the top three finalists.
But, as all faithful viewers of the show know, the final three ladies are taken on extravagant dates and are offered a night with the Bachelor in the "Fantasy Suite," where cameras cannot go. While the ladies usually start salivating over the offer from minute-one of the date, Sadie expresses her discomfort: "I am saving myself for marriage, and I don't want Lorenzo to get the wrong idea.... I really want Lorenzo to know that I'm a classy, conservative woman."
But Lorezo comes through again when she broaches the topic with him, saying that he doesn't want to make her uncomfortable, that he'll respect her decision, and that he likes "classy, conservative women." She accepts his invitation, they spend the night talking, and she makes it to the final two.
But, wait... isn't "classy conservative women" the exact same phrase that Sadie used during one of her confessionals; a confessional that Lorenzo isn't supposed to have heard? Is there a chance the producers are passing notes and manufacturing this whole thing--the idyllic story of a Prince who marries a Virgin? Let's hope not, because for once, I'm rooting for one of the Bachelorettes instead of against one.
Their names are wedded for all eternity, and now the world waits with baited breath to see if TomKat--Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes--will finally tie the knot this weekend in Itlay. Speculation is rife that the "Mission Impossible" star and the "Dawson's Creek" ingenue will wed in a traditional Scientology ceremony this weekend at Odescalchi Castle near Lake Bracciano. However, an Italian newspaper reported last week that Cruise wants to have a Catholic ceremony, apprently in deference to Holmes' Catholic parents. But, according to news reports, the priest with jurisdiction over the 15th-century castle says his parish won't marry Cruise because he is twice divorced, and others note that a Scientology marriage most likely would not be recognized by the Italian State.
While the nature of the ceremony may be as secret as Ethan Hunt's true identity, the guest list is no state secret. And, as shocking as it may seem, Oprah hasn't been invited to the big day.
While I understand why so many critics gush about the talent of writer/producer Aaron Sorkin, last night's episode of "Studio 60" was a blatant reminder to me that this show is quite possibly more about Sorkin working out his personal issues than it is about examining a culture war.
In the second part of a two-part storyline that has centered around Harriet's comments to the media about gay marriage, Harriet is suddenly asked by exec Jordan McDeere to cancel some singing engagements with a fictitious conservative Christian group entitled "Women United" because of the media firestorm that will ensue. Harriet is ambivalent about such a decision because she knows that there are many young girls who admire her as one of the few not-so-crazy Christians in the Hollywood limelight and who also attend these events.
What is interesting to me about this storyline is the behind-the scenes cause for this episode. Once again, Sorkin has shamelessly exploited his ex-girlfriend--Broadway diva and outspoken Christian celeb Kristin Chenoweth--by lifting events out of her life and putting them on the air, albeit with his own snarky twist.
Last fall Chenoweth was to sing at a series of conferences sponsored by an conservative Christian organization called "Women of Faith." Her concerts were canceled after Chenoweth made comments in the media regarding gays. (For the record, Chenoweth is more outspoken about gay rights than Harriet is in the show.) In fact, Chenoweth even commented in a recent interview--jokingly it seems--that she is beginning to wonder when she will start getting some money from the show as compensation for the use of her likeness.
Well, Kristin, all I can say is, let's wait and see how long it takes before that comment makes it into a future "Studio 60" episode.
I read Kris Rasmussen's blog piece as well as the rest of Elton John’s religion-bashing interview, which has been all over the media the past couple of days, and I was stunned at what he doesn't realize about, well, himself.
I’ve loved much of his music, especially the old stuff he resurrected for the Australia live concerts. But on this topic, E.J. doesn’t realize how his hatred of religion is not only as deep as the hatred of some religious people towards gays, but that his hatred is actually even the same kind of hatred. It is judgmental; it's biased based on his own beliefs; and it's largely uninformed.
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people," he says. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."
Now hear the same phrase as if posed from the other side:
"I think gays have always tried to turn hatred towards religious people; the gay agenda promotes hatred and spite towards the religious."
Sounds like the same hatred to me.
Perhaps we need Bernie Taupin to save him and write a smoother way for E.J.’s compassion to shine forth… and perhaps he could also pen something for the churches who say they hate the sin but love the sinner. It’s a nuanced thought that goes beyond cliché for most, but the sentiment doesn't seem to make it past the church walls.
Until we all--even Sir Elton--can disagree without demonizing the other "side" of any spiritually-driven debate, we'll never have meaningful dialogue, or the potential agreement and healing that comes after.
According to Sir Elton John, the world could be a more compassionate place free of "hateful lemmings" if only all religion was banned. In an interview with Observer Music Monthly magazine, Sir Elton says that while he loves "the idea of the teachings of Christ," he still believes that, as a whole, "organized religion doesn't seem to work."
With only a fleeting acknowledgment of the relief work being done in Afria with the help of many religious organizations, and with no recognition of the recent changes in the American Episcopal church regarding gays, the aging musician dedicated most of the interview to criticizing religous leaders and those who follow them.
As can be expected, John's more flamboyant comments have been quickly picked up by conservative media outlets like The Drudge Report, leaving out the very few intelligent things John said toward the end of the interview. In the midst of his intolerant rant about the intolerance of religion, John does make a few coherent comments about the importance of citizens becoming more active in protesting social causes in the streets as opposed to online, and he articulates the need for more religious leaders to meet together to discuss world issues.
But for the most part, John sounds less like an informed activist and more like an aging Baby Booomer still stuck in the '60s--someone who is more a part of the dreaded Establishment than he wants to acknowledge.
"Saturday Night Live" opened with this Nancy Pelosi impersonation--in which Kristen Wiig, playing the Speaker-elect, gives voice to every conservative caricature of (and fear about) Democrats, including the notion that liberals are anti-faith. "And whatever you might have heard," Wiig says in a deadpan voice, looking directly into the camera, "the Democratic party is not anti-religion. Whether you're a Wiccan priestess, a Druid, tantric Buddhist, servant of Moloch Lord of Fire, Presbyterian, or member of the cult of Kali, your faith will be respected, so long as no animals are harmed during your ceremonies...." Watch it here:
What’s the deal with the networks not wanting to show prayers on sports television? What is so bad about athletes trusting in--or at least pursuing--God?
After each game, when the fans are filing out of the stadium and the networks are switching to other games, players and coaches from both teams gather near midfield to pray together. Many of these players participate quietly in pre-game chapel services and the teams also have chaplains sponsored by local churches or Athletes in Action, a highly regarded national sports ministry.
The player-initiated tradition after the game is a wonderful sign of unity and faith, and it’s a reminder every Sunday that there are human beings and spiritual seekers underneath all those helmets and pads.
It’s really quite a sight, and if you don’t go to football games live at the stadium you’ll never even know what you’re missing. Why? Because the networks don’t show it. In fact, they go to great pains not to show it. Often, the cameramen will stand almost back-to-back against the circle of prayer in order to hide the group from the background of an on-field interview. Last night, the cameraman angled and zoomed in on Thomas Jones’ (Bears’ running back) head so that the prayer circle several yards behind him was hidden.
For years we’ve seen players acknowledging God after they score a touchdown or make a great play. According to the Christian Science Monitor, former Philadelphia Eagle Herb Lusk is believed to have been the first to kneel on the field after a touchdown. He did it in 1977. There are skeptics though, too. I’ve talked to several ex-NFL players who think a lot of the post-TD prayers are as much superstition as anything else. “Doug, you gotta understand,” one of them told me, “players will try anything if they think it’ll give them an edge in the game.”
But the post-game prayer is more than just a superstitious gesture after a touchdown--it’s an authentic attempt by players to reflect spiritually after having worked physically, mentally and emotionally all week long.
I guess the only real positive about the lack of coverage is that we know that the players aren’t doing it for show. But it’s a great tradition and a good piece of role modeling for kids and young athletes who watch the game, and I wish they’d show it more on TV.
Since the first episode of ABC's winning new comedy "Ugly Betty," the conflict has become more and more evident between the family-centered, ethnically diverse life of Betty Suarez--who lives in Queens with Dad, Sis, and Nephew--and the (almost) all-white (both in decor and skin-tone), ultra-materialistic world of Manhattan's "Mode Magazine," where Betty works by day. Viewers are treated weekly to the contrast between the warm, friendly, genuineness of Betty's life at home and the sleek, but unbelievably back-stabbing, superficial workspace and staff that fills the magazine's desks and pages.
Last night's episode, "After Hours," features Betty's big chance to actually write for "Mode." She gets the opportunity by spending a weekend at a boutique hotel that is up for review. (The assignment is in sharp contrast to her usual work, like picking up boss Daniel's dry-cleaning or ironing out--pun intended--his sexual fiascos with the many women who share his bed at night.) The growing tension between Betty's aspirations to make it in the magazine world and to remain true to her roots were never more evident.
Only after Betty reveals to the hotel staff that she is there from "Mode" do they treat her with any respect--a fact she seems to have learned not to take to heart, or at least pretends not to notice. And though we see Betty reveling--at least at first--in the ultra-luxe suite that is hers for the weekend, the unlimited spending budget for food, massages, and anything her heart desires, among other exciting perks--not least of which involves enjoying these freebies all in the name of getting her first byline--Betty gradually comes to the realization that she doesn't really belong in this world. (This discovery is made with a little help from her off-and-on-again boyfriend from Queens, who pays a rather disastrous visit to her suite.) Toward the end of the episode we see Betty traipsing sadly and slowly back to her family's house, all her initial excitement about the assignment muffled in the suitcase dragging behind her.
The show even finishes with Daniel telling Betty that, though she has written a fantastic review, her "normal girl" perspective on the hotel is not something "Mode" could actually print. Instead, a feminist-leaning magazine for "real women" picks up her piece because it's fabulous.
What's interesting about "Ugly Betty" is how the show captures what so many of us struggle with: the temptations of the glamorous world we see on television, on the red carpet, and in the glossy pages, many of which we long to experience at least once in life, at odds with the simple realities and pleasures of family, neighborhood, and friends, which can't be bought with money or occupation. Betty's character is such a mix of desire for this kind of success, yet at the same time, she refuses to relinquish her roots and what's really important to her--despite the temptations she experiences on a daily basis.
Will this continue to be Betty's leaning as the show progresses? Will she opt for family and roots over glitz and superficially? Or will the temptation become to great? Hopefully the show will have enough staying power with viewers so we can watch to find out.
We can be waxing sarcastic on the Britney-K-Fed break-up one day, and the next day a totally different story turns the Idol Chatter mood serious and reflective: "60 Minutes" correspondent Ed Bradley succumbed to leukemia yesterday at the age of 65.
He was one of the big ones, a 26-year award-winning veteran of the journalism world and one of "60 Minutes"'s most vital journalists. The media outlets are touting his memorable stories, and how he broke racial barriers by becoming the first African-American White House correspondent.
This journalist covered everything, from reporting on brain cancer to interviewing Michael Jackson to the Roman Catholic sex scandal to covering all the major news stories to landing the only televised interview with Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
But for me what stands out about Ed Bradley was his interviewing technique. We could all learn from his mastery of the interview. Veteran journalist Walter Cronkite said in an MSNBC.com article that Bradley “was tough in an interview, he was insistent on getting an interview, and at the same time when the interview was over, when the subject had taken a pretty heavy lashing by him--they left as friends. He was that kind of guy.”
Each big-name journalist is known for something. Barbara Walters becomes a celebrity’s friend and then asks those embarrassing questions we all want to know the answers to. Mike Wallace (also of "60 Minutes") was hard-hitting, almost combative. You wouldn’t see him interviewing Michael Jackson. Katie Couric is the queen of perkiness with the experience to back her up (though her transition to nightly news anchor continues to be rocky).
But Ed Bradley--if a big-name were ever to interview me, I would want it to be Bradley. I would’ve wanted him to cover the Ted Haggard scandal, to tackle the story of homegrown terrorism in the America, to give faith stories and issues the Bradley touch. If God allowed it, I'd sure love to witness the Almighty and Ed Bradley sitting across from each other, with Bradley rooting for the answers to those questions we all have buried in our hearts.
His story today is unfortunately buried at the bottom of most online news sites. But his death is one of the biggest losses for the journalism world and for all the stories that won’t be covered by him.
While combing this morning’s shows for traffic and weather before heading to work, I stumbled onto Matt Lauer on "Today" doing reports on faith, heaven, and religion live from the Holy City of Jerusalem. I was struck by how interesting it was to see such an important topic addressed on the show (which I loved) and also how it was treated as just another field report (which I didn’t love).
While Lauer was bringing attention to this historic city, which stands at the intersection of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the network kept switching back to New York for the weather or the constant teasers for an upcoming report about how to get a better travel deal at hotels. Lauer's report was complete with pre-recorded introductions and celebrations of just about everything from the history to the bloodshed to the current challenges to the views about heaven that exist in all three faiths. The weather and hotel teases were exactly what bores us every day.
It was almost like, "Hey, let’s look at this deep topic of faith, history, and heaven, but let’s not forget that many of you aren’t interested in this, so we’ll squeeze in the weather and how to get a great travel deal to keep you interested."
It may have just been me, but I think NBC underestimated its audience, and the frequent flipping from Jerusalem to New York felt like it minimized a great idea. After all, here was Matt Lauer at the Wailing Wall with clips from the Dead Sea, Jordan River, and Garden Tomb. There was even some drama, as some local official tried to oust the crew (and Lauer!) from the area while they were shooting live.
America may not be a unified nation politically or religiously, but I think we share more of a common desire for authentic spirituality than cultural leaders give us credit for. This morning’s show was an example. We're interested in more than just a magazine cover during the holidays and extra pieces when a religious leader is controversial, fallen, or hugely succesful. We're interested in more than just an occasional piece in the local paper or on the TV news. And, we're interested in authentic information and exposure, as Lauer's trip could have been.
Perhaps they should consult with Beliefnet next time. In the meantime, though, I did get a tip for my next trip, so I’m headed online to check it out...
Pedro Almodóvar doesn't see dead people, but if you tell him that you do, he'll probably believe it.
"I don't believe that people come from [the afterlife] in a physical way," the director said when he met with press last month. "But I completely believe the people that talk about them. I'm sure that they have had an experience with someone they love who died."
That's precisely what happens in Almodóvar's latest film, "Volver."
The film, which reunites him with favorite players Penelope Cruz and Carmen Maura, is set in a picturesque village inspired both by the writer/director's hometown and the spook-free ghost stories he heard as a child.
"(In the) little village where I was born, the supernatural as it existed almost becomes natural, becomes real," Almodóvar said. "I grew up listening to stories of ghostly apparitions. My sisters have told me they've seen apparitions and my mother also."
Apparitions are made flesh and blood in "Volver" ("Return" in Spanish) when Irene (Maura), a long-dead mother, returns from the afterlife to reconcile with her estranged daughter (Cruz). But by the time Irene shows up in the trunk of her other daughter's (Lola Duenas) car, Cruz's Raimunda, a hard-working maid by day, is trying to forget her past.
"She's damaged," Cruz explained. "There are so many things she doesn't want to look at, and when she looks at them she breaks down. When her mother comes back into her life, she finds peace she has not had since she was a teenager."
Peace--a lá Almodóvar--happens only at the tail end of a deliciously twisted plot, including the death and freezer-burial of Raimunda's husband and the flourishing of a restaurant where Raimunda takes over as owner/singer/chef. With "Volver," Almodóvar sidesteps genre altogether, crafting a film that's hilariously funny despite the macabre presence of murder and ghosts.
The supernatural is treated as matter-of-factly as vacuum cleaning, and as Almodóvar examines the relationships between three generations of Spanish women--Maura, Cruz, and young Yohana Cobo, who plays Cruz's teenaged daughter--mysticism is tuned to a minimum. No special effects are used, and Maura is filmed as simply as the "living" characters: She walks, she talks, she makes amends.
"I have taken care visually not to turn Carmen Maura into anything other than something that feels real.... She has white hair, that she walks down the stairs, and so on," Almodóvar said.
"One of the points for me in this movie is to talk about the ease and naturalness (with which) people from my countryside deal with death and the dead--it's just part of the world they live in. The truth of the matter is, I don't believe people die as long as people remember them."
Once upon an innocent time, Mel Gibson smuggled a print of "The Passion of the Christ" to John Paul II, who reportedly murmured, "It is as it was," as the credits rolled. Then it turned out JP2 might not have said it at all, or maybe was talking about Propaganda Night at the old Krakow Kino. Nevermind. Gibson had gone nuclear with an already genius marketing stroke pioneered by the makers of 1999's "The Omega Code"--circulating a faith-based flick to the religious community first to build good will and buzz.
Now the Vatican has taken the conceit further by actually hosting a premiere of New Line Cinema’s "The Nativity Story," this year's faith-based blockbuster. The movie will be screened for the Pontiff on November 26th in the Aulo Paolo VI (Pope Paul VI Hall, above)--the Mother of All Church Basements. Nobody does red carpets like the Vatican, and treading on them will be the film's director, Catherine Hardwicke, screenwriter Mike Rich, and the movie's stars and producers.
New Line couldn't pay for this kind of publicity--they couldn't be, right?--assuming that Benedict XVI's vetters have checked out "The Nativity" for theologically correctness, and the film will get His Holiness's Nihil Obstat (Latin for one thumb way up). Not to mention the quotes on the ads: "It is as it was!"--Benedict XVI.
Pigs are flying, hell is freezing over, the night has turn to day and the day to night. The impossible has happened: Britney Spears is divorcing Kevin Federline after two long years of marriage.
You can't tell me that you were surprised. Well, maybe surprised that it took this long.
Citing the usual "irreconcilable differences," the 24-year-old pop star filed divorce papers on Monday and asked for custody of the couple's two children, Sean Preston, 1, and Jayden James, who is just two months old. The country girl and her husband were tabloid darlings, with stories of reckless spending and partying (by K-Fed), forays into Kabbalah and Hinduism (by Britney), and public fighting (by both of them) plaguing them since they tied the knot.
The timing of the announcement was priceless as well, pitting the Britster against the nail-biting election returns that graced everyone's newspapers and internet news sites on Tuesday. So what's more important? Whether the Democrats gain control of the Congress (it comes down to two hotly contested states in the Senate race), or the Britney Breakup (and hopefully her first steps to reclaiming her reign as the Queen of Pop)?
I'll go out on a limb and say that election news comes out on top. But the Britney-K-Fed demise is always a good chaser to wash away the sour taste of election stories. And you've got to check out EW.com for a hilarious "divorce version" of Britney's first big hit, "Oops, I did it again!" Priceless.
Like every other "Lost" fan, I enjoy theorizing with my fellow addicts, and a recent conversation proved intriguing enough to blog. This season, I've been watching weekly with a group of friends and dissecting different possible interpretations afterward. The following is the theory I heard, which I think is quite original, if not necessarily accurate. (Note: I am not sure if "Lost" message boards have already proposed it--so it might be old news to some fans, even if it was new to me):
One of the most disappointing aspects (or exciting, depending on your tastes, I suppose) of Jack, Kate, and Sawyer's "vacation" among The Others has been the discovery that The Others seem to have a connection to the mainland. For many "Lost" viewers, this has disspelled the possibility that The Island might be some sort of Purgatory.
But what if that's not entirely true, and we can't totally dismiss the idea of The Island as Purgatory? What made me re-visit the idea is a theory about when and why people die on The Island. A friend believes that a character dies whenever his or her central life conflict is resolved--a theory sparked by the very upsetting and unexpected death of Mr. Eko last week (upsetting because so many of us loved him). So here goes: "Lost" deaths so far and the possible reasons:
Boone dies once he resolves his love for sister Shannon--getting past it.
Shannon dies last season, when she moves past her utter self-centeredness by opening up to Sayid, and learning what it means to truly love another person selflessly.
Libby dies after opening up to Hurley and allowing herself the possibility of a new relationship, finally moving past the loss of her husband (whose boat, we found out last season, Libby gave to Desmond--though no one has figured this out yet on The Island).
Ana Lucia dies after she learns not to always go it alone and open up to working together with and accepting the help of others.
Mr. Eko dies after he resolves the enormous guilt he's carried regarding his brother--he does not need to apologize for his "sins," but realizes did the best he could with what life threw in his way.
If the above is true, then The Island may indeed be serving as a kind of waiting ground between this life and the next. Of course, all of the above characters die violent and unwanted deaths--none of them go willingly to the grave.
But then, this is just a theory. I'd love to know any thoughts from Idol Chatter readers about whether or not this idea holds up!
For anyone raised Catholic, this video of Jesuit priests lip-syncing Bon Jovi's "Livin' on a Prayer" is a special blessing. And yes, wacky wigs notwithstanding, all the men are real priests: here's the very buttoned-down bio of one.
With Apartheid in South Africa having officially ended in 1990, a political thriller like "Catch A Fire," which went to wide release this past weekend, could easily feel like it is outdated or, at the very least, feel like a story we have heard before. Yet this bio-pic about the true story of activist Patrick Chamusso strives to use the revolution in South Africa to provide a context for the ongoing isms around the world, specifically in Iraq. The movie also examines what is more important when it comes to changing a society: justice or forgiveness?
At the start of "Fire," Chamusso is simply a hard-working family man who works at a refinery on the North Eastern coal fields. After a false arrest by a cruel, white police officer, Nic Voc (played by Tim Robbins), during which Chamuuso and his wife are both victims of abuse, Chamusso is no longer a neutral bystander and makes a life-altering decision to work for the outlawed African National Congress and transforms into a militant freedom fighter.
While "Fire" has some powerful moments and some great casting (Derek Luke as Chamusso is especially worthy of praise), it is at times heavy handed in the way it it tries to ideologically link to our current situation in Iraq, and most of the support characters like Vos, are flat and occssionally cartoonish.
But the biggest problem that prevents this movie from being a truly great film is the way it tacks on only a brief epilogue that shows the real Chamusso--who served 10 years on Robben Island with future South African president Nelson Mandela and now runs an orphanage--speaking to others about forgiveness. For some reason, Chamusso's conversion to forgiveness and faith in God did not seem to merit inclusion in the telling of the rest of the story.
Which leaves me wondering if that is not the biggest commentary of all being made by this film: Perhaps we are in the cultural and poltical turmoil we are in as a nation because forgiveness is too often an afterthought.
I honestly thought that by the seventh episode of producer/writer Aaron Sorkin's backstage drama "Studio 60," he might choose to start backing off the over-the-top religious rhetoric of past storylines just a wee bit. Shows you just how much I know. Last night's episode made clear that Sorkin has no intention of letting up any time soon on dramatizing the conflict--perceived and imagined--between conservative Christians and the Hollywood community.
Yes, in the episode last night "Studio 60" head writer Matt Albie throws Jesus right into the middle of another controversy when he writes a sketch in which Jesus Christ becomes the network standards and practces guy--the person who is responsible for deciding what content makes it on the air and what is inappropriate to say on air. Of course, the network executives want the sketch pulled, but that's the least of their problems. Harriet has gotten into a confrontation with a gay guy who is upset over her comments in the press about homosexuality. This, in turn, leads to fellow cast member Tom defending her and ultimately winding up in jail in Nevada.
Yep, at every turn in these events, Jesus was in some degree responsible for the action--and last night's epiosde was only the first episode of a two-parter.
Unlike some of my fellow Idol Chatter bloggers, who love to wax poetic about the show, "Studio 60" for me is rapidly becoming the one show I love to hate. Yes, the show is, without question, unlike anything else on the tube these days. Yes, I still tune in every week brimming with curiousity over who Sorkin will skewer this week--with no regard to the falling TV ratings. But in spite of great acting and some occasionally brilliant moments of dialogue, I am becoming increasingly agitated with the fist-pounding, brow-beating nature of Sorkin's efforts to dramatize his perspective of the ongoing "culture war" of our society.
Worst of all, Sorkin is beginning to fall back on simplistic answers in his presentation of such issues. In a conversation I can't actually imagine ever happening in real life, Matt Albie tells ex-girlfriend Harriet that our culture is divided simply because "People like you think that people like me hate people like you. And people like me, well, we hate people like you." That's an oversimplisitc, cynical anaylsis not worthy of a Sorkin drama--even if perhaps the point was to show Albie's great intolerance in the light of Harriet's tolerance.
The truest "reality TV" of all commences today, as the news networks are lined up for our viewership as much as the candidates are seeking our vote. Why? Because the drama of the entertainment portion of today overlaps with the realities of how our lives will change long after the personalities and accusations of a campaign are over.
"Santa came today," said Tim Russert on this morning's "Today" show, saying that there are more races too close to call than he could remember from any previous years. He was almost giddy. The networks live for days like today and hope that we'll tune in to see the characters you like to see. NBC has brought back Tom Brokaw. CNN and Fox have loaded up their all-star teams with more analysts than can fit in a studio. I awoke to Fox news' "best morning show on television" and will likely fall asleep to every channel's claim as "the best election night coverage." Heck, even the weathermen are on the A-teams this year, reporting on the effect of floods (in Washington) and rain (in Tennessee) on the election. This will all be exciting unless the results come in slow; after all, this is sort of like the Season Finale... or will it be a cliffhanger that we'll have to stay tuned for?
The truth is, today is a big entertainment day for the television-news industry, and someday we may choose to reflect on how much the media's need to create stories, plots, subplots, lead characters, and the like effects the information we receive and the perceptions we form. The key media players aren't "reporting" the story; they actually are part of the story. They're not just covering the drama, they're creating it. This evening--as the results come in and are reported on several networks claiming to have the best coverage, the best "big boards," the best graphics, the best analysis, and an endless refrain of "keep it right here"--I'll be remembering that I'm watching those who are as much a part of the story as they are reporters of it.
And for the spiritual person, it may be a good day to also reflect on the sources we trust for information regarding spiritual matters, and/or the degree of effort we put into it. Whether we're reflecting on our own spiritual journeys, or whom to elect as our leaders, we're not only responsible for our choice of belief, but also for measuring the reliability of the information we've trusted to form those beliefs.
Yes it's election day and the Ted Haggard story news cycle has probably (hopefully?) run its course. But after the treatment on CNN and Fox, Leno and Letterman, and just about every other news and comedy outlet, I found the most profound comments to be from Beliefnet's Patton Dodd. Read his story to find some true spiritual inspiration--or at least reflection--on this topic.
With the bewildering crush of news, and infotainment out there, it's nice to still find authentic and inspiring stuff standing out amid the muck.
I guess every discussion of Borat--the character brought to life by Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen and the film featuring that character--has to begin with that pivotal moment in country-western anti-Semitism, "Throw the Jew Down the Well." We could discuss, as has been discussed over and over again, whether such a song--and such a character--encourages anti-Semitism, is in poor taste, or is one of the most nuanced, brilliant characters to grace the comedy scene.
This film will never be confused with the quiet lushness and tragic silent tones of an Ang Lee production. But anyone expecting that probably won't see the movie to begin with. This film is mean to appeal to a certain kind of sense of humor and to personalities who find the balls-out, in your face humor as hilarious as they find it shocking. From the "running of the Jew" to a Pentecostal service, from a humor coach--who illustrates that identifying humor and being funny are not the same--to a cringeworthily hilarious dinner party scene that would have killed Miss Manners with shock, from drunken frat boys to rodeo riders, no one is safe from the ridicule of the purportedly Kazakh journalist who is known as Borat. And in the opinion of this reviewer, that's a good thing.
In some ways, the film is a fish-out-of-water exercise, wrapped up in a road movie, and sprinkled with improv and with multiple real languages (like Hebrew and, according to one viewer, a mix of Hungarian and Romanian) playing the role of the "Kazakh" language. With a foreigner holding a mirror up to reflect our own culture and behavior, we see that we are not always viewed in the most flattering light. Seeing the world through Borat's eyes gives us all a window into what we look like to people of other cultures, and what people of other cultures see when they see us. We see him brave the NYC subway and think that the hotel elevator is his hotel room; we witness the seductive powers of television as Borat discovers "Baywatch," to journey-altering results.
Borat's ignorance of the world at large also illustrates the relativity of what is culturally acceptable--while in Kazakhstan, he might be proud that his sister is "#4 prostitute in all the land," in America he learns that it is not considered in line with dinner etiquette to invite a prostitute to dinner or to [spoiler alert] try to bridenap Pamela Anderson at an Orange County memorabilia signing.
That Borat got the patrons at the bar to sing his anti-Semitic song (a scene which is not in the movie) or that he views an elderly Jewish couple as a terrifying threat to his existence is more of a reflection of what ignorance brings than it is of hatred and bigotry. For instance, Borat visits a gun store and asks which gun is best for shooting Jews. The store owner only hesitates a moment before answering "a 9 mm or a .45." In another example that doesn't have to do with Jews, when Borat tries to kiss a guy at the rodeo, the guy explains that only the gays do that. Borat responds that in his country they round up the gays and put them in prison. Rodeo Guy says, "That's what we're trying to do here, too."
I often wonder if, as a Jew, I feel better
or worse about the fact that such things are coming from a comedian who has been heralded, pre-Borat, as a proud Jew. I think that I'd feel worse if such a character were played by a non-Jew, even if he said the same thing. This leads to a whole other discussion about the line between what's funny and what's offensive, between what's lampooning and what's hatemongering. Can I laugh at anti-Semitic or homophobic comments, even if they are offered within a framework of satire?
I saw the movie on Manhattan's Upper West Side, during the first show available after the Jewish Sabbath. The theater was filled with Jews who booed the "Apocalypto" trailer as soon as the words "a film by Mel Gibson" flashed onscreen. (Borat would have been very nervous.) But another friend of mine saw it in a different neighborhood, and he reports having been one of only a few Jews in the audience. He loved the movie, too, but before entering the theater, he came across a group of non-Jewish kids sitting outside playing guitar, and singing all the words to "Throw the Jew Down the Well"--and all of a sudden, he wasn't so sure how he felt about whether putting a character like Borat out there was a good idea after all.
Even though it was clearly meant as satire, there's always someone who's going to reappropriate or reinterpret it in the opposite manner from which it was intended. And if such catchphrases are popularized in the youth culture without any context or explanation, it might lay a foundation for believing that the song is legitimate not just as comedic entertainment, but as a personal philosophy.
These issues are disturbing, but what's disturbing us is not Borat or Sacha Baron Cohen. It is the fact that there are people around us who hate and fear what they do not know personally, and that the bigotry and intolerance is closer than we think.
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 5:38 PM | Permalink |
The question used to be, can a Jesus band ever not sing about Jesus? These days, the question, asked by The Denver Post's Ricardo Baca, has become: Can a band sing about Jesus without being called a Jesus band?
Baca sympathizes with Michael Nau, lead singer for Maryland soft rockers Page France, who says he's tired of the presumption that he's preaching. The group's new album does have songs titled "Jesus" and "Bush" (as in "burning") but they are hardly an altar call. "Jesus will come through the ground, so dirty / With worms in his hair and a hand so sturdy," Nau sings on "Jesus." If Sabbath growled those lyrics, no one would think twice.
As Hanna Rosin points out in a round-up of recent books about Christian kids on Slate, evangelicals no longer demand a clean-cut Christian decorum from its youth culture. Neither, increasingly does the broader audience. Sufjan Stevens, Pedro the Lion's Dave Bazan, and other rockers-who-are Christian may get pigeonholed, but it matters less and less to anyone.
But we're still in transition. In the same piece, Baca quotes Andrew Beaujon, author of "Body Piercing Saved My Life," about modern Christian rockers, who says, "It's a really big choice for a lot of Christian musicians: Are we a Christian band or are we Christians in a band." But artists like Nau are giving the lie to statements like that. The only real question anymore is: Are they good?
When I was younger, I had heard tell of the Golem, but only truly became acquainted with the legend thanks to the "Kaddish" episode of "The X-Files," in which the legendary clay monster of Jewish folklore is brought forth to revenge a hate crime in modern day Brooklyn. Now, the Golem's back on FOX and this time he's more nebbish than nightmare. The second of the three stories that make up this year's "Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror XVII" was a bit of a monster mash, marrying the Golem story with the "Bride of Frankenstein."
Trying to return his Krusty the Clown Alarm Clock that squirts acid, Bart stumbles upon the Golem in Krusty's prop room. The ersatz entertainer goes on to tell Bart of the tale of Rabbi Loew, the "legendary defender of the Jewish people," who created the Golem to defend his Jewish community. "Like Alan Dershowitz," says Krusty, "but with a conscience." Of course Bart can't resist temptation, feeds the Golem a scroll with orders--the monster's method of motivation--and forces him to do his bidding: Think Bart's usual bag of tricks on principal Skinner.
However, Lisa feeds her own scroll to the monolithic monster, giving him the freedom of speech. And, oy, does he ever speak! Voiced by comedian Richard Lewis, Golem goes on to introduce the Simpson family to Jewish humor and its stereotypical neuroses ("I mangled and maimed 37 people, and I told a telemarketer I was busy when I wasn't!"). They might as well have named him Woody Golem. In order to shut the monster up, Marge creates a "Girlem" out of blue Play-Doh. Girlem is, naturally, voiced by Fran Drescher, whose nasal delivery has never been more perfectly grating. And while Homer decides that they need to go back to the drawing board, as Girlem spouts bad Borscht Belt comedian jokes, Golem is smitten, and the pair head to the chuppah.
As "Treehouses of Horror" stories go, this entry was middling. While the voices of Lewis and Drescher were perfect, the story just didn't go anywhere. But it's nice to know that the FOX network has introduced yet another generation to an enduring Jewish folk tale.
If you watch the news, read the paper or log onto Beliefnet for news, you've heard about Colorado's Rev. Ted Haggard and his indiscretions. My heart goes out to him, his family, his congregation, and his friends, some of whom I know.
From a media points of view, Rev. Haggard's news is, well, news. But I don't think it rises to the level that some in the media--including some of our own--have taken it. One example is David Kuo, who writes a religio-political blog (or is it politigeous blog?) for Beliefnet and has a current book on the New York Times best seller list.
"At the end of the day, this comes down to bringing Jesus into politics," Kuo writes. "Right now, it's not Ted Haggard on trial. It's Jesus. This is about the God he represents. When you make yourself a public figure and you fall, you bring the perception of your God with you."
While that may be the case personally for David, I categorically disagree with him in terms of the public dialogue about spirituality in our culture--especially how it plays out on TV.
The Bible is full of God's leaders who've failed personally and morally. Hebrews 11 names several Biblical leaders of faith--including Moses, Abraham, Noah, and others whose names you probably recognize but whose sins you may not know of. Their names are thought of in culture as something like God's "Hall of Fame," but they all qualify for God's "Hall of Shame!" Most Christians know that God is the only One who is perfect. The rest of us walk with him--and enter heaven--by faith which starts with His grace.
For David Kuo or anyone to say that somehow Jesus is "on trial" because a religio-public leader has fallen misses the point, I think. Ted Haggard's story represents a tragic illustration of the spiritual truth that has existed since Adam and Eve: We are all human, we all come up short, we all miss the mark, and we all can be grateful for the grace of God which is greater than our imperfections and shortcomings.
From a media or cultural point of view--and please forgive me if this sounds insensitive--Rev. Haggard's story is just this week's piece of the news cycle, which knocked Mr. Kerry and his bad joke out of it and which will be replaced by Tuesday's elections. Far more important is the fact that Rev. Haggard deserves our prayers as he journeys through recovery and restoration, because the spiritual journey before each of us--and it's ramifications--will last for eternity. Current events will quickly (and literally) become yesterday's news.
American Hindus can rejoice that their most important festival, Diwali, has finally gotten a nod from pop culture. Last night on NBC's "The Office," chatty Kelly invited her colleagues to a party for Diwali, which she described as a festival that's "awesome" and "really old." Bossman Michael's ostentatious but always off-target political correctness was in full flower: he referred to Kelly as "one of our more ethnic coworkers," called Diwali "Hindu Halloween," and presented a slideshow of famous Indians that included Apu from "The Simpsons." Unsurprisingly, it was the deranged but well-read Dwight who knew the holiday's actual origins. Michael also passed around hilariously pixelated copies of the Kama Sutra, thrilling Kevin: "This is the best meeting we've ever had!"
Michael may be goofy, but it's tight-lipped Angela who's truly intolerant. She asks Kelly how many gods Hindus have, and Kelly shrugs, "Oh, hundreds, I think." At the party, Angela sniffs at the buffet and asks what she can eat, since she's vegetarian. Told that "it's all vegetarian," she wrinkles her nose and says, "I'll just have some bread." Angela also guards the shoes in the entryway (Hindus remove their shoes before entering many places) so they won't be stolen.
After confusing samosas with s'mores ("these s'mores are disgusting"), Michael tactlessly quizzes Kelly's parents about arranged marriage and sati (the ancient and now forbidden practice of a widow throwing herself on a funeral pyre). A sly dig at Indian culture is the mother's remark that Michael's blond girlfriend is "very fair"; Michael agrees she's "very fair and kind." Meanwhile, Dwight arrives in proper Indian attire.
The show wraps up with Michael's hilarious twist on Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song," which he sings accompanied by Dwight on guitar: "Put on your saris, it's time to celebrate Diwali.... The goddess of destruction Kali stopped by to celebrate Diwali.... If you're Indian and you like to party, have a happy, happy, happy, happy Diwali." Watch it here:
Whether he's appearing with Oprah to promote his latest fundraising strategy for aid to Africa or meeting with global leaders to convince them to commit more funds to African debt relief, it's hard to find any negative press surrounding Bono's indefatigable quest for social justice. Which is one of several excellent points made in an editorial over at Slate magazine, which scrutinizes Bono's recent decision to relocate U2's music publishing business from Ireland to the Netherlands in order to receive a bigger tax break.
It seems that there has been backlash against Bono back home in Ireland over the ethics behind the rock star's attempt to shelter his own wealth while he's asking the Irish government to give more money to Africa. (Here in th United States there has ben little mention of the controversy.)
So why is it anyone's business what Bono pays or doesn't pay in taxes? While some of the details are a little bit complicated, the issue is whether or not it is hypocritical for the most visible crusader in the world on behalf of the impoverished to ask his own country to increase funding for Third World relief when he is deliberately reducing tax payments to that country--payments that could help fund the very aid he's requesting.
But in an even better question, Slate writer Timothy Noah asks the reader to consider whether or not we as a culture expect so little in the way of accountability from celebrities "that even a wealthy hypocrite who shelters his cash abroad can no longer qualify as news" here in the States.
Each year since 1999, beginning November 1st and ending November 30th, writers all over the United States race to type-type-type away at their laptops, desktops, and (for the old-fashioned) typewriters, to get that novel that's been rattling around in their heads onto the page in a period of--wait for it--30 days! The goal is this: write 50,000 words (that's only about 1667 words a day) or approximately 175 manuscript pages (5.8 per day) in a single month--and to do so in the company of tens of thousands of other aspiring novelists (last year there was about 59,000 participants). Nicknamed "NaNoWriMo" or "National Novel Writing Month," the project self-describes as a kind of spit-it-out, no-holds-barred way of making that novel you've always wanted to write a reality:
Valuing enthusiasm and perseverance over painstaking craft, NaNoWriMo is a novel-writing program for everyone who has thought fleetingly about writing a novel but has been scared away by the time and effort involved. Because of the limited writing window, the ONLY thing that matters in NaNoWriMo is output. It's all about quantity, not quality. The kamikaze approach forces you to lower your expectations, take risks, and write on the fly. Make no mistake: You will be writing a lot of crap. And that's a good thing. By forcing yourself to write so intensely, you are giving yourself permission to make mistakes. To forgo the endless tweaking and editing and just create. To build without tearing down.
But the coolest part of NaNoWriMo is not simply the knock-down-drag-out-of-your-body novel writing method, but the rather astounding community created by the experience--and the ritual of it all. People often regard writing as solitary. Not so during NaNoWriMo--one of its essential ingredients is the fact that you are not alone. Year One, 1999, started off with only 21 writers, and this year they expect participation to top the 75,000 mark. November 1st sees at least one statewide gathering in every state for everyone to come together and see who's in this with them, share encouragement, ideas, or just have a coffee together. There is at least one, if not more, weekly "Write-In" events where participants gather to simply be in the company of each other while they write, or share the agonies and the ecstasies of it all. There are online forums organized by genre (Romance, Fantasy, Christian Fiction, and even Christian Fantasy Fiction), writing topic ("fact-checkers" and "plot doctors" groups), and the ever-popular "NaNoWriMo Ate My Soul" group for people struggling with writer's block.
Jamie Gorton is a three-time participant (who already has two novels in his drawer), whose word count had already topped 3,500 by early morning on day two. "I'm trying hard not to liken this to Burning Man," Gorton told Idol Chatter on a writing break in Vermont. "Because I like writing fantasy fiction, it's sometimes hard to find a writing community. It's almost a taboo genre to write in. But when November comes around and you go on the website's forums and see that the fantasy genre forum is the most active out of all the genres. After a few years you start to recognize other people--you know what aspects of the genre they write in. Most importantly, you know that they are going through the same chaos as you are. It's all very predictable. The energy of the first week, the creative bust of the second week, and the sheer fatigue of the third and fourth weeks. My fellow participants understand it much better than my non-participating friends would understand it."
So doing NaNoWriMo is everything but lonely--November could become the most important month on the liturgical calendar for all those "spiritual but not religious" folks out there who also happen to like to put pen to paper (or fingers to keys) and worship at the altar of the Writing Goddess. And it all ends with a bang, too, with a TGIO gathe
ring on November 30th: Thank Goodness It's Over!
"South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker seem to live by Abbie Hoffman's famous saying that "sacred cow makes the tastiest hamburger." Last night's episode featured the controversial topic of teaching evolution in public schools. The kids' teacher, Ms. Garrison (who was Mr. Garrison until a sex-change operation last season) refused to teach evolution, claiming it was immoral. So what did the principal of South Park Elementary do? Why, bring in Richard Dawkins, noted atheist, scientist, author, and evolution proponent.
Normally, "South Park" prefers to skewer pop culture icons like Tom Cruise or Barbra Streisand. That's why their "casting" of Dawkins was such a surprise. Although Dawkins is a well-known academic, he's not an immediately recognizable figure. Dawkins showed up at first in the fourth-grade classroom speaking intelligently about evolution and science, but in the world of this show, no one stays normal for long. Initially, he fought with Ms. Garrison about the merits of evolution. Then, he fell in love with her.
One of the joys of "South Park" is that no one is safe, and no one ever gets the moral high ground. Mr. Garrison's sex change meant that he was no longer a homosexual man but a heterosexual woman, and now the character has been recast as a Church Lady figure who condemns everyone else's behavior. A man who had a black-leather-clad lover named Mr. Slave is now a prudish, prissy woman looking for a husband. When first told she is required to teach evolution, she tells the children that they're the descendants of apes who mated with deformed squirrels.
Lest Stone and Parker look like they're taking a side in the evolution debate, they make both teachers out to look like fools. By starting out calm, rational, and scientific, Dawkins is set up as the foil for shrieking, hysterical Garrison. Having the two ideological rivals fall in love somehow makes perfect sense in "South Park" logic. Now the test is to see whether Dawkins' book sales go up.
Watch part of the episode--including Dawkins teaching evolution--here:
While the controversial documentary "Jesus Camp" has inspired plenty of criticism and little box office success, the film has had one significant impact for the director of the camp depicted in the film, Becky Fisher: The camp, Kids on Fire, is temporarily shut down.
Fisher has been running her camp at a site in Devils Lake, North Dakota, that is owned by the Assemblies of God. However, after a recent vandalism attack in which windows were broken and the camp's church was damaged, Fisher has announced her camp will not return to the Devils Lake location. The news doesn't exactly seem to disappoint the campground's administrator, Reverend Winston Titus, who has indicated in interviews that he would like the publicity surrounding the denomination's facility--which rents its property to various church groups--to simply go away.
However, while the Devils Lake camp administration may be rid of Fisher, I am predicting that her problems will only continue. Fisher has not announced where she will relocate the camp--for obvious reasons--but sadly, I think this incident of vandalism will most likely be only one small chapter in an ongoing saga for Fisher and her campers, with more examples of intolerance and media hype breeding more intolerance and media hype.
On "Dateline" last night, Madonna spoke about the controversy over her adopting an African baby--and, of course, about that other controversy, over her on-stage crucifixion act. Watch that section of the interview:
People who find Borat or Jewtopia offensive are also likely to rail against the new release from Reboot Stereophonic Records for its title alone. "Jewface," like other neo-cultural Jewish efforts, is named to provoke even before anyone actually listens to the music. But without previewing the music on the CD, amateur cultural historians will note that this marks another attempt to re-spark--or, as the record company itself phrases it, reboot--the connection between today's Jews and their culture.
["Jewface"] contains 16 songs salvaged from wax cylinder recordings and scratchy 78s, from a century-old genre that is essentially Jewish minstrelsy. Often known as Jewish dialect music, it was performed in vaudeville houses by singers in hooked putty noses, oversize derbies and tattered overcoats. Highly popular, if controversial, in its day, it has been largely lost to history--perhaps justifiably.
Consider song titles like "Under the Matzos Tree," and "When Mose With His Nose Leads the Band." Or, as the Times points out, "My Yiddisha Mammy," a 1922 riff on Al Jolson's "Mammy," written by Eddie Cantor and others, wherein lyrics run like this: "I've got a mammy / But she don't come from Alabammy / Her heart is filled with love and real sentiment / Her cabin door is in a Bronx tenement."
The Anti-Defamation League, usually the first to react to news items that may be anti-Semitic, was unsure what to do with "Jewface." The Times reports that the ADL acknowledged that this release was "complicated." While clearly comedic and most often performed by Jews, it couldn't be counted as anti-Semitic. But there's still a fear, the deputy director said, that "our experience in this kind of thing is that inevitably somebody will probably use this for not such good purposes."
But this release is part of a larger trend, an unofficial project of rediscovery or reclamation of old culture and the reframing of it in a contemporary context--a project that is being conducted by Jews in their 20s and 30s. (Look at the ages of the men cited in the article; they're all 35-37.) Finding old methods of connection (mostly the synagogue and Jewish organizational structure) boring or unmeaningful, they are actively inventing ways of engaging with their religious and cultural heritage through the musical or literary frameworks that hold personal meaning.
Take a Hasidic guy, add a love of reggae, hip-hop, and rap and you have Matisyahu, whose videos I can watch on the TVs at the gym. Take cultural reclamation and add a provocative edge and you have Heeb Magazine, which presents a "Food Issue" with a pig on its cover. JDub Records, which originally repped Matisyahu, signs eclectic acts, holds huge concerts, and shows no signs of slowing down. Or check the blogosphere for the varied, snarky, and sometimes controversial perspectives of Jewish bloggers, like those over at Jewlicious and Jewschool, the social action-centered JSpot, or other Jewish magazines of thought and culture, like Zeek, PresenTense, and American Jewish Life--each initiative representing a group of different (but often overlapping) Jewish 20- and 30-somethings struggling with issues surrounding Jewish life and identity.
For example (and with this sentence also functioning as full disclosure), I contribute to Jewlicious, PresenTense and American Jewish Life, and have attended events sponsored by JDub, Heeb, Zeek, and Jewschool. We're all doing slightly different things, but it's all in the name of connecting to our tradition, and thanks to the internet, we've created connections to each other as well.
I admit, I don't have many non-Jewish friends who are involved in their faiths to the extent that my Jewish friends are involved in theirs. But I would assume that faith in general may represent more of a challenge to my generation than it did for generations past. From "Jewface" to Heeb, the fact that there are so many of these innovative cultural efforts indicates a basic dissatisfaction with the way things are, and a hope that involvement, even if the point of engagement is self-created, will allow Generations X and Y to make meaningful connections to Jewish life.
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 5:30 PM | Permalink |
Did bookstore mega-chain Borders ban a young adult novel because the book implied sex was as good as soda pop?
Borders' recent decision not to stock the young adult novel "Pop!" has caused some puzzlement in the publishing industry. Though penned by a former "Sex in the City" writer, Aury Wallington, "Pop!"--published by Penguin's Razorbill imprint--is not so different from many young adult novels: It features hot boys, a teenage girl who is ambivalent about what to do about them, and tons and tons of single-sentence paragraphs. Sex is amply represented in the novel--about a young woman's quest to lose her virginity--but Wallington's point, as she told one interviewer, is that "sex is going to have emotional consequences no matter how much you tell yourself that it's not." This is YA lit in the sex-ed-with-self-esteem mode invented by Judy Blume in her novel "Forever," to which "Pop!" has been compared.
Why did Borders nix "Pop!"? The chain won't say precisely, but there are some clues. For one, customers may special order it from their stores, meaning it was the display that made things dicey. And after giving The Book Standard a boilerplate answer about "making choices every day" about what to stock, the children's buyer added, "Other factors in this decision include the format of the book, the price, the cover design, and the competitive landscape." Since the format, price, and competitive landscape don't distinguish "Pop!" the focus falls to the cover, which shows the title splashed across the front of a soda can.
Call it the Joe Camel Syndrome. Back in the '90s, cigarette companies were excoriated for using cartoon characters to advertise their product, notably Camel's hipster with the body of Ken doll and the head of a dromedary; ever since, any image that attracts the notice of children has raised hackles. In Marshall, Missouri, graphic novels with "themes" more innocuous than "Pop!" have nonetheless been banned from the local library because they look like comic books and might draw young readers.
Have young adult novels become too racy? Are young adults too sex-obsessed? Are the lessons of "Pop!" healthy for our teens? Don't look for the answer here. We can say, however, that if you want to talk about sex in literature, label it like medicine.
Donna Freitas has a Ph.D. in spirituality and is the author of "Becoming A Goddess Of Inner Poise: Spirituality for The Bridget Jones in All of Us."
Douglas Howe is an ordained minister, executive coach, author, and retreat leader.
Paul O'Donnell is the former Culture editor at Beliefnet.
Kris Rasmussen, the author of "WonkaMania," has been a contributing editor to the Christian music magazine CCM and a feature writer for Relevant magazine.
Plus, a number of Beliefnet editors will also be posting to Idol Chatter as the mood strikes.
Add to Del.icio.us 
Digg This 
Fave on Technorati
Twenty-eight years was a long time to wait for a new album from Yusuf Islam. Back in the 1970s, the artist (then known to the world as Cat Stevens) won over audiences with pop hits like "Wild, Wild, World," "Peace Train," and other folk-inspired songs. His recently released album, 
We've always been made to understand that Sacha Baron Cohen, a.k.a. Borat, is 
Hollywood 
When facing a movie like "
Last season, the VH1 celeb-reality series 
The 
The relatively minor Jewish holiday of 
Okay, this summer’s drunken anti-Semitic rant was a P.R. faux-pas. But just as Mel Gibson overcame his more veiled anti-Semitic reading of the Gospel in "
Do we control our future? Or is everything that happens to us decided by fate? If there is a creator, do we have a dynamic or static relationship with him--or her? Such deep, philosophical questions don't seem like the stuff of a Will Ferrell movie, but his latest flick, 
Are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes going to be married before they get to 
While I understand why so many critics gush about the talent of writer/producer Aaron Sorkin, 
According to Sir Elton John, the world could be a more compassionate place free of "hateful lemmings" if only all religion was banned. In 
Since the first episode of ABC's winning new comedy "
Pigs are flying, hell is freezing over, the night has turn to day and the day to night. The impossible has happened: 
Like every other "
With Apartheid in South Africa having officially ended in 1990, a political thriller like 
I honestly thought that by the seventh episode of producer/writer Aaron Sorkin's backstage drama 
I guess every discussion of Borat--the character brought to life by Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen and the film featuring that character--has to begin with that pivotal moment in country-western anti-Semitism, "Throw the Jew Down the Well." We could discuss, as has been discussed over and over again, whether such a song--and such a character--
American Hindus can rejoice that their most important festival, 
Did bookstore mega-chain Borders ban a young adult novel because the book implied sex was as good as soda pop?
