I should have listened to New York Times film critic Stephen Holden, who called "In the Land of Women" meek and mopey, "the film equivalent of a sensitive emo band with one foot in alternative rock and the other in the squishy pop mainstream." The film stars Meg Ryan in a relatively new role--down and out mom-figure rather than romantic lead--and Adam Brody (formerly of "The O.C.") as the all-purpose confidante for quite literally every woman in the film: ex-girlfriend, grandmother, and next door neighbors (Ryan as the mother and her daughter).
Despite the reviews, I figured--how bad could a movie be that stars Meg Ryan and Olympia Dukakis (who I love)? As it turns out, really bad. It's the worst movie I've seen in years. And I see a lot of movies.
Adam Brody--playing Carter Webb--is utterly unappealing in what I guess is the romantic lead--though there is nothing romantic about him or the part he plays. Nor is there anything comedic about Carter's character. Why so many beautiful, talented women are drawn to baring their souls to him is inexplicable. He doesn't do anything in the film aside from stumbling in and out of these women's lives. It's painfully clear is that Adam Brody can not carry a film. And since Brody is the epicenter of this "land of women," the movie falls on this fatal flaw.
Then there is the fact that though the movie is billed as a romantic comedy, it is an incredibly depressing film. The dominant themes are despair, death, cancer, and infidelity. I know--what fun on a warm spring afternoon!
I confess: I never watched "The O.C.," so perhaps I didn't enter the theater with the right sympathetic-to-Brody attitude like the rest of the "O.C." fans who made up the bulk of the audience around me. But even they shared my dismay. As the credits rolled and I got up to leave, one of the girls behind me quipped loudly and in appropriately high school melodramatic fashion: "That. Was the worst. Movie. Ever."
Yes, I silently agreed. Enough said. Brody gets a failing grade as confessor. I actually left the theater feeling angry. Save your money. There's nothing redeemable about this one.
Two of America's biggest born-again tabloid sensations are getting together in a stage musical with all the hoopla of a tent revival meeting. One is Kathie Lee Gifford, the public Christian and former morning talk-show matron whose repeated bouts with the unforgiving press finally drove her to resign her spot on "Live with Regis and Kathie Lee." The other is Aimee Semple McPherson, the Pentecostal preacher whose mix of theatricality, sex appeal and old-time Christianity blossomed in the 1920s into global fame at the helm of her own Los Angeles megachurch.
Gifford, who told The Washington Post that she's been fascinated with McPherson for 35 years, has written the book and lyrics to "Saving Aimee," a musical that premiered recently at the Signature Theater outside Washington to warm reviews.
Once a household name, "Sister Aimee" is enjoying a bit of a comeback lately, including a recent PBS special. And why not? We live in an age that understands her methods--she was among the first to use the media to expand her ministry and to extend her fame through scandal: McPherson was suspected of faking her own kidnapping to drive up her radio numbers (and possibly to cover up an affair with her engineer).
"She was the very first tabloid queen," says Gifford, who briefly inherited that crown after her husband, former New York Giants star and "Monday Night Football" personality Frank Gifford, was lured into a compromising position by a woman in the employ of a salacious newspaper.
Any Tolkien fan can tell you that J.R.R. Tolkien, a faithful Catholic, was pals with pop theologian C.S. Lewis, and that he laced his Lord of the Rings trilogy with Christian theology. What's not always obvious, however, is how. What's a hobbit got to do with the Messiah?
The "new" Tolkien book, "The Children of Hurin" provides few clues to the casual reader. One of Tolkien's "Lost Tales"—early, unpublished Middle Earth stories written before "The Hobbit"—the new book was edited from manuscripts by Tolkien's son Christopher. You can see the master of Middle Earth's style developing: it's Tolkien, only more so: the battle scenes thrum so mythically that they sound at times like a translation of "The Baghavad Gita." The good guys are impliably, humorlessly principled. The plot is downright Greek: Our hero, a man named Turin, makes every tragic mistake available to a mythic mortal, including a few Sophocles didn't think of. Then he dies.
After all, he's only human. "The Children of Hurin" confirms that Tolkien's great spiritual subject is incarnation. In this book, as in his famous trilogy, taking physical form is a grim weight that leaves us susceptible to the workings of evil. And if the battle between good and evil takes place in this physical realm, those fully incarnated beings called humans are the main battleground.
Round One of that battle, recounted in "The Children of Hurin," goes to evil, and neither salvation nor the cavalry is anywhere to be seen by the end. In his forward, Christopher suggests that Turin's story is based in part on his father's childhood at the end of the 19th century. If so, it's no wonder the adult Tolkien would become one of the most prodigious fantasists of the 20th. Any fabricated world would be better than the one that inspired the miseries endured by poor Turin.
A week or so ago, I suggested that "Idol Chatter" cover the Richard Gere kissing kerfuffle that was consuming India. It seems the "Officer and a Gentleman" exhibited what some Indians consider less than gentlemanly behavior by vigorously kissing Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty several times on the hand and cheek while attending an AIDS/HIV awareness event. At the time, it was decided there were other stories to cover and that the incident would most likely blow over quickly, but like Gere's career, this story has made an incredible comeback, with a court issuing arrest warrants for both Gere and Shilpa.
A local in Jaipur filed an obscenity complaint and Judge Dinesh Gupta issued the warrants stating that the actors, "transgressed all limits of vulgarity and have the tendency to corrupt the society" and called event footage "highly sexually erotic" and against India's strict public obscenity laws.
I agree strongly with Dinesh D'Souza when he says that while he doesn't share the "extreme conservatism of traditional cultures" he thinks it's "naive of us not to recognize that there are deeply-held values in other societies, and it is especially easy for Hollywood types like Gere to outrage the locals."
And while it's important to respect people's beliefs, Hinduism and tradition may not be the only motivations here: "Such cases against celebrities--often filed by publicity seekers--are common in conservative India," notes MSNBC.com. "They add to a backlog of legal cases that has nearly crippled the country's judicial system."
Gere himself mentioned on last night's Daily Show that, "They do this kind of thing quite often. I don't know that anyone has actually gone to jail ... It goes to a reputable court and they throw it out," as TMZ.com reports.
Coming just on the heels of the Elizabeth Hurley matrimony melee, it seems that these publicity seekers are moving to the big leagues, leaving Bollywood for Hollywood. But burning effigies of Gere in the streets? Imagine what would have happened if he'd had a "wardrobe malfunction"?
Sure, his Greenwich Village neighbors were aggravated with him a few years ago for building a Buddhist prayer hut on top of his brownstone, but Gere has done a lot of advocacy work in India, for health issues as well as Tibetan exiles. Heck, the man is buddy-buddy with the Dalai Lama himself, and often visits him in Dharamsala, in Northern India. It goes without saying that conservative traditionalists most likely wouldn't care if Gere has done good works, and might take offense at a "Western" interloper trying to improve/interfere with their culture.
And even though Shetty was raised in a traditional Hindu family, as her mother described in a January 2007 interview with The Times of London, she herself is quoted as saying, "this was not such a big thing, or obscene, for people to overreact in such a manner."
Then again, she has a warrant out for her arrest, too.
What do you think? Is this kiss hotter, so to speak, than his famous cinematic lip-lock with Debra Winger?
In case you haven't seen it yet, Beliefnet recently posted an interesting gallery on how its readers have credited the "law of attraction"--the idea that we create our reality with our thoughts, popularized by the controversial best-selling book and DVD, "The Secret"--as having worked miracles in their lives (ie: quitting smoking, getting money for college, and even obtaining a swing set!) Click here to check it out.
Here's some more "Secret" coverage you might be interested in:
The summer movie season officially kicks off (are you ready for this?) a week from Friday!
May 4th brings us Spider-Man 3—the summer's first movie release, the first anticipated blockbuster, and the first sequel.
Movie sites such as Moviephone and Premiere and papers led by USA Today seem to agree that this is the Summer of the Sequel. Since most movie-goers enjoy a certain kind of viewer-character relationship with the story's players, audiences are glad to return to see an old friend, which I see as a Good-News-Bad-News-Good-News situation.
Good News: Millions of us are genuinely curious to see what happens to Spidey, Shrek and his friends, Captain Jack and his crew, Danny Ocean's Twelve and their foe-turned-friend—number Thirteen, and Jason Bourne as Jason Bourne. Chris Tucker (Rush Hour 3) and Bruce Willis (Live Free or Die Hard) return as really-long-lost-friends, as its been awhile since their last reprise. Although It may sound goofy that we'd relate to a recorded image on the screen, it brings out the fact that we were created to be relational creatures, and while we may like watching things crash or lovers cry, it's the return of specific characters that we come back to and enjoy. I like that.
Bad News: Despite all of the buzz I hear about the independent film movement, it sure seems like sequels get the big budgets and backing. Since distribution is everything and risky themes don't fare well in a cost-benefit analysis, the films with the potential to say a lot rarely do. I don't like that.
Good News: Serials and movie trilogies (or quadrilogies and quintilogies!) allow more characters to interact in more settings amidst more plot twists with more characters, allowing deeper spiritual themes to emerge if directors and writers are so inclined. This allows us to go deeper with characters we relate to, and I like that.
Here are the dates of the Summer Sequels; I hope there's a whole lot in there for the reflective moviegoer on a spiritual journey:
May 4: "Spider-Man 3" — Spidey vs. Sandman, Venom, New Goblin…and his darkside.
May 18: "Shrek the Third" — Layers of comedy for every age group.
May 26: "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End" — Likely not the end of anything!
June 8: "Ocean's Thirteen" — Clooney, Pitt, Garcia, Pacino, Damon, Cheadle, Mac, Ellen Barkin.
June 15: "Fantastic Four" Rise of the Silver Surfer.
June 22: "Evan Almighty" — Morgan Freeman returns as God but Steve Carell is new as Moses.
June 27: "Live Free or Die Hard" — Bruce "John McClain" Willisreturns and is himself again.
July 13: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" — He keeps his clothes on.
Aug 3: "The Bourne Ultimatum" — Paul Greengrass (United 93) directing Damon's defining role.
Aug 10: "Rush Hour 3" — Chris Tucker’s first film since "RH 2" and Jackie Chan.
Of course, if there's anything of spiritual value to talk about, we'll be doing so right here at Idol Blogger and we welcome you to do the same!
I read in USA Today that ratings for several top-rated shows are down, and it listed several reasons why, including Daylight Savings Time, DVRs, and long hiatuses. I think there's one huge reason they missed: too many people are switching to news shows which spend lots of time retelling old stories and generating dialogue that doesn't seem to engage. However, I'm finding that there's better analysis—or at least provocative discussion—on the network shows. This week's "Boston Legal" is a great example, as it considered the following issues:
Racism: William Shatner's Denny Crane, the show's right-wing peer of the realm, evaluated a potential African-American prospect as "not sounding 'black'" and one who would "play well with whites." While his partners chastised him for his racist comments, the show also made the case that those who use descriptions like "urban," "other kinds" and "not right for the role" are the real racists, who form judgements based on skin color but won't say them out loud.
Given the media's uproar and exponentially increasing coverage of Crane's comments, Candace Bergen's "Shirley Schmidt" called them out for their own bias in choosing media anchors and other on-air talent, which silenced the crowd and left us viewers to reflect on any ways that racism creeps into our own circles without us realizing it.
Elite Charity: James Spader's Allan Shore has reached out to a fellow attorney with mental challenges in prior episodes and seasons. In this week's show, he finds himself losing in court to a man who he can't control or manipulate just because he'd given him a hand up earlier in life.
Thin Celebrity-ness: Paris Hilton, Britany Spears and Lindsay Lohan were called out directly for their negative effect on culture, as were those who profit from an influence that hurts adolescents and kids. Their (especially Hilton's) very thin claim to celebrity status was unflinchingly argued in court.
Petty Politics: Hilary, Obama, McCain, and even Jeb were all called out for the surfacy tactics that make up our American politic.
Traditional Marriage: Denise Bauer and Brad Chase are promiscuous characters whose wedding announcement is met with doubt bordering on laughter. Yes, their decision was based on a pregnancy, but their desire to normalize their lives (and their child's) makes a case for the second chance. (Of course that could change by next week!)
Ridiculous Must-See-TV Culture: How did wife-swapping bedroom antics end up on Family Night USA?! And what is its impact on the American family?
All in all, I found myself reflecting on these important life themes after this show, way more than my experiences with CNN's anti-government shows, CNBC's giddiness with controversy, and FOX's version of "fair and balanced."
Now if the networks could figure out how to package and bottle this kind of brand just a little bit better, ratings might again be headed north!
Did Simon Cowell contribute to the massacre at Virginia Tech?," asked yesterday's Scoop column on MSNBC.com. It seems that Barbara Coloroso, author of "The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander," thinks so. "I think we are experiencing something amiss culturally where the TV shows, if you turn them on, [show] people are laughing at one another's pain," the parenting expert told Alberta's Daily Herald Tribune, referring to contestants being "voted off the island" on "Survivor" and "enjoying seeing someone go down in flames on 'American Idol.'"
Poor Simon. First there was the misunderstood eye roll during "Idol" contestant Chris Richardson's shout-out to the friends and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting and now blame for the tragedy is being placed squarely on his Emporio Armani-clad shoulders?
"Whether it be cyber-bullying over the Internet or being pushed around and locked in a school locker," states the article, "Coloroso places the lion's share of the blame with television and movies."
Sure, some studies have proposed that "bullies recognise that aggressive behaviour is reinforced through the media," but they also point out that legitimate forms of authority within the community, say the police, can serve as examples of violence as well. (Most research points lack of maternal affection, chaotic family life, inconsistent and forceful discipline as root causations of bullying.)
So, let's say we accept that the media and the "culture of mean" is behind the seeming uptick of school shootings and bullying. How then to account for the insulting treatment of contestants on "The Gong Show" in the '70s and the brutal reception of many acts on "Showtime at the Apollo," that's been airing since 1987, not resulting in the same?
And, even though I very much dislike the crash-and-burn cheerleading during the "Idol" audition process and covered the 1 year anniversary of Columbine for Beliefnet, I find it hard to blame Simon Cowell for recent violence, instead of say, easy access to guns. In fact, in a way, I think Simon is one of the lone voices of reason--with his harsh, yet honest appraisals--for the generation dubbed "Generation Me."
As The Associated Press reports: "Today's college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society."
Between 1982 and 2006, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University and her colleagues evaluated 16,475 college students nationwide using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
The results? The children of "the self-esteem movement" of the 1980s, with its constant "you're special" mantra, are uber-narcissists.
"We need to stop endlessly repeating 'You're special' and having children repeat that back," said Twenge. "Kids are self-centered enough already."
Study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia suggested that narcissism could have some advantages, including auditioning for "American Idol."
But, the bad outweighs the good. "The study asserts that narcissists 'are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warm
th, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.'"
Over-controlling and violent behaviors? Kinda sounds like bullying, doesn't it?
Perhaps Campbell had the solution for both problems when he told the AP that, "Permissiveness seems to be a component. A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."
One of the true joys of living in New York these days is the Tribeca Film Festival, started in the wake of 9/11 by none other than Martin Scorsese. This year's extravaganza opens on Wednesday, and as always, the festival's line-up includes a significant number of films that explore faith and spirituality, matters of the soul, moments of history, and life's biggest questions.
Some highlights, with description from the Tribeca website:
"Hard as Nails": "This fascinating documentary follows unordained evangelical minister Justin Fatica on his quest to save America's soul. Fatica uses his Hard As Nails Ministry to promote the gospel to all Christian faiths and reach out to the MTV generation. His gruff style and unusual methods bring salvation to some, but seem troublesome to others."
"Forging a Nation": "Accompanied by his mother, cousins, aunts, and uncles, the director retraces the steps of his Jewish ancestors, who fled Europe in the 1920's hoping to find in Argentina the land of their dreams. This poignant film journey uses the documentary as a singular tool to explore the multifaceted ways in which the Argentine nation was built."
"Time and Winds": "This unforgettable, beautifully observed film is a lyrical and haunting portrait of life in a remote Turkish mountain village, where three preteens struggle with dreams and desires that are utterly specific and personal, and yet somehow universal. An extraordinary score by Arvo Pärt adds to the electrifying experience."
"A Slim Peace": "When 14 women--Israelis, Palestinians, Bedouin Arabs, and American settlers in the West Bank--are brought together with the shared goal of losing weight, they find out they have far more in common than they ever would have imagined. A Slim Peace takes a revealing look at the universal struggle for acceptance, understanding, and personal transformation in a land of intractable conflict."
"Passio": "A unique "oratorio for moving image and sound," and a dramatic meditation on the very act of seeing. This extraordinarily powerful film sets the music of Arvo Pärt's Passio--which has been called one of the last masterpieces of 20th Century music--against images carefully chosen from the billions created during the tumultuous century since moving image media first appeared. Its declared ambition is to manifest the neglected or repressed memory of the human race during this era." (And this one is showing at New York's extraordinary St. John the Divine Cathedral, with live music.)
Last year was Beliefnet's first at Tribeca, and we brought you reviews of some extraordinary films, like "The Saint of 9/11" about Father Mychal Judge, and "Sound of the Soul," about the Fez Festival of World Sacred Music, and covered a fascinating panel discussion called "What Would Jesus Direct?"
Stay tuned for reviews of this year's spiritual Tribeca offerings, or check it out yourself by perusing the whole lineup and buying tickets here.
OK, I am a shamelessly huge "Smallville" fan and after a tough season five, I feel like season six has bounced back and then some. This, of course, also makes me a huge Superman fan in general.
So I was very intrigued to come across the following fun headline on the MSN homepage yesterday: "Scientists unearth Superman's 'kryptonite': Substance is white, powdery, contains no fluorine and isn't radioactive." I'm not usually one to click on the teasers posted on MSN--but this time I couldn't resist. Here is what I found out:
"Kryptonite, which robbed Superman of his powers, is no longer the stuff of comic books and films. A mineral found by geologists in Serbia shares virtually the same chemical composition as the fictional kryptonite from outer space, used by the superhero's nemesis Lex Luthor to weaken him in the film "Superman Returns."...[Chris] Stanley, who revealed the identity of the mysterious new mineral, discovered the match after searching the Internet for its chemical formula — sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide. "I was amazed to discover that same scientific name written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luthor from a museum in the film 'Superman Returns,'" he said."
Apparently, the rocks go on display at the London's Natural History Museum today. If it wasn't so far away I'd consider making a pilgrimage to see it. Though, somewhat disappointing: it turns out that kryptonite is white and not green.
The Gospel Music Association celebrates the many faces and voices of contemporary Christian music this week with the 38th annual Dove Awards. While the award ceremony is Wednesday evening , it won’t air in (limited) national syndication until next month. Such a lag time between award show and air date, in my opinion, points to the ongoing struggle of contemporary Christian music to remain relevant as an industry.
With more and more bands that have Christian roots finding mainstream success, one might think the demand to broadcast the best Christian music has to offer would be on the rise. And maybe it would be if the GMA was showcasing many of the more well-known CCM artists such as Jars of Clay or David Crowder Band. Although both of these bands have multiple nominations, they will not be performing or presenting. In fact, I am guessing they may not even be in attendance. But these and other major Christian acts are most likely not on the award show schedule as a conscious choice on the part of the musicians to distance themselves from an industry struggling to redefine itself while still desiring to create God-centered music.
The bottom line: The tension between art, commerce, and faith means the fans miss out some great music and some great performances on what could be an amazing awards show
So since most Idol Chatter readers will not get to watch the Dove Awards this week or see their favorite artist when it does air, I am happy to provide my thoughts and predictions on who will win tomorrow, regardless of who's watching.
Song of the Year
The nominees are: "Bless The Broken Road"; "Cry Out To Jesus"; "Drifter"; "God's Still God"; "Imagine Me"; "Made To Worship"; "Me And Jesus"; "My Savior My God"; "Nothing Left To Lose"; "Praise You In This Storm"
My thoughts: While "Nothing Left To Lose" has gotten huge mainstream airplay, I think this category is a close competition between two worship songs that received massive airplay on Christian radio in the past year--"Praise You In This Storm" and "Cry Out To Jesus." Because of Third Day's long, successful career, I am going with "Cry Out To Jesus" as the winner.
Artist of the Year
The nominees are: Casting Crowns; Chris Tomlin; Jars of Clay; Stellar Kart; The Crabb Family; Third Day; TobyMac
My thoughts: I have never understood why groups are allowed in the same category with solo artists, but regardless, I think Chris Tomlin and TobyMac have little chance to win this year. It's going to be a race between Casting Crowns and Third Day, with Third Day coming out on top.
Male Vocalist of the Year
The nominees are: Aaron Shust; Chris Tomlin; Jeremy Camp; Mark Hall; Mat Kearney
My thoughts: Because I believe Aaron Shust is a slam dunk to win the New Artist of the Year award, I think this award will go to Mat Kearney over veterans like Jeremy Camp and Chris Tomlin.
Female Vocalist of the Year
The nominees are: Christy Nockels; Krystal Meyers; Natalie Grant; Nichole Nordeman; Rebecca St. James
My thoughts: This is probably the least interesting category to me, and makes me wish for the days of groundbreaking female artists like Jennifer Knapp and Ashley Cleveland. With such safe, traditional nominees, I will make a safe, traditional prediction and say that the winner will be Nichole Nordeman.
Group of the Year:
The nominees are: BarlowGirl; Casting Crowns; David Crowder Band; Jars of Clay; MercyMe My thoughts: I don't like to ever vote against my all
time favorite group, Jars of Clay, but considering a MSN Poll named the David Crowder Band as the Artist of the Year, I think they will edge out MercyMe for this one.
To check out Beliefnet's gallery of Christian music stars and to listen to music by many of this year's Dove Award nominees, click here.
Of the CSI's (New York, Miami and Las Vegas) I believe "CSI:Miami" is either--depending on your taste--the most outrageous or the most prophetic.
Last night's show featured a future view on divorce that I wish would ignite a national discussion on marriage. An affluent couple's divorce got so ugly that they had laser beams split their home in half while the woman took a chainsaw to her husband's boat (he then shot holes in it to try and sink her). It was only later that he found out that she'd sold his $200,000 Lamborghini for $200, handing over a C-note for his half.
When questioned, their son informed investigators about his dad's affair with his personal trainer and his mom's similar relationship with the pool man. He had reign of the house, though, with remote control access to the laser beams dividing the house.
I think that the more that marriage is portrayed in the media as simply transactional and a matter of convenience, the more we are stripped of what used to be a reminder of the spiritual core of our nation, our society, and of many of our lives.
Marriage wasn't invented by cavepeople or evolutionists, nor was it invented by atheists or agnostics. Even across denominational and sectarian lines, marriage is seen as an invention of God that is essential not only to the marriage itself, but also to our society and to our view of God Himself.
In the end, the show tried to rescue itself as a morality tale, as the boyfriend went to jail, the girlfriend died, one attorney got disbarred and the two estranged spouses were finally unified over one thing: murdering their attorney. The show ended with them both going to jail after their son led police to the murder weapon. "It had to happen," he said, "they had to be apart."
"What we have here," said Lt. Horatio Caine, "is the future of divorce."
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, many people—particularly those who survived the tragedy or were directly affected by it—are leaning on their faith to cope, while others may be questioning their spiritual beliefs. ("Why did God let this happen?").
Inspirational singer/songwriter Lisa Lynne Mathis addresses such challenges (and joys) of faith on her recently released album, "Hancock Place." On her single "Anchor," which was written after her friend survived the tsunami in Sri Lanka, she sings:
With the ruins at my feet You lecture me of hope Your words are lost on me Can’t you see, I’m just trying to cope?
… I can’t see my way clear through the haze of this hell But I want to believe You are there, tell me are You the Anchor?
Also influenced by Hurricane Katrina, Mathis says of the song on her website, "I became acutely aware of how culturally as Americans we rush to the scene of the story and, once the viewers start to lose interest, we abandon the victims who will be spending YEARS trying to piece their lives back together. 'Anchor' is a reflection on what is going on in the human spirit after the cameras are gone, realizing the desperate need to know what anchors you. Is it family, your money, your identity in your work, or your spiritual grounding?"
Mathis, who has toured with rocker Liz Phair during Lilith Fair, and has played alongside the Indigo Girls, Sarah McLachlan, and Bonnie Raitt, now performs regularly at the Riverside Church in New York City.
To watch the music video for "Anchor," click here.
Once upon a time there was an actor named Tom Cruise. He was king of the box office; everyone wanted to work with him. Heck, even Rosie O'Donnell had a crush on him.
And then something odd happened.
He jumped on a couch. On national television.
Tom had been practicing a controversial religion for years without attracting much controversy himself. In fact, he'd credited said religion with helping him overcome dyslexia, and who could find that bad? But with escalating bizarre behavior, people began to wonder; wonder what exactly happened to everyone's favorite All-American actor and what his belief system had to do with it. The once "Top Gun" star had become an anathema, total tabloid fodder.
And now it's not just the gossip mags taking shots at the Scientologist. The NY Post reports that Mayor Bloomberg "blasted" city councilman Hiram Monserrate for drafting an official proclamation honoring Cruise for his founding and work with the controversial New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project--a free clinic providing services to 9/11 rescue workers using theories of "detoxification"--marathon sauna sessions and ingesting massive quantities of vitamins, mainly niacin--as prescribed by Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard. The late Hubbard is also, reportedly, honored in the proclamation.
The councilman claims that the proclamation "has zero to do with Scientology," and everything to do with philanthropy. But Mayor Bloomberg emphatically disagreed, saying "I don't think it's appropriate to do that."
I think that reputable scientists do not think Scientology has any basis in science. It may be a cult, it may be a religion, it may be beliefs. It's other things, but it's not science, and we should only fund those programs that reputable scientists believe will stand the light of day and the scientific method."
In fact, many scientists fear that the treatments, far from being helpful, are potentially very harmful. The Post points out that Council Speaker Christine Quinn said that the program was not supported by "any legitimate upstanding scientist" and that she would put to the membership a proposal to examine that, in the future, proclamations would be split into two categories: "those signed by the speaker reflecting the view of the entire council and those issued by a single member reflecting just his or her view."
Now, this is news: Tom Cruise is actually affecting the course of a governmental body.
But, not to worry. On the very same day that Tom and his "brainwashed" bride, actress Katie Holmes, were attending a $6,250-a-ticket fund-raiser for the program in Manhattan, they still managed to make it into Page Six territory.
Life & Style Magazine (via MSNBC's Scoop) reports that Katie is "quietly reclaiming parts of her past"--reconnecting with family and friends in Ohio and even consulting a Catholic priest about "kiddie Catholicism" classes! If, as Scientologists claim, you can be any religion and still practice Scientology, should this tidbit about Katie reconnecting with Catholicism be grist for the gossip mill? It shouldn't be a big deal, right? Precisely.
Tom Cruise used to be Scientology's biggest and best salesman. Now, he seems like a cautionary tale. (How many people do you know who wouldn't see "Mission Impossible III" thanks to Cruise’s wacky behavior and literally out-of-this-world beliefs?)
It's too late for Cruise to become a stealth Scientologist like Beck and Jason Lee, who rarely discuss their beliefs in t
he media. Perhaps he could take it down to Kirstie Alley-esque levels: Sure she talks about it once in a while, but not with crazed evangelical zeal. Plus, she connects with the common people, working with Jenny Craig and shilling for Pier One.
Maybe he can't recapture his "Born on the 4th of July" glory days, even with running his own studio. But, Tom, for the public's sake, please give it a try. I'm tired of seeing Nicholas Cage and his bad hairpieces in roles you were meant to play.
Listening to pop/gospel artist Nicole C. Mullen's powerful vocal gymnastics on songs like "Call on Jesus" and "Redeemer" has long been an antidote for lifting my spirits whenever I'm feeling a little blue. So it was difficult not to feel some significant disappointment at first when I listened to her latest effort, "Sharecropper's Seed, Volume 1." This is a softer, more reflective Mullen and, after a second listen, I realized that although the album has a few stellar moments, Mullen's new, more mature style-- which focuses on spare musical arrangements--might take a little getting use to for her fans.
Mullen draws from her family experiences for several songs on "Sharecropper’s Seed," but does so effectively only on the title track, in which she tenderly looks back at her family's difficult, yet priceless, spiritual legacy. The other songs like "Baby Love" and "When I Grow Up" feel so intimate and personal that they leave the listener feeling awkwardly uncomfortable--like an outsider who is eavesdropping on a someone's private conversation.
There are also the prerequsite worship songs that Mullen's fans have come to expect, but songs like "Elohim" and "Convinced," while thoroughly enjoyable, are still too predictable and just don't have the depth of her previous work. The closest Mullen gets to her past worship efforts is on the song "Fall," in which she passionately expresses the beauty of letting go of life's troubles and relying on the grace of God.
So while I am not sure there is a memorable blockbuster on "Sharecropper," I think Mullen hits just enough emotional notes--as well as musical ones--to make keep most of her fans happy, while her mellower style may attract a few new ones.
"We're always looking for a seder. This year we [she and husband Matthew Broderick] drove four and a half hours to go to a Rosh Hashanah dinner." -- Actress Sarah Jessica Parker, quoted in "Stars of David: Prominent Jews Talk About Being Jewish," by Abigail Pogrebin
I was recently rereading an interview with Sarah Jessica Parker in "Stars of David," in which the "Sex and the City" actress complained about her complicated relationship with organized Judaism. When she walks into a synagogue, she complained, she feels alienated, like she doesn't have enough of an education to participate. She also doesn't seem to have a community to celebrate with, driving hours to get to a dinner for Rosh Hashanah and "always looking for a seder."
In New York City, where Parker lives with her husband, Matthew Broderick and their son, you don't have to look far to find a seder. And there's no reason for SJP or other Jewish celebs to drive five hours for a Rosh Hashanah dinner. My Upper West Side studio may be small, but she, Matthew, and their son are more than welcome at my Rosh Hashanah dinners. If it's a seder she wants, next year, they're welcome at my parents' house in New Jersey for wine, matzah, and various unleavened foods as we read through the Haggadah. In our house, if you don't understand, we explain. If something we've read reminds you of something in your secular life, we listen to what you have to share. We laugh at certain inconsistencies and take a slightly irreverent approach. It's really quite celebrity-friendly.
But aside from Kabbalah and Scientology--celebrity religions in their own category--I can't really think of many celebrities who publicly celebrate religious holidays. Sure, there's commercialized Christmas, with its abundance of holiday episodes of TV shows and Christmas-themed movies. And there's dressing up for Halloween. But beyond that, it's hard to think of any celebrities who publicly celebrate religion. I'm sure it happens, but it's hard to come up with examples.
Is this a consciously strategized PR choice, because they're afraid they'll be branded as right-wing, conservative fanatics and pigeonholed into or out of certain projects? Or do they celebrate, but it's just not publicized? And is it their responsibility as prominent public figures that celebrities represent their religions, if only to provide positive religious role models for the children of the world?
What do you think?
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 11:45 AM | Permalink |
Back when Kristin Chenoweth had her own television show, she told Beliefnet that she hoped the show would "show the human face of Christianity." Nowadays, it's more than the face of Christianity that Chenoweth is showing. She appears nude (tastefully) in the May issue of the beauty magazine Allure, in a portfolio of actresses who bare all in the name of encouraging the magazine's readers to be proud of their own bodies.
More than her skittishness about her belly flab ("I'm not at my 'TV weight' right now," she reports), the "Wicked" star expresses nervousness about what fellow believers will think of the state of her soul. "I'm very religious," she says. "There are going to be some people who don't like that I did this, but I just pray to God that I've made the right decision."
We'd be praying along with Chenoweth if it were the first time she'd exposed her flesh for the camera. But a little more than a year ago she posed for a gallery in FHM, a magazine for immature--uh, young men. For FHM she wore a series of well-chosen bikinis; in Allure it's an artfully placed length of driftwood. But her publicist likely had more to do with both than the Lord. (We also wonder how inspired the average reader will be by nude photos of the likes of Chenoweth, Carla Gugino, Vanessa Williams or R&B singer Cassie, none of whom have any apparent flaws. But that's another post …)
From Sherlock Holmes to "Dragnet" to "CSI," we like to see a killer get his, in the form of comeuppance when the detective solves the crime, or in the judge's sentence, or best of all when he (or she) comes to some deservedly untimely end. But what's the opposite of typical justice? You'll see it in Sunday's made-for-TV movie "Crossroads," on CBS.
Justice is served perfectly when a grieving man works out a deal with the teenaged killer of his wife and child that gives them both new life. What's amiss here is that "Crossroads," a Hallmark Hall of Fame Presentation, touts itself as tale of forgiveness, which, some would say, is precisely what justice is not.
Not to say that the Bruce Murakami, the real-life man whose story is told in "Crossroads" and played here by Dean Cain (Superman on "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman"), didn't forgive the real-life Justin Gutierrez after the drag-racing teen plowed into the family van carrying Cindy and Chelsea Murakami. In an interview with Murakami provided by Hallmark, he relates how, alone in the midst of grieving, he would say aloud, "I forgive you, Justin."
No less astonishing is the plea bargain that Murakami worked out with Gutierrez after four years of delays by the teenager's defense team. "I ruined five lives that day," says Gutierrez in Hallmark's version of the events that began with the crash in November 1998. "Six if you count me. Eight if you count my parents." Murakami's decision to wrest the power of justice from the courts was an uplifting, even transforming decision for both families involved.
Perhaps in hopes of breathing life into their fading made-for-TV movie franchise, Hallmark handed "Crossroads" to director John Kent Harrison, whose John Paul II bio-pic was considered a solid example of the genre. Harrison tells the story in large part as a crime procedural. Cain is nicely cast as the hot-headed Murakami, who at first demands justice for the perished members of his family and who blindly ignores his two sons in his grief.
The movie only skims the surface of its spiritual subject, however. The script telescopes the timeline into what seems like a few weeks, inhibiting our understanding of Murakami's emotional arc and needlessly babying the viewer. Worse, it unquestioningly depicts Murakami's first sight of Gutierrez: Expecting a metal-head, multiply pierced thug, he is jarred to encounter a clean-cut prep--so would a thug be any less deserving of his compassion?
Not everyone would agree that what Murakami does serves either God or humans. "Crossroads" shirks this debate, and never asks about the difference between the deal Murakami struck with his wife's killer and the open-ended forgiveness the real Murakami felt in his darkest moments. Instead, forgiveness remains unexplored territory in the media: Strange, since virtue occupies such a central place in the Christian teachings so widely ascribed to in our culture, articulated so plainly in the Lord's Prayer said by millions every week.
I never had the chance to see "The Last King of Scotland," which tells the tale of psychotic Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, when it first came out. I was expecting a very different movie than the one I saw when I watched it on DVD this week.
The movie is not so much a look inside the mind of a power-hungry madman as it is a powerful commentary about the consequences of everyday people ignoring the warnings of evil taking root. In light of current events such as the Virginia Tech shooting and the ongoing White House staff investigations, I found the movie especially thought provoking and worthy of discussion. So "Last King" is my DVD pick for this weekend.
"The Last King of Scotland" begins with Idi Amin's ascendence into power after another Ugandan dictator had been overthrown. It then follows his government up until a few days before Amin himself is taken out of power and eventually exiled. However, the entire story is told through the eyes of a somewhat naive and morally shallow Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan, and it could be argued that perhaps he is the one the title of the movie is referring to. The doctor originally comes to Uganda to do relief work, but soon finds himself a close advisor to Amin--a man who claims to love Scottish people for their brave warrior-like history.
What is affecting about this drama is that Garrigan is given numerous warnings by many others around him that Amin is not the charming man Garrigan thinks he is. He is also warned that his association with Amin will end badly if he is not careful. Yet Garrigan, even as he sees Amin's erratic behavior, continues to allow himself to be sucked into this privileged, insular world. When he does finally make a decision to escape from Amin, it is too late to do so.
The ending of the story seems to teach that change only happens when individuals stop ignoring signs of evil corruption and instead use their lives as a witness--sacrificially if necessary--to tell others about what is happening. Then the community can defend those who will be the victims of that corruption or evil. If we don't, we are as guilty as the ones perpetrating the crimes.
It's a truth that sounds so simple, but as we have been reminded this week in the news, is actually quite complicated. Or is it?
Pairs of hands all over the country were clasped in prayer last night. "Thank you, God," said thousands of mouths, exalting their voices to the divine. Were they thanking Him for good weather, for providing food, or for curing a sick loved one?
No. They were thanking Him for finally getting Sanjaya off of "American Idol."
Sanjaya Malakar, a 17-year-old from Washington State, has been the single most talked-about candidate on the show this season. Not because he's the best. Not because people loved the inspiring story of how he couldn't be happy he made the Top 40 because his own twin sister got cut. No, the reason he was so popular was this: He had little talent (except for his hair, maybe).
To be fair, I liked Sanjaya until he made the top 24. He came off as a sweet, although kind of naive, kid. I preferred his voice to those of other male contestants like Sundance Head, Jared Cotter, and the way-overrated Chris Richardson. It wasn't until Sanjaya made the top 12 and had to sing next to people like frontrunner Melinda Doolittle, that it became clear how outclassed he was. Then he became the darling of Web site www.votefortheworst.com (which asks people to vote for the least talented singer on "Idol," thus undermining the show from within) and Howard Stern, who urged his listeners to vote for Sanjaya.
Here's one thing I think went largely missing in the hubbub surrounding Sanjaya, whose increasingly wacky hairstyles and underwhelming performances became more interesting than anything else on the show: He's 17. I don't care how mature he is, he's still 17. The second youngest male contestant on the show, Chris Richardson, is 23. The other teenager on the show, Jordin Sparks, has been mostly praised by the judges and in the press.
I remember myself at 17--major body image issues, definitely not comfortable in my own skin. If you'd put me on TV and made me endure the kind of public ridicule Sanjaya's been subjected to, I would have needed psychological counseling.
In a season that even the judges have called lackluster, Sanjaya was used to get people to tune in. The more people hated Sanjaya, the more they tuned in to mock his singing and see what crazy outfit he'd come out wearing next. The show capitalized on his unpopularity. The only winner was "American Idol," who spits out aspiring performers with no remorse while collecting enough ad revenue to feed a third-world country. And why were they able to keep getting away with it? Because you, and me, and plenty of other Americans kept watching. Because we implicitly tell the producers their cruelty is okay by continuing to endorse their program.
We are all Sanjaya. If you were on the street and fell, would you want people to point and laugh, or would you want them to help you up? What if they broadcast your fall on TV and asked the whole world to laugh at you? Sanjaya managed to keep a sense of humor about being constantly mocked. I doubt I could do the same.
If you're going to thank God that Sanjaya is kicked off the show, at least thank God that this guy won't have to keep dealing with being regularly humiliated on television.
Turns out that Desmond David Hume on "Lost," the character most memorable for calling everybody "brothuuh," (heavy on the accent), is actually an ex-brother! (well, ex-monk, but close enough). This shocking revelation was revealed on last night's episode, "Catch-22."
Here's the story: Desmond convinces Hurley, Charlie, and Jin to trek with him through the jungle in pursuit of Penny, his long lost love. Desmond believes she has somehow traveled to the island in search of him. In between events on their journey, audiences are treated to "before-Penny" flashbacks of Desmond's attempt to become a monk after jilting a different girlfriend of six years one week before the wedding.
The flashbacks include all sorts of interesting religious parallels: At Desmond's monastery they bottle wine called "Moriah Vineyards"--the name of the mountain where the Prophet Abraham takes Isaac to be sacrificed, according to many religions' scriptures. (Is Desmond the island's Abraham, who is supposed to trust God and take Charlie for slaughter--but then fails?) We also learn that Desmond left his fiance for the monastery because he awakens in the street one morning to find a monk offering his hand to him, and suddenly Desmond believes he has a "higher calling."
But it turns out, "the brothuuhs" decide he's not meant for the monastery and ask Desmond to leave while he's still a novice. He has an even higher calling, one of the monks tells Desmond before he's off on his way.
Is Desmond's higher calling wrapped up with Penny somehow? The last scene has Desmond meeting Penny as he's packing up to go. Is it Desmond's destiny to always run from his calling--since he runs from Penny too, just as he runs from Charlie's death?
For the first time in the current season of Fox’s "24," the show finally became interesting again (at least for me) because it returned to the kind of ethical and moral drama that had made it great for its first five seasons.
Through most of this season the main plot device has been the attempt to find and stop a terrorist group in possession of nuclear bombs on American soil. To be honest, it felt largely like an elongated miniseries, with Jack playing a one-dimensional savior character willing to ask, gently urge, strongly persuade, and forcefully threaten even his friends to accomplish his mission his way.
But just one week after the season’s major plot device was concluded (the bombs were recovered and the terrorists caught or killed), several of this year’s main characters found themselves wound up into the kind of mind-numbing and heart-wrenching choices that brought power to the first several seasons. I believe this brought "24" back to its most poignant and authentic dramatic core--where the choices of many characters are challenged by the beliefs and convictions they’ve been trained in versus the awful choices they must make in situations they never could have imagined.
In this one episode:
A CTU operative is asked to violate protocols and national policy to help save an agent in peril.
An alcoholic, whose secret has been protected by a friend, borders on betraying that same friend when she wants to keep a secret from the boss.
The chief-of-staff is asked to reveal damaging information about the vice president, information that he has sought to conceal from the president for his own good.
The president makes a bold move in asking his subversive vice president to resign (after his coup attempt failed) "for the good of the country." Only through the threat of exposure was the veep willing to resign.
Moments from handing in his resignation letter, the vice president sees the president having a stroke and must choose between following through with his resignation or seizing another opportunity to claim power.
Taking temporary authority, the vice president must decide whether to allow covert actions to continue or recall Jack Bauer per the veep's own (and different) preferred course.
Jack Bauer calls in every favor to negotiate for the right to betray Russia and give its secret technology to the Chinese, and now he threatens to shoot his second partner of the day unless his orders are followed.
Even in this dramatic context these events are fantastic and over-the-top, but they help remind each of us that what we’ve been trained in (and what we think we believe) can always be challenged by unforeseen circumstances. This leaves us at that risky crossing between the convictions and ethics that got us this far and the situation we’re facing at the time. To that degree, '24' regained some of its inspiring quality this week, and I’m genuinely interested to see the consequences that come from the choices these characters are making.
Like the Toyota Prius, "Drive," the FOX network's latest offering is a hybrid. The show is essentially about a group of Americans who are participating in a secret, illegal cross-country road race. It's one-third conventional car chase show (think "Starsky & Hutch," and "ChiPs") and two-thirds thriller with mysterious characters show (think "Lost"). Throw in a dash of "Death Race 2000" and a pinch of "The Running Man" to illustrate the plight of those characters coerced into competing, and you’ve got yourself a new Monday night regular.
Co-executive produced by Tim Minear, who also worked on "Angel," "Wonderfalls," and "Firefly," the show is a ramped up "Amazing Race," pitting couples--related or complete strangers--against each other in cell phone-delivered, clue-driven legs to win $32 million dollars, tax free.
The race, the introductory voiceover tells us, has been around since the dawn of the automobile. We learn that no one is randomly in the race, that each racer is chosen or allowed to participate for a reason. And there are hints given that each racer has a patron. To finish one of the legs last is a bad thing since you will be forced to partake in an elimination. But therein lies the rub, it's not your own elimination. And yes, it's as ominous as it sounds.
Sunday's pilot started a bit slowly, but really revved up by the end. While the people behind the race are portrayed at turns as heartlessly callous, fiendishly evil, and dryly funny corporate types, it dawned on me that "the people" behind the race may be felonious Dr. Phils looking to empower the racers: For instance, abused wife Wendy Patrakas' (played with absolute brilliance by "Heavenly Creature's" Melanie Lynskey) son Sam is held hostage so she'll compete in the race. But at the same time, they are allowing Wendy to defy her abusive husband--something she never would have thought of doing pre-race. The patrons protect her at times, and they help her discover just how far she would go for her son.
Certainly, an argument can be made that the show is in a way all about moral relativism. Here's poor Wendy, whose baby has been kidnapped, forced to drive in this race. She comes in last on the first leg and is given a gun and told to eliminate another contestant. While seated in a diner scouting her target, the waitress--one of several omnipresent bit players who cajole and advise our protagonists--tells Wendy that shooting someone isn't necessarily wrong: "Would anyone blame a lioness for protecting her cub?"
But, it’s the "Thelma and Louise"-like empowerment that is powering Wendy's storyline. In fact, at several points the affable, accountant-looking race host/guide points out her ingenuity and her strength.
The same goes for Alex Tully, a landscaper from Hastings, Nebraska (played by the fantastic Nathan Fillion) who is dragged from his car by a fake state trooper only to be accused of a crime he says he didn't commit. Unlike "Lost" we don't get flashbacks of characters' pasts, just allusions. Realizing he is losing valuable drive time, Tully tells the trooper that he isn't the man he's looking for and that he has to go since he's participating in a secret road race to win back his kidnapped wife. He gets off, and gets a new car to boot. And more secrets are revealed.
Each participant has their own story to tell: The woman who witnessed her parents die in the race when she was a young girl; the dying father with sa assy teen daughter; the just-married soldier just back from Iraq; the local heroes who helped carry hospital patients to safety during Katrina; the rich boy and long-lost hoodlum half-brother. And like "Heroes," we are eager to learn more about each character and are rewar
ded with interesting plot twists. Suffice to say, "Drive" is intriguing and fun ride.
Lately Sean Penn is known more for his provocative political stances, writing about "human shields" in Iraq and documenting a diplomatic visit to Iran, than his provocative roles in films such as "Mystic River" and "Dead Man Walking." That's why local Oahu residents are angered over the controversy-creating activist-actor's recent vacation at Oahu's Turtle Bay Resort, which has plans to expand along the already crowded North Shore in Hawaii.
Hollywood, Interrupted reports that "Protestors against the Turtle Bay project are concerned that the development scheme to add literally thousands of rooms and additional luxury condominiums to the existing urbanizing blight not only poses an environmental threat to the rural North Shore, but it also desecrates ancestral burial grounds and, overall, will ruin the way of life for the local community."
Locals are not only "disgusted" that Penn spent $1,000 a night to stay at the posh resort, but are confused as to why the normally outspoken star has remained mum about the cause when it seems like something Penn would support.
"It's bad enough that Turtle Bay is built upon my ancestors' bones, but the idea that Sean Penn would pay to support what we've been protesting for thirty years makes me sick," one local told the website. "You'd think even Jeff Spicoli [Penn's stoned, surfer character] would have more sense than that."
Or, as Spicoli might say to Penn, "Hey bud, what's your problem?"
She shares her name with the holy mother, but Marie Osmond's estranged husband is claiming that the Mormon entertainer and entrepreneur doesn't share Mary's maternal proclivities.
Even though Osmond and her husband of 20 years, music producer Brian Blosil, issued a joint statement saying that "Our marriage has always been a faithful one, and neither of us is assigning fault for the divorce," it seems that Blosil isn't having any trouble assigning the blame. According to MSNBC.com's Scoop, an "insider" recently told Star magazine that Blosil feels that Osmond's ambition is to be blamed for the demise of their marriage.
In addition to her singing career, Osmond co-hosted a talk show with her brother Donny, recently judged "Celebrity Duets," and has a doll collection and clothing line available through QVC.
"Brian told me 'This all stems from Marie’s career,'" the source told Star. "He said, 'Marie feels God put her in show business and that should be the most important thing in the world--that everyone should kowtow to what ever project she’s working on at the time. I think family should come first.'"
Certainly, divorce is not an ideal situation, and the Church of Latter-Day Saints does discourage the practice--though it does recognize the need for it. But the previously divorced Osmond, who has 8 children with Blosil, may be succumbing to a reality that many celebrities couples and "regular" couples face--the all-consuming career. But in Osmond's case, perhaps an argument can be made that she is answering to a Higher Agent, as it were. The Osmonds did help turn the popular conception of Mormonism from a mysterious, polygamous religion into a squeaky clean, family-friendly faith. Perfect, populist PR.
Chat about Osmond and learn more about Mormonism and divorce on our discussion boards.
At times of national crisis like this, it must be hard to be a professional comedian, especially one with a nightly show and millions of viewers. Luckily, Jay Leno is a class act who performed a courageous act at the start of last night's show. He came out on stage and did what every smart comedian knows never to do: He ruined his own show's chance at hilarity and laughter by starting on a hugely down note by referencing the tragedy. Yes, after all of the applause and high-fiving and music that is the start of "The Tonight Show," he then started his monologue by referencing the events at Virginia Tech, and expressed how no words could really capture or show enough respect to those suffering the pain of the dorm shootings there.
It showed how classy he really is. A pall was cast over the monologue and the crowd, and rightfully so. There's just no way to laugh or joke about that. He then went on with his show, receiving muffled laughter through most of the first part as he worked like a pro to lift the energy in the room. He worked hard for his money and by the end, respect had been paid and a few laughs had even been had.
When death or destruction get our national attention, most entertainers know how to close their act with a reflective reference or moment of silence. I don't doubt the sincerity of such tributes, but Jay graciously gave the only thing he had at this terrible time: the first and most important words of his show and the momentum he forfeited. It was truly respectful.
There's also a commentary by Leno that's making the rounds on email, and I've received it several times today. It's inspiring. It's encouraging. It's insightful. The only problem is, it's not from Jay!
It is a powerful thought, but it actually comes from Craig R. Smith at WorldNetDaily.com from Thanksgiving, 2006. The last line actually did come from Leno…back on Thanksgiving of 2005! Still, the piece is still moving and relevant today. Here are some excerpts:
"The other day I …came across…the Newseek poll alleging that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''... Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?... Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?...
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home...
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss....
How about the complete religious, social, and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?...
Think about it... are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day. Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom.... We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative....
"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and
terrorist attacks, Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" -- Jay Leno
If you haven't already seen it, make time for "The Hoax," a riveting film about Clifford Irving that's based on a true story. In 1971 Irving almost fooled publishing house McGraw-Hill into putting out his utterly fictionalized "authorized autobiography" of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes.
Watching Mr. Irving conceive the idea of the fake autobiography and deceive the big execs at McGraw-Hill and even the folks at Life Magazine into not only believing him, but buying and serializing the promised literary triumph for one million dollars (!!) is simply shocking. Was Irving simply a sucker for faith--in himself, that is--and his ability to pull off the almost-impossible?
Why did the big-time publishers put faith in Irving, who was only a poor-selling novelist and the last person on earth one would imagine Hughes choosing as his voice to the world? Didn't they ever hear of the phrase, "too good to be true?"Perhaps most stunning of all is watching Irving's own transformation from con man to believer in his own con.
If you like flicks in the genre of "All the President's Men," "Good Night and Good Luck," "Shattered Glass," and most recently, "Breach," go see this film. "The Hoax" stars Richard Gere (giving the best performance from him I've seen in ages--finally in a role that suits his age), Alfred Molina, Julie Delpy, and Hope Davis, is now playing in theaters everywhere.
Some weeks back Idol Chatter brought you the flap over Daniel Radcliffe's appearance in "Equus" on the London stage. Some British parents were aghast that the 17-year-old child star of the Harry Potter movie series would bare all (as his role required) and thereby risk scandalizing young Potterphiles. But at least one group of Radcliffe fans are wearing smiles thanks to his recent revelations.
Interfaith Family.com, a site that advocates Jewish practice among those of mixed Jewish heritage, reports that Radcliffe, whose mother is Jewish, is "a 'certified tribe member' in at least one respect." Though Radcliffe has said in the past that he is not religious, an Interfaith Family writer claims to know "someone who saw the London stage production from a close-to-front row seat," and confirms that "it appears he had the procedure that almost all Jewish boys have when they are eight days old." (You fill in the blanks.)
The clincher, according to Interfaith Family, is that said surgery is " rarely performed nowadays on English Christian boys." We throw the question out to our readers on the British Isle: Does Interfaith Family's claim stand up? Click here for the Interfaith Family story; scroll down past the menschy Shia LeBeouf and slinky Amanda Byrnes.
When I worked in Residence Life at Georgetown University, one of the resident assitants (R.A.'s) on my staff was a young, beautiful Muslim woman who always wore a head scarf and whose clothes extended to her wrists and ankles. Her fashion sense was stunning, and each time I saw her I was amazed by her array of gorgeous, brightly colored scarves and the creative ways she found to wear them.
'''Injecting fashion into a traditional Muslim wardrobe is ''walking a fine line,'' said Dilshad D. Ali, the Islam editor [and one of my Idol Chatter editors] of Beliefnet.com, a Web site for spiritual seekers. A flash point for controversy is the hijab, which is viewed by some as a politically charged symbol of radical Islam and of female subjugation that invites reactions from curiosity to outright hostility.
"In purely aesthetic terms, the devout must work to evolve a style that is attractive but not provocative, demure but not dour--friendly to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. 'Some young women follow the letter of the rule,' Ms. Ali observed. Others are more flexible. ''Maybe their shirts are tight. Maybe the scarf is not really covering their chest, and older Muslim women's tongues will wag.'''
Young Muslim women in the West struggle to decide where to stand on a line where at one end one dresses more conservatively, and at the other end boundaries are pushed pretty hard, La Ferla reports. And these women must make these decisions in a culture where it is difficult to find shops that cater to Muslim women at all--never mind style-conscious young women.
The young women whose photographs are featured seem to have figured things out. Nobody would doubt their fashion sense, and I certainly came away reminded how beautiful (while still modest) a hijab can make a young woman's face--framing her features and drawing them out. One woman even had leopard print stockings to boot!
We've all waxed poetic about Imus, his apology and his punishment, but now it's time to get down to business.
This isn't about the shocking nature of Imus's comment--whether it is racist or sexist--it is about morality. During one of his apologies, Imus said he knew the phrase he used came from the black community. He went further by saying, "I'm not stupid. I may be a white man, but I know that these young women--and young black women all through that society--are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected by their own black men and they are called that name. I know that doesn't give me, obviously, any right to say it, but it doesn't give them any right to say it either." And the flood gates opened...
Imus' defense is, basically, that black people use this language, so why can't I? And as much as I hate to admit it given my feelings about Imus these days, he's right on this point. It's time for rap artists to clean up their language and stop pretending they operate by a different set of standards. Just as we are holding Imus, MSNBC, and CBS accountable for their actions, it is time for us to hold rappers to a higher level of accountability for the music they create.
Music has great influence over our culture, and no genre of music has been more influential within the past few years than rap. With its infectious beats and infecting lyrics, I've watched rap music destroy the minds and lives of many.
How can music have that much power? It has that much power when the only thing you hear or watch on television is the degradation of women through misogynistic lyrics and imagery. It has that much power when the record execs applaud their artists for creating music devoid of substance. It has that much power when we just sit back and watch our society crumble in the hands of ignorant rappers who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
Snoop Dogg believes that he and other rappers cannot be compared to Imus, that the white guy should be condemned for using derogatory language while the rap artists should get a free pass. In a story posted on MTV.com, Snoop said, "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money." Snoop, you may not be talking about "no collegiate basketball girls" in your music, but you do rap about women being "ho's" without specifying why you use that term about them. That is someone's mother, daughter, or sister that you are rapping about. So, unfortunately, your definition of what makes a woman a "ho" will always fall on deaf ears until the day your realize there is never an appropriate time to call a woman a "ho."
What Snoop and other rappers forget is that while they differ from Imus in race and perspective, they all operate within a sphere of influence capable of either building up or destroying minds.
These rappers need to stop being so selfish in assuming that everyone is smart enough to see through their self-evident ignorance. Their lack of moral compass has steered our society off the mountain and into the pit. There has never been a clearer arrow that points to why our children curse like sailors, have the sexual proclivity of a man on Viagra, and possess minds unable to comprehend academic work nearly as much as they can retain lyrics to the latest rap song ba
r for bar. Scripture says that the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword able to cut between soul and spirit, bone and marrow. But for these perilous times, some of the rap music that exists can be just as powerful and consuming.
It's time to put an end to this foolishness and stop handling these rappers with kid gloves and letting them run free every time they cry "I'm innocent." Young minds are at stake every time they turn on the television and see a man disrespecting a woman, sliding a credit card down the crack of her backside--thanks, Nelly--or just allowing women to exploit themselves in a music video for a crummy paycheck. (Yes, the women agree to be in these videos by their own free will, but when will you decide you don't want them to sell themselves to the highest bidder anymore?) Young ears are being flooded with the poisonous lyrics of today's rap music. Stop conveying the message that it could ever be appropriate to call a woman a "'ho" or a "b*tch"--regardless of what you personally know about them. It's not okay, ever--whether you're an African American rapper or a white talk-radio shock jock.
A few weeks ago, at a women's conference I attended, the Rev. Claudette Copeland said that we all have a capacity to either do great good or great harm. The former leads to experiencing God's ever-increasing glory and the latter just leads to misery. Rappers have that same capacity to use their ability to rap--which could be seen as a God-given gift--to glorify God, to edify people, and to spread love. Proverbs 18:21 says "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." It's time for everyone to stand up against the bullies of the rap music industry while it is slowly picking away at the moral fibers of our world. It's time for CDs to burn in the bonfire, for letters to be written, for televisions to be turned off and iPod earbuds to be yanked off, all in favor of cleansing what good remains. It is time for the healing, and it is a village effort.
I don't have the same point of view as my esteemed Idol Chatter colleague Nicole Symmonds, who wrote that "you couldn't have said a more racially-charged comment," and "the apology is not accepted." Writing before Mr. Imus was fired, she called for his show to be cancelled.
I disagree sharply. I don't think Imus should have been fired, as it sends the completely wrong message and serves to sustain a media culture that raises up politickers and posers rather than authentic leaders who can bring the effective kind of spiritually empowering message that we so desperately need to send, especially to our young people.
Let me be clear: Nothing Mr. Imus said was funny, nor right, nor righteous, nor deserved, nor respectful, nor appropriate. There was just nothing good about them. The girls he insulted are college women who are overachieving and inspiring. And this isn't a question of liberal vs. conservative or religious vs. secular; if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell were playing politics like this, I'd criticize them as well.
Consider the way this has gone down, and tell me if these young women haven't been used for the benefit of others, pawns in a political game:
• Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (among others) have attracted their share of the spotlight, even though their divisive approach exists more to serve them than it does the young ladies, the country, or our young people. Where are the leaders stepping up to state that Mr. Imus doesn't have any relevance unless others give it to him? Where are the leaders stepping up to say to a nation of young women (and all young athletes) that when we let the words of another person take away our esteem and confidence, it is us who are giving them that power, not them taking it?
• NBC and CBS distanced themselves from Imus by firing him, seeming to display a strong moral standard from the corporate office. The problem is that they act as if they never knew (or approved) of his show, which regularly features comments that would be offensive, if they were at all relevant. The truth is, they've profited from Imus's show and now feel as if they would no longer profit from it, so a business decision was made. The time for moral leadership would have been to have decided years ago never to fill that airtime with such irrelevant and offensive banter in the first place.
• Many news networks, newspapers, magazines ,and blogs have enjoyed increased exposure and traffic by bringing more attention to this, rarely offering solutions or answers but certainly attracting market share by sustaining the story. I suspect that by the time Sunday comes, there will be even more views expressed on the Sunday magazine shows.
• Several of the candidates running for office have chosen to use this incident as a platform for advancing their own cause. Worse, there will be those criticized in the media if they don't speak out on this, further elevating what should never have been the status given Mr. Imus' words.
In my mind, the angst that will forever be a memory for the Rutgers' team was created as much by the cultural and media forces working in response to Mr. Imus's words as much as it was a product of his words themselves.
If only there would have been those (from Rutgers) who'd have quickly stepped up to simply say, "Don't make a story out of this; make a story about our team, their play, their character, or their academics, but not about this. We won't let his lessen the luster of our season. He's irrelevant to us, so don't give him or his words any wider microphone than they've already had, and our girls know they're not victims unless they allow it."
What if these classy young ladies at Rutgers--many who've professed their Christian faith on recent news shows) could have
stood up and told the world: "Yes, this man said things that were intolerable and completely unredeeming. But you know what? We're not perfect, either, and on this week after Easter, we know that Jesus died for us and forgave us for everything we would ever do wrong, and we offer forgiveness in that spirit--and by that power--to Mr. Imus. We don't offer it because he deserves it, or because his apology is 'enough.' We don't offer it because he's appealed to the right media mediator or said the contrite things. We offer it because God has offered it to us. It is unconditional. It is grace. It is undeserved."
But the overwhelming pressure of media powerhouses and organizational operatives was too strong for this group of wonderful students. Let's start training the next group--wherever they are--to stand as strong against the news-and-protest side of our culture as they do against the entertainment side. And, let's help them find the leadership organizations and houses of worship that will draw them away from the politickers and posers and towards those who truly exist for their benefit.
The most wonderful miracle--the hallmarks of the spiritual high ground, including contrition, repentance, forgiveness, and unity--didn't happen here, and it won't as long as wonderful chances for authentic spiritual leadership can't make it credibly into our current media culture. And simply firing Mr. Imus doesn't rise to the level of what's needed to truly help that cause.
The question, to me, is not whether Imus should have been fired for his comments about the Rutgers women's basketball players; it's why he was fired for these comments in particular--or rather, why he, and countless other shock-jocks like him, weren't fired sooner for any number of other immoral comments and "jokes."
Let's be clear: spewing insensitive and hateful invectives was Imus' job. The tools of his trade are comments that are focused on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., etc., etc. You almost feel bad for the guy. I'm guessing he genuinely has not clue why these comments were over the line when everything else he's said a million other times were somehow OK. I suppose the consequences this time had to do with his targets--inspiring student athletes, rather than reviled politicians or trashy tabloid starlets--and the way the media works and how stories get picked up and amplified. But that doesn't change the fact that Imus represents a part of our culture of which we should all be ashamed. The truth is that our talk radio waves are no place for decent human beings--and yet we've turned those voices of indecency into megacelebrities.
And the problem is not just the Howard Stern-wannabe morning shock jocks like Imus. Perhaps more insidious are Rush Limbaugh and his political talker ilk, people who can hide behind the veneer of focusing on high-minded public-policy and values issues while dehumanizing and degrading their targets. The careers of these political shock jocks are no less based on insult and hate than Imus' and Stern's. Both groups are paid to provoke--one to provoke laughs, the other to provoke indignation--but nowhere is there a value on provoking thought, dialogue, and curiosity. In her Idol Chatter piece, Nicole Symmonds blames rap music for ruining the minds of a generation of children, making vulgar talk and crude behavior mainstream among young people; I'd blame (in part only) talk radio for helping to similarly damage a generation of adults.
I am most definitely not opposed to art, or even discourse, that is edgy, potentially offensive, or unpopular; not everything needs to be affirmations and lollipops. But crass has moved from the margins to the mainstream; it is the default, the expected, and that's where the problem is. Edgy has no edgy anymore and we are desensitized to the supposedly shocking. Imus' show was a popular forum for respectable, mainstram politicians. There was a time in this country when political discussion was not an oxymoron; when crassness was edgy (when done cleverly) and something to be a bit embarrassed by; when members of a political party could hold diverse views--even disagreeing with their party leaders--and not be derided for it; when we could talk about the issues that divide us without painting the other as evil, resorting to distortions to put down those with whom we disagree.
The end of civility is not only the fault of talk radio, to be sure. I hate to shoot fish in a barrel by blaming the media, but the endless drivel on cable television--just a visual version of talk radio--and the noxious lawlessness of the blogosphere play their roles, along with a million other factors. But talk radio--in its political and its shock-jock forms--seems to be the granddaddy of them all, paving the way for its TV and web-based cousins to push the line even further away from anything recognizable as decency.
The defense is always that free speech protects their comments--true enough, no argument there--and that the marketplace, the money-making massive popularity of these shows is its own proof of acceptability. But our lowes
t common denominators shouldn't be bar for judging community standards, nor does surrendering to our bases instincts define our morality. Now that Imus' show is history, let's stop the holier-than-thou condemnations and look within at the ways we've all contributed to the atmosphere that took the shock out of shock jock and allowed Imus--and Stern and Limbaugh and so many others--to thrive. And let's use this moment to start a national dialogue--a real one, not a talk-radio insult-fest--about what we really want from our media.
Liz Hurley, the one-time face of Estee Lauder, and Arun Nayar's Hindu wedding has already stirred controversy amongst Hindu traditionalists for being performed after the London-based Christian rite, but one Indian man is taking it one step further. According to Access Hollywood, via MSNBC.com, the man, who knows neither bride nor groom, is trying to have their Indian nuptials declared illegal on the following grounds:
Hurley showed excess flesh in her Indian garb.
There was kissing during the ceremony, which is against Hindu culture.
Alcohol was consumed before the wedding.
Hurley did not removing her leather shoes during the ceremony.
Apparently, the preternaturally good looking couple could "face arrest charges of a 'deliberate and malicious act' against the religion." To make matters worse, Britain's Sunday Mirror reports that Nayar's father is disowning his son due to the couple placing "more importance on showing off than their own family."
An Indian court will hear testimony, and the couple could face up to three years in prison. Happiest day of Hurleys life, indeed. So you tell me: Are the Hindus who are stirring up the controversy making way too much out of this, or did the couple really cross some important faith and culture lines?
Author Kurt Vonnegut, the man best known for writing the dark, satirical novel "Slaughterhouse Five" died Wednesday at 84, leaving behind a literary legacy founded on a restless angst in search of truth. His novels and essays never stopped attacking the flaws and hypocrisies of societal institutions in all shapes and forms. His works always, in one bizarre way or another, asked the big questions about life, like "Why are we here?", "Are there consequences for our choices as a culture?", and "Where is God in all of this mess?"
It is the question of the existence of God that Vonnegut seems to have wrestled with the most in his lifetime. In interviews, he attacked evolutionists as well as Christian extremists, and in speeches referred to himself as a humanist who lived "without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife." He is a man who said, "If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music," while also once saying in a speech, "And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, 'Kurt is up in Heaven now.' That's my favorite joke."
However, if Vonnegut was never completely convinced of the existence of God, he was clear on his role as a writer. He didn't hesitate to refer to himself as a prophet in the Old Testament style of Jeremiah, trying to warn anyone who would listen that our world is on a path to a cultural and literal apocalypse. And while his razor-sharp insights and literary wit will long be treasured and discussed, in my mind, considering Vonnegut a prophet is inaccurate. Vonnegut, like so many other artists of his generation, seemed to lose sight of the fact that a true prophet not only points out the sins of society but also points the way to a greater truth that provides hope and a way out of our sin.
After several posts right here on Idol Chatter in the last few months begging and pleading for Chatter readers to watch the small town drama "Friday Night Lights," it seems NBC has finally listened to me--and you. The good news is that NBC has renewed "Lights" for at least six episodes next fall, and I am sure all of you who sent comments to me saying you finally took time to give the show a chance helped NBC make that important decision!
If, for some inexplicable reason, I still haven't convinced some of you to give the show a try, I dare you to watch last night's season finale in reruns on Bravo or on the web and try not to be moved. That's right, the season finale gave viewers two more reasons to love this series. First, the episode showcased the funny, healthy, honest marital relationship of Eric and Tami Taylor as they received news that they are--to their huge surprise--about to become parents again, just as Eric was to make a huge move to benefit his career. Once again, Eric and Tami chose each other over ambition and selfishness.
But even better than that, "Lights" reminded me that a show that is supposedly about football probably has the most intelligent, respectful portrayal of teenage girls currently on the tube. The ways that both the Ali/Landry romance and the Ali/Lila friendship finally materialized last night defied all the usual high school drama stereotypes.
So with "Lights" momentarily safe, I suggest Idol Chatter readers join me now in focusing our energies on devising a plan to convince NBC to bring back "Studio 60." Suggestions, anyone?
Audiences will either find director Philip Gröning's "Into Great Silence"--an almost three hour film chronicling the silent lives of the Carthusian monks at Grande Chartreuse, a stunning but austere monastery perched high up in the French Alps--a masterpiece or the most boring movie they ever saw.
Like the days and nights of this tiny group of men (viewed by some as the most ascetic monks in all the world), "Into Great Silence" proceeds almost entirely without sound--save the pitter patter of the rain falling against windows, the crack of ice underfoot, or the wind howling under doorways and across the jagged mountaintops.
Aside from the voice of the natural world, audiences will hear only prayer in the form of traditional chants from the monks who populate this austere locale. Only in two instances do the men have "recreational" chatter, the first which comes nearly a full two hours into the film. As a result, their talk startles the viewer--it's almost moving to suddenly hear these disciplined men laugh and gossip.
The second instance comes just before the film's end and is the most endearing of all--it's almost worth sitting through the entire experience to get to it: Audiences are treated to a scene where the monks slide down the steep slopes of a mountaintop near the monastery. You can't help but laugh and delight with them in the simple and childlike fun, so unexpected after this window into their strict lives.
As I watched this virtually silent film, I couldn't help but think that watching the movie is an excercise in silent meditation. Audience members must each take a temporary vow of silence of sorts--committing to let the dark of the theater and the length of the experience take viewers into stillness of the monks who move silently through the ordinary tasks of their daily lives.
But it is not for everyone. Some people will hate it and walk out no doubt. This is a film whose entire purpose is to quiet the mind and not fill the screen with action, plot, and dialogue. But if I were you, I'd give it a chance. With the right attitude, you might find it quite profound and certainly unique.
You can see "Into Great Silence" at various film festivals across the country in the coming months.
Two of my favorite things are spirituality and kitsch. That's why I love coming across something like the Choose Your Religion Wheel. It's a brightly colored cardboard wheel with different religions written around the outside. Pointing the dial on a religion provides you with a basic description plus information on "Potential New Friends" (membership), "Drawbacks," "Perks," "Afterlife Promises," and "Accessories/Paraphernalia."
The religions include the major ones (Hinduism, Judaism), denominations within major ones (Quakerism, Pentecostalism), maligned ones (Scientology, The Moonies), and the non-religious ones (Psychoanalysis, Atheism).
Let's see what the wheel says about one of my favorite "religions," Consumerism.
Accessories/Paraphernalia: Credit cards, designer jeans, SUVs, suburban tract homes.
Drawbacks: Credit overuse begets spiritual bankruptcy. Hard to keep up with Joneses. Corporate leaders unaccountable.
Perks: Few rules. Fun for those with disposable income.
Afterlife Promises: Can't take it with you, but can leave it to the kids.
For a more detailed "what religion are you?" questionnaire, try Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. To purchase a Choose Your Religion Wheel, click here. I also recommend the Wheel of Excuses.
On the April 4th edition of MSNBC's "Imus In the Morning," Don Imus fired the shot heard 'round the world when he called the Rutger's women's basketball team "Nappy-Headed Ho's."
He laughed after he said it, and if you listen very closely you can hear someone else in the background laughing. It was comedy for Imus, but little did he know it would backfire and blow up in his face. The most tragic part of this debacle is that not only is Imus to blame for his gross misconduct but the production team and MSNBC is at fault. Yes, Imus ignited the fire, but the cameramen and the production team fanned the flames.
Why didn't anyone see fit to turn off the cameras and kick Imus out of the studio right then and there? Are we so desensitized after watching countless numbers of "others" drop the N-bomb that "Nappy-Headed Ho's" seems light-hearted?
In the past few months it seems that racial slurs have become commonplace among celebrities of all stripes. It almost seems formulaic: They drop the slur bomb, apologize to the offended, and then make a visit to the god of on-camera redemption, the Rev. Al Sharpton. It is when the latter takes place that people really feel like they are being redeemed--because they are paying their respects to the man believed to be the face of Black America. Well, Rev. Sharpton's brand of showboating to keep his "press & curl" in the spotlight doesn't represent me. In other words Mr. Imus, the apology is not accepted.
You, Mr. Imus continue to apologize profusely, saying that your comment was just a joke and not meant to be racial. But you couldn't have said a more racially-charged comment. If you wanted to be funny you could have called them big girls, giraffes, or tall glasses of water. But "Nappy-Headed Ho's" is a direct shot at black women. I don't believe that you would call your wife or your daughter a "Nappy-Headed Ho," so why do these women deserve it. Does their playing basketball and being black make them so different and beyond respect?
A two week suspension is a small price to pay, Mr. Imus, and you should consider yourself lucky. Rev. Sharpton is right, we should all forgive you for your sin against us and against yourself--it is the Christian way. We shouldn't even be concerned about what type of punishment you get because there will one day be a bigger judgment for all of us.
But I have one final thought: I learned a few weeks ago that we should all learn how to redeem the time we have. Redeeming our time is about spending time doing that which is truly fruitful, and it also means spending time producing something contrary to your circumstance. Your circumstance has you in a bit of hot water Mr. Imus, but I think that there is still time for you to produce something positive. This may be the one time where being contrary might actually help you out.
posted by Nicole Symmonds @ 12:02 PM | Permalink |
One day in my junior year of college in 1997, I excused myself from my favorite class because my stomach was cramping so hard. When I arrived at my apartment, I tossed my backpack into the corner, collapsed onto the couch, and grabbed the remote control. I groaned--not from stomach pain this time, but because the main event on television was The Masters golf tournament. I loathed golf, but given a choice between Oprah, CSPAN, and golf, I'll go with the one that most closely resembles a sporting event.
Plus, Tiger Woods was playing. He was at the beginning of his career, and his story was interesting even to a non-golf fan like me. It was a Friday. My stomach started feeling better sometime Saturday afternoon, but I barely left the couch all weekend. I was transfixed by The Masters. Even though I couldn't grasp the subtleties of the game, Tiger Wood's dominance was mesmermizing. He blew the field away, eventually winning by the largest margin ever at The Masters--12 strokes. That first green jacket is the one I'll always remember.
All this is a long explanation--maybe an apology--for how I spent this Easter Sunday afternoon. I went to church with my family, and afterward we went to a dinner party. I didn't know many people there, and, well--The Masters was on. I've never become a dedicated golf fan, but I am a dedicated Masters fan. So I found a television, which was in the host's office and removed from the din of the party. I tuned in to the golf tournament--"Just checking the leader board!" I called out when some people walked by.
I was glad I did. (And so was the host--he had just needed an excuse to watch it.)
On this Easter Sunday, Zach Johnson was (nearly) the 2007 version of Tiger Woods in 1997. Although he didn't dominate the field like Tiger in 1997, everyone was transfixed by him. He was clearly going to win, even as Tiger fought back in the final holes to come within striking distance of Johnson.
I didn't stay in the office and watch Johnson's entire performance--come now, I'm not that rude--but I left the television on so I could check back in every few minutes--yeah, I am that rude. Zach Johnson delivered one of those freaky underdog performances. The guy missed the cut in the last three major tournaments last year. He had never finished above 17th place in a major. But yesterday, he stared down the best golfer on the planet--and didn't blink.
Johnson offered an explanation for his success: He said Jesus was with him "every step of the way." It was a fitting comment for Easter. And as post-game statements go, it's much better then anything we'd hear from, say, Terrell Owens. But I always flinch a little, and sometimes a lot, when an athlete thanks Jesus for victory.
And I know I'm not the only one who is confused about how we should hear such remarks, and whether Christians should say them. Maybe we need a clearer theology of athletics, a more refined grasp of how Jesus might be involved with winners and losers on the playing field.
But Johnson's remark was teary and heartfelt--he didn't seem like he was doing anything more than naturally saying the first thing that came to mind. And to face a giant like Tiger Woods and come away victorious--well, you can understand why he might believe a higher power was on his side.
There's more than one moment on Third Day's retrospective album "Chronology: Volume One," that so masterfully combines pain and hope, delicate lyrics and anthem rock, that you ask yourself, "How do they do that?" And then you remind yourself: "Oh yeah, they're a Christian band." That is, they tap into the rich store of good stories, hard characters, and stark images that come out of the Christian tradition and charge it all up with dark, grunge-inflected Southern rock.
This isn't how we've come to think of the music that comes out of Christian Nashville, where faith and rock often fight to a prim compromise. Third Day, which erupted as a Christian take on grunge in 1997, have always played with a freedom other bands lacked. But this album, by updating a few of their early hits and laying on live versions of some of their best work, showcases their unique talent of how they let their joy in good ol' barn burning rock serve the faith they sing about.
Though the album celebrates Third Day's 10th year as a band, the tunes hold up in all manner of ways. A crackling live version of "Blackbird" ("Blackbird, fly up to heaven today and be saved") from 1998 has the feeling of a country-church hymn memorialized by a blues champion like the Allmans. "Wire," the title track from their 2004 album, is unmistakeably modern. Even the remake of "Thief," sung from the viewpoint of the criminals who were crucified with Jesus, benefits from its new overblown strings-and-bombast treatment.
As an introduction to what Christian rock can be or a look back for long-time fans, "Chronology" is great document of what Third Day has achieved.
Who says Middle Easterners and Muslims don't have a sense of humor? Because in these tense times, if you can't make fun of the situation you're in, then you're up the creek. And so my husband and I laughed until the tears rolled as we watched "The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour," which was just released on DVD this week. Sure, it helps if you are an Arab (or Iranian, or even North Korean--though that "axis of evil" was missing from the group) or Muslim, but I think everyone can appreciate the tart, situational brand of humor showcased by this talented comedic trio.
Iranian-American Maz Jobrani (a regular on the Fox comedy, "The Knights of Prosperity"), Egyptian-American Ahmed Ahmed and Palestinian-American Aron Kader (along with a guest appearance from Dean Obeidallah) serve up the typical airport security and Arab anger management jokes with witty self deprecation and hilarous personal stories.
Jobrani has a particularily funny riff where he ponders why Iranian political leaders enjoy taunting the U.S., which has already bombed Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's like your at a bar with your two buddies, and the bouncer has already taken them out, but you're still taken shots!"
The laughs never stop, from Obeidallah's great opening act to Jobrani's fabulous ending. Just when it seems things are hopeless for Middle Easterners and Muslims in America, these comedians show that the old adage is still true: Laughter really is the best medicine.
I always dreamed of the day when a Hollywood director would have the courage to transform a biblical disaster story into a big screen blockbuster. I thought my dream had come true when I saw the posters for "The Reaping," a film that depicts a modern day onslaught of the ten plagues.
The film focuses on the life of Katherine (Hillary Swank), a former missionary who loses faith in God after her husband and daughter die during a mission trip. Following this tragedy, Katherine goes from Christian to cynic--and lands a job where she uses science to disprove biblical miracles. Katherine is smug in her role as a biblical miracle ball-buster, but it isn't until she is approached by Doug (David Morrissey) about the strange occurrences taking place in Haven that she faces a faith crisis that science can't answer.
Haven is a small town where all of the usual religious stereotypes prevail. The women are only concerned with procreation, the men with steering their cattle, and every church has doors wide open with signs posted out front like, "Our Lord's a gentle Lord, but don't push it." And of course there are no people of color in Haven, so when Katherine arrives with her black colleague Ben (Idris Elba), the townspeople gawk at him--and possibly his tattoos.
And as if the movie could afford to scrimp on excitement--the first 20 minutes goes by without a good scare--the film goes on a downward spiral of nonsense with its failure to bring the God of the plague into the spotlight. You'd think that with the movie's focus on biblical plagues, there'd be some attention given to God and redemption. But, no.
The townspeople are afraid, but no one gets down on their knees to repent and not once do they have a church service to ward off evil. Ben, a devout Christian, never prays for Katherine to have faith in the midst of the chaos. And when Katherine finally realizes that she must look to the hills from where cometh her help, she still doesn't turn to the Lord. And where are the plagues? They almost seem secondary to giving Hillary Swank good camera time.
Maybe I was expecting too much of the movie. But I thought that since its release date is so closed to Good Friday, it would at least be edifying to people of faith or accurate to the Bible, from which it was inspired. Alas, it's clear the movie wasn't meant to be thought provoking, soul-saving, or tactful. It's just another shameless ploy to jump on the religion bandwagon.
Say what you will about "The Sopranos." Chances are that it's already been said. In the last decade, no show has been praised more highly, examined more closely, credited with more cultural influence, or been as consistently good as "The Sopranos." It has its detractors and its flaws, but most importantly, it has its legacy. Most of the good hour-long dramas on television today (and there are several) owe a debt of gratitude to this standard-setting show created by David Chase.
A longtime fan of mobster movies, I fell for "The Sopranos" like a snitch with cement shoes. But the core brilliance of "The Sopranos" is its depiction of gangsters who are a few murder raps shy of being everyday schmucks like you and me. And a key element of the everydayness of "The Sopranos" is the way the show handles religion: it's there, it's normal, and it's inescapable.
Though the Sopranos family has a traditional Catholic heritage, most every major religion has had a spin on the show, either through a character or overt references in dialogue--Orthodox Judaism, Budddhism, Islam, and evangelical Christianity (complete with contemporary Christian rock) have all had their turn in the show's orbit. Standard books have been issued with cringe-worthy titles like "The Gospel According to Tony Soprano" and "The Tao of Bada Bing." But there's no doubt that the show is interested in faith, and its characters have particular, nuanced experiences of religion.
Whether religion figures heavily into the show's final episodes is anyone's guess, but I, for one, will be watching this angle closely. Some lingering questions I'd like to have answers to before "The Sopranos" sleeps with the fishes:
What does Christopher Moltisanti make of his not-quite-death-bed confession a few years back? Will faith figure into his recovery from... well, everything? Or will his lack of faith be linked to his destruction?
Carmela Soprano can't help it if her cooking inspires her priest to lust. But we've seen her as a confessor and an evangelist, someone who is drawn to faith and someone who is embittered over how faith alone cannot transform her life. Will the Church draw her in once again?
If anyone needs to see a therapist, it's Paulie Walnuts, who wears his crucifix faithfully, pronounces righteous judgment on others, serves his mom (until recently, anyway) with Oedipal adoration, and happily whacks anyone he can. Can anything cause Paulie to examine himself and his warped Catholicism?
Vito Spatafore met a disgusting end in the first half of this last season--the price he paid for living as a gay mobster. His death was one time on the show when a victim's accusers and killers were utterly convinced that God was on their side. "The Sopranos" suffered some of its weakest writing in these episodes, but I, for one, am hoping that it was a setup for a more subtle discussion of a major issue of our day. Will "The Sopranos" make anything more of homosexuality and religion?
Finally, what will be the fate of Tony Soprano? It's the show's primary question, and it's also the question most framed by questions of faith and doubt, betrayal and commitment, existential despair and longing for redemption. "The Sopranos" began when Tony Soprano decided to see a therapist. Like Dr.
Jennifer Melfi, we've learned to regard Tony with a balance of horror and sympathy. Tony, on the other hand, has been plenty sympathetic with himself, but not plenty horrified. When Tony--or at least Tony's character arc--meets an end, will he find redemption?
Come back when the final episode of "The Sopranos" airs, and we'll try to make sense of how the show makes sense of religion.
I remember watching the finale of "7th Heaven." Even though I hadn't been following the show since most of the Camden kids moved out and a string of random houseguests filtered through, I felt enough of a loyalty to tune in for the last episode. Apparently, three million other people felt the same loyalty I did, and the high-rated finale prompted CW Network executives to give the show another chance.
What that meant though, was that the show's writers had to back themselves out of a corner. They'd written a finale that included no fewer than three characters all becoming pregnant with twins. How would they deal with that storyline? Here's how--keep two of the characters offscreen and never talk about them: Mary (played by Jessica Biel, who famously left the show after posing for racy magazine photos) and Sarah, wife of Matt (the oldest Camden kid). The third, middle child Lucy Camden Kinkirk, had a miscarriage during the summer hiatus.
This time, apparently, "7th Heaven" is going away for real. Part of me still remembers the early days of this show when the kids were younger and the storylines were about things that happened in everyday life. I don't love seeing what the show has become: random guest stars, poorly written dialogue, and love interests that come out of nowhere. (T-Bone? Ruthie's boyfriend's name is T-Bone?) The show has been ready to exit for awhile now. Jessica Biel is off making movies. Barry Watson, who played Matt, has his own show, "What About Brian?" Even Catherine Hicks, who helps anchor the show as mom Annie Camden, has been working part time this year.
It's time for them--and us--to move on.
That said, I'm skeptical for the time being. After last year's eleventh-hour Hail Mary, I'm not going to count this show out. Unless someone has photographs of the set being demolished or copies of contracts proving that every single actor from this show is appearing on another show this season, I'm still expecting it to come on every Sunday night. Or, at the very least, a spinoff.
It's Holy Week, so it's not that surprising to see all sorts of Jesuses are popping up in the art world. There was a "Chocolate Jesus," and fellow blogger Douglas Howe mentioned something about a "hot buttered Jesus" (!!) in a recent post).
But young artist David Cordero is turning to democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for divine inspiration. Obama is the model for Cordero's senior art project, which is a looming statue of Obama as Jesus--and he's grinning.
The Chicago Tribune reports: "An undergraduate student's paper mache sculpture of Obama as a messianic figure--entitled "Blessing"--went on display Saturday at a West Loop gallery run by the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 'All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins,' Cordero said. 'In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped.'"
Obama has been quick to distance himself from the rendering, worrying that religious folks will be offended. Obama had nothing to do with Cordero's project, his campaign stated publicly, and neither encouraged nor even knew that this display of "Obama Jesus" was in the works: "While we respect first amendment rights and don't think the artist was trying to be offensive, Senator Obama, as rule, isn't a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.
So far the Catholics have stayed silent. We'll see how long that lasts.
Diane Gibson--the "powerhouse manager at GMI Entertainment who crafted a musical career for her daughter Debbie (now Deborah)--has signed on to manage Chutzpah, the "Jewish Hip-Hop Supergroup" that's experiencing some success in this early stage of their career, or as one might call it, their "electric youth."
According to a press release, Gibson has said of Chutzpah that "It's rare that you meet musicians who are skilled on so many levels. They not only write, perform, and produce their own material, they can act, they can sing, and they have a broad vision of how their unique creative talents can be translated over multiple entertainment platforms. From our first meeting it was clear that we both had big plans for marketing Chutzpah beyond the traditional music marketplace."
Of Gibson, Chutzpah were quoted as saying "Yeah! We love Debbie Gibson's mom!"
Chutzpah eponymously released their first CD in November 2005 and at the same time released a DVD of their award-winning short film ("Chutzpah, This Is?"). The film featured the group playing themselves, starred veteran actor George Segal as Dr. Dreck--the purported inventor of hip hop--and featured cameos by Gary Oldman, Debi Mazar, Sharon Osbourne, and Def Leppard's Vivian Campbell.
Chutzpah's second CD, "Hip Hop Fantasy" will be released by JMG Records this summer and will make the band's story even more surreal, as it features guest performances by Melle Mel of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Deborah Harry of Blondie (who, by the way, had the first #1 rap hit), the legendary Isaac Hayes, and an in-character rap cameo by Gary Oldman.
Gary Oldman's a great actor, but can he rap? I guess we'll have to wait to see what kind of chutzpah that takes.
posted by Esther Kustanowitz @ 9:48 AM | Permalink |
The hit Fox counterterrorism drama "24" depicts a universe where people rely on one of two things when faced with difficult decisions. Either they turn to the protocols, laws, and directives of the hierarchies in which they work, or they serve as their own moral compass. The show's hero, Jack Bauer, uses the latter technique more often than not--acting on his own authority and flouting any rules that interfere with his pursuit of justice, even if those rules are also known as "international law."
On this week's episode, though, there was an unusual departure from these two sources of wisdom when tough-as-nails CTU operative Mike Doyle, played by Ricky Schroeder, confesses to being nothing less than a spiritual seeker. Doyle is turning out to be the only character in the show's six seasons that closely resembles Jack--no matter the consequences to his interpersonal relationships or career, his one and only concern is stopping terrorist attacks.
But even the toughest of the tough guys sometimes need guidance. The season opened with Jack, who had always kept his own counsel with such focused confidence, experiencing a moment of profound doubt when a nuclear bomb detonated in Los Angeles. And the theme continued this week, when Doyle admitted to his CTU colleague Nadia, a Muslim who was wrongly accused of aiding the terrorists earlier in the day, that he envies the comfort and security that she finds in her faith.
Doyle quotes from the Qur'an, which Nadia notes with surprise. "You've read the Qur'an?" she asks. "And the Bible, and the Upanishads," he responds, "You're lucky you found your answers. I'm still looking for mine."
Does Doyle's confession reveal a kink in the armor of moral certainty that "24" has worked so hard to forge? Perhaps, but maybe it also hints at something that any soldier, police officer, or counterterrorism agent could tell you--that every human being has to come to terms with good and evil in their own way, even when that means relying on a source that's bigger than any protocol.
With March Madness behind us and the May "upfronts"--where television executives announce the shows they are scheduling for fall--only weeks away, it is that time of year when existing shows receive the unwelcome news that they are getting the pink slip. NBC's The Black Donnellys" was cancelled so they could air the Ashton Kutcher-produced series "The Real Wedding Crashers."
Now, it's not that I am a big fan of "The Black Donnellys." I did give it a shot for awhile but eventually found the "Sopranos" rip-off to be disappointing. But I am frustrated that a network that has stuck with--so far, anyway--an amazing show like the critically-acclaimed "Friday Night Lights" gave up on an intelligent show like "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" to replace it with a mediocre show like "Donnellys"--only to cancel that show for a new reality series based on pranks and humiliation.
Is NBC giving up on quality for cheaper--in every definition of the word--entertainment like "Crashers"? More importantly, some TV critics are asking the obvious question, "Do we get what we deserve?" when it comes to what shows are offered on television. If D-list actors in sequins are what we want to watch, then why should a network spend millions on a new hour-long drama?
Or is it just that there is no way a network can make money off of a quality and expensive-to produce-show like "Studio 60," when there are numerous cable channels and internet options competing for viewers? And when will television ever do away with its dependence on the outdated Nielsen ratings system as its programming guide?
While I don't have the answers to all of those questions, as the TV landscape changes one thing seems clear: If we want the networks to resist creating the next "Super Bachelor Nanny Swap Gets an Extreme Makeover," we have to resist the urge to watch these kinds of shows first.
Perhaps it's no accident that a movie about finding the miraculous in the ordinary is being released during this Holy Week of Passover and Easter. No, I am not talking about the recent DVD release of the religious drama "The Nativity," but that inspirational family charmer "Charlotte's Web," now available on DVD this week.
While "Charlotte’s Web" is not a flawless film--the awful animation of Charlotte creeped me out and too much of the book's content was sacrificed for bathroom humor in the script--its messages of loyalty, sacrifice, and miracles, not to mention feminism--are impossible to resist. In Charlotte's world everyone has value and a unique contribution to make to his fellow man--or fellow rat or pig, as the case may be.
And as Charlotte so bravely yet quietly demonstrates, sacrifice isn't really sacrifice at all when you truly love someone. It's hard to think of a better message to reflect on as we head towards Good Friday.
So while some may follow time-honored traditions of watching classics like "The Sound of Music" or "The Ten Commandments" this week, I think adding a viewing of "Charlotte's Web" as a new holiday movie viewing tradition is a great idea.
Showtime just premiered a 10-part series called "The Tudors" starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers as a sexy, pompous King Henry VIII and Sam Neil as Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. The series basically switches back and forth between explicit sex scenes between Henry, his boys, and the ladies of court, and the power struggles of the various Cardinals trying to keep their war-hungry kings in check.
In other words, "The Tudors" is shot almost entirely in the bedroom and the church. Neil is not quite right for the part of Cardinal--at least I can't erase my association of him with Jurassic Park, which distorts my experience of watching him play a high church official. And then it's hard to avoid imagining Meyers, as they were filming the series, openly complaining: "Oh shucks! You need me for yet another sex scene?" Poor Jonathan--so many naked girls to attend to.
So "The Tudors" is quite the soap opera. Between Philippa Gregory's bestselling novel "The Other Boleyn Girl," its various literary spinoffs, and now "The Tudors," King Henry and his court may soon rival the legend of King Arthur in their ability to fascinate and titillate the public. In one intense scene King Henry weeps in the confessional. He expresses fear that his marriage to Queen Catherine is somehow blemished, that she indeed consummated her previous marriage to Henry's brother and then lied about it, making the Church's ruling that there was no prior marriage null.
He worries that God has punished him with four children already dead (three still born and one boy who lived not even a month) and only one girl still living. King Henry asks what the Gospel says about a man who marries his brother's wife, and his confessor responds, paraphrasing Leviticus 20:21: "If a man marries his brother's wife, they shall die childless." Since a girl doesn't count as a true heir to Henry, he concludes that God must be punishing him.
And so we begin down that treacherous road that leads not only to many wifely beheadings, but also the split of Britain from the Catholic Church and the creation of the Church of England. It will be interesting to see how "The Tudors" plays this piece of Henry's story out--or if they will instead focus more and more on the intrigue in the bedroom.
Tune in to Showtime Sunday nights at 10 p.m. for new episodes.
It must be Easter, or Passover, or Holy Week, or Orthodox Easter … or at least Spring Break! I can always tell because there are two times a year (the December holidays and now) when spiritual issues rise to the front of media attention.
This week's TV offerings will include classic biblical profiles such as The History Channel's look at King David, as well as news features like Anderson Cooper's Wednesday and Thursday "360" episodes that will focus on "What is a Christian?" Cooper's show leads with this tease: "Questions of faith. science, sex, salvation. Where do you fit? '360' investigates what a Christian is."
This, along with the chocolate Jesus in New York and the hot-buttered Jesus in Ohio, have certainly placed the historical figure of faith in the limelight this week. (I haven't heard, but usually at this time there's a Time, Newsweek or U.S. News and World Report cover story on something having to do with the resurrection as well.)
It is no secret that television is about ratings, and magazines need to maximize circulation. And there are those who sort of belittle the seasonal attention paid to matters of faith. It can almost seem obligatory, if not trite, which is a shame. But I am glad that the nation's producers and managing editors recognized the spiritual zeal that each of us carries--especially now, even if it becomes somewhat dormant during the rest of the year.
And I find it interesting that in December, there is great emphasis placed on politically and culturally accepting many faith traditions under the general greeting of "happy holidays." But the April season seems to generate more honest and historical reflection on real matters of faith. I hope that people of all faith traditions--as well as those who don't really have one--can find time to reflect about spiritual things. Because according to the Barna Research Group, the number of non-church-going Americans is reaching 100 million. If that's the case, I for one will welcome anything our culture generates to help everyone reflect on the great spiritual questions generated by the season.
And on that note, I'm looking forward to Saturday night (at 7 p.m. on ABC) when I'll gather with my kids to do the exact same thing we did as kids with my parents: We’ll watch Charlton Heston and "The Ten Commandments," complete with popcorn and good discussions at the commercial breaks.
I echo Michael Kress's post yesterday about giving thanks for baseball's Opening Day. There truly is something refreshing--if not anti-climactic--about the first day of a 162-game season. Most of the country saw the primetime emotion in New York, but I hope you also got to see the refreshment of spring and the redemption of Easter on display during ESPN's (and WGN's) coverage of the Cubs and the Reds. There were three highlights over and above the Reds' 5-1 win over the Cubs, two of which were on SportsCenter and one which is showing up on YouTube:
2. Pete Rose was able to do something he hadn't done since being banned from baseball for gambling: The all-time hit leader not only attended the game but also appeared on radio and television, all thanks to some lobbying from team owner Bob Castellini. The fans were gracious, and there were few hard questions about betting on baseball.
3. Josh Hamilton, a 25-year-old who has had his share of off-field challenges, was greeted with a standing ovation by the fans (get this!) three times: during pre-game introductions, when he appeared as a pinch-hitter, and when he stayed in the game in left field.
Also, a politician was cheered for ridiculous under-performance, a disgraced ex-player/manager was received and cheered, and a capacity crowd stood and hailed an ex-drug offender who didn't get a hit or make a catch. Yes, Opening Day is a spiritual thing--and redemption was in the air.
So I join my colleague Michael in wishing you the happiest--and redeeming-iest--of Holy Weeks. May you sense the joy (and grace) this week that made it a special day for for the mayor, for the Hamilton family, and all of us who watched in person or on TV.
Amidst the intensity of Holy Week for Christians and the joy of Passover for Jews comes the secular festival known as Opening Day. Even as I frantically cleaned my apartment for Passover last night, I dilligently checked the Mets score online every few minutes (remember when local games could all be seen on local broadcast TV?). There's room for both in my life, and thank God for that.
I've written before in Idol Chatter about baseball as a deeply meaningful secular American holiday, and I've compared the spiritual lessons of baseball to the Book of Ecclesiastes. Tempted as I am to connect the Exodus from Egypt to the beginning of a new baseball season, I will refrain from any such attempts at theological relevance this year. Instead, amidst personal holiday prep and professional deadlines, I will offer only my thanksgiving that a new season is here, that hope and excitement have returned to the baseball diamond, and that, at a time of war and national anxieties, we can as a nation come together for some diversion and fun, celebrating traditions and finding sheer joy in the game. Play ball!
With the beginning of Holy Week upon us and Easter just around the corner, the dark days of Lenten abstinence are coming to an end. I thought giving up email for Lent--OK, just checking once a day for work purposes and anything urgent--was laudable. But some students gave up something far more precious to the typical teen/early-twentysomething this Lenten season: their online profiles on MySpace and Facebook.
Katie Hawkins at CNN reports that some "young and devout Christians" this year are breathing sighs of relief that Easter is almost here, because they "are anxious to return to what they gave up for Lent."Just like with email in my case--which I find disruptively addictive and unproductive--high school kids and college students have been taking Lent as a time to try and shake their online profile habits:
Many users describe the popular social networking sites as addictive, which is why they say giving up these 21st-century temptations is a sincere sacrifice. Members on both sites create profiles and add each other as friends. They can also share messages, photos, videos and personal blogs.
"It's been hard, especially in the beginning," said Kerry Graham, who says she gave up Facebook for Lent. Her boyfriend challenged her to do so, describing her as a "Facebook fiend." During the first days of Lent, the 23-year-old graduate student admits she had to stop herself from typing the site's Web address nearly every time she checked her e-mail.
Another teen commented:
"Some of my friends think it's silly, since people usually give up food," said 16-year-old Emily Montgomery, who says she's given up her access to MySpace. "I wanted to give up something that's really hard for me."... Montgomery says she spent an average of two hours a day on MySpace, logging onto the site at least four times a day. She's using Facebook as a substitute during the 40-day period.
I'm not sure that substituting Facebook for MySpace really counts as a true Lenten offering. But then, who am I to talk? Despite all attempts at keeping my promise to check email only once a day, I've gone on a few benders this Lent, where I've not been able to resist logging in say, oh, 30 times. (Those days were few and far between, though. I swear.)
Yes, Jesus appears in a myriad of forms, outfits, and doing all sorts of activities in America. We boast portraits of the Savior in such diverse poses as Jesus in the boxing ring, Jesus as a flowing-haired hippie, and procelain statuettes where he plays football and soccer with happy children.
But the latest version, called "My Sweet Lord" but informally dubbed "Chocolate Jesus, is a life-size, edible, and totally naked sculpture of Jesus. And it has already caused such controversy among Catholics that his Chocolate Holiness is no longer on display. An AP article reports:
"A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled Friday amid a choir of complaining Catholics that included Cardinal Edward Egan. The "My Sweet Lord" display was shut down by the hotel that houses the Lab Gallery in midtown Manhattan, said Matt Semler, the gallery's creative director."
The Catholic League's Bill Donahue, not surprisingly, was very upset by the Chocolate Savior. "Word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as 'a sickening display,'" reports Mcshane. "Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was 'one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever'."
The exhibition of the 200-pound chocolate Jesus was especially planned for Holy Week, to be unveiled on Monday and open to the public until Easter. Plenty of us--including me--are disappointed that the public will not get to enjoy Chocolate Jesus, at least for now.
The artist, Cosimo Cavallaro, who works primarily with food in his work, designed "Chocolate Jesus" to "features Christ with his arms outstretched as if on an invisible cross," and "unlike the typical religious portrayal of Christ, the Cavallaro creation does not include a loincloth."
Since Friday, offers have been pouring in to Cavallero to either buy "Chocolate Jesus" or display him elsewhere, reports CBS and other new outlets. Apparently, nobody likes an anatomically correct Savior, even if he's made entirely of chocolate.
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.
I should have listened to New York Times film critic Stephen Holden, who called "In the Land of Women" meek and mopey, "the film equivalent of a sensitive emo band with one foot in alternative rock and the other in the squishy pop mainstream." The film stars Meg Ryan in a relatively new role--down and out mom-figure rather than romantic lead--and Adam Brody (formerly of "The O.C.") as the all-purpose confidante for quite literally every woman in the film: ex-girlfriend, grandmother, and next door neighbors (Ryan as the mother and her daughter).
Add to Del.icio.us 
Digg This 
Fave on Technorati
Two of America's biggest born-again tabloid sensations are getting together in a stage musical with all the hoopla of a tent revival meeting. One is 
Any Tolkien fan can tell you that J.R.R. Tolkien, a faithful Catholic, was pals with pop theologian C.S. Lewis, and that he 
A week or so ago, I suggested that "Idol Chatter" cover the 
In case you haven't seen it yet, Beliefnet recently posted an interesting gallery on how its readers have credited the "law of attraction"--the idea that we create our reality with our thoughts, popularized by the controversial best-selling book and DVD, "The Secret"--as having worked miracles in their lives (ie: quitting smoking, getting money for college, and even obtaining a swing set!) 
Did Simon Cowell contribute to the massacre at Virginia Tech?," asked yesterday's 
One of the true joys of living in New York these days is the 
OK, I am a shamelessly huge "Smallville" fan and after a tough season five, I feel like season six has bounced back and then some. This, of course, also makes me a huge Superman fan in general.
The Gospel Music Association celebrates the many faces and voices of contemporary Christian music this week with the 
Of the CSI's (New York, Miami and Las Vegas) I believe "CSI:Miami" is either--depending on your taste--the most outrageous or the most prophetic.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, many people—particularly those who survived the tragedy or were directly affected by it—are leaning on their faith to cope, while others may be questioning their spiritual beliefs. ("Why did God let this happen?").
Once upon a time there was an actor named Tom Cruise. He was king of the box office; everyone wanted to work with him. Heck, even Rosie O'Donnell had a crush on him.
Listening to pop/gospel artist 
"We're always looking for a seder. This year we [she and husband Matthew Broderick] drove four and a half hours to go to a Rosh Hashanah dinner."
Back when Kristin Chenoweth had her own television show, she 
From Sherlock Holmes to "Dragnet" to "CSI," we like to see a killer get his, in the form of comeuppance when the detective solves the crime, or in the judge's sentence, or best of all when he (or she) comes to some deservedly untimely end. But what's the opposite of typical justice? You'll see it in Sunday's made-for-TV movie "Crossroads," on CBS.
Pairs of hands all over the country were clasped in prayer last night. "Thank you, God," said thousands of mouths, exalting their voices to the divine. Were they thanking Him for good weather, for providing food, or for curing a sick loved one?
Turns out that 
For the first time in the current season of Fox’s "24," the show finally became interesting again (at least for me) because it returned to the kind of ethical and moral drama that had made it great for its first five seasons.
Like the Toyota Prius, "Drive," the FOX network's latest offering is a hybrid. The show is essentially about a group of Americans who are participating in a secret, illegal cross-country road race. It's one-third conventional car chase show (think "Starsky & Hutch," and "ChiPs") and two-thirds thriller with mysterious characters show (think "
Lately Sean Penn is known more for his provocative political stances, writing about "human shields" in Iraq and documenting a diplomatic visit to Iran, than his provocative roles in films such as "Mystic River" and "Dead Man Walking." That's why local Oahu residents are angered over the controversy-creating activist-actor's recent vacation at Oahu's Turtle Bay Resort, which has plans to expand along the already crowded North Shore in Hawaii.
She shares her name with the holy mother, but Marie Osmond's estranged husband is claiming that the Mormon entertainer and entrepreneur doesn't share Mary's maternal proclivities.
If you haven't already seen it, make time for "
Some weeks back Idol Chatter brought you the flap over 
When I worked in Residence Life at Georgetown University, one of the resident assitants (R.A.'s) on my staff was a young, beautiful Muslim woman who always wore a head scarf and whose clothes extended to her wrists and ankles. Her fashion sense was stunning, and each time I saw her I was amazed by her array of gorgeous, brightly colored scarves and the creative ways she found to wear them.
We've all 
Snoop Dogg believes that 
Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue ... something Hindu?
Author 
After several posts right here on Idol Chatter in the last few months 
Audiences will either find director 
Two of my favorite things are spirituality and kitsch. That's why I love coming across something like the 
One day in my junior year of college in 1997, I excused myself from my favorite class because my stomach was cramping so hard. When I arrived at my apartment, I tossed my backpack into the corner, collapsed onto the couch, and grabbed the remote control. I groaned--not from stomach pain this time, but because the main event on television was The Masters golf tournament. I loathed golf, but given a choice between Oprah, CSPAN, and golf, I'll go with the one that most closely resembles a sporting event.
There's more than one moment on Third Day's retrospective album "
Who says Middle Easterners and Muslims don't have a sense of humor? Because in these tense times, if you can't make fun of the situation you're in, then you're up the creek. And so my husband and I laughed until the tears rolled as we watched "
Say what you will about "
I remember watching the finale of "7th Heaven." Even though I hadn't been following the show since most of the Camden kids moved out and a string of random houseguests filtered through, I felt enough of a loyalty to tune in for the last episode. Apparently, three million other people felt the same loyalty I did, and the high-rated finale prompted CW Network executives to give the show another chance.
The hit Fox counterterrorism drama 
Perhaps it's no accident that a movie about 
Showtime just premiered a 10-part series called "
It must be 
Yes, Jesus appears in a myriad of forms, outfits, and doing all sorts of activities in America. We boast portraits of the Savior in such diverse poses as 
