DISASTROUS QUIBBLING?

I admit to being sadly remiss in the study of plate-techtonics and geological, uh, stuff. Undoubetedly, this is why I never heard the word "fore-shock" before this weeek. Yet, in the last two days I've heard it at least five times from the TV weather and news guys.

We're having our CA paradise version of FL hurricanes and mid-west tornados these days - earthquakes have been rumbling the left-coast lately. Nice big rumbly ones that can be felt for hundreds of miles from their epicenters (another term that I managed to grow up for thirty years in New England without ever using once in a sentence).

Anyway, the geologists are telling us that the first 5.9 quake Monday was a singular stand alone event, but that the 5.2 yesterday south of the first one, was an after-shock of the 5.9. However, they also are noting that an after-shock can be a fore-shock of another quake, and that we have a one in twenty chance that there will be another big after-shock making the quakes a series.

At first, I was confused as to how geologists would distinguish between fore-shocks and stand alone earth quakes, until an exhuberant geologist from Cal Tech (I think) explained that we can't know if a rumbler is a stand alone or a fore-shock until a period has gone by with either another rumbler, or else nothing. And some times it might be months or weeks until we can really say for sure. But that sometimes, what looks like a stand alone might really be just an unfulfilled fore-shock. And then, of course, sometimes, a rumbler might be a fore-shock whose normal trajectory is subverted by another random event like for example a disconnected geological phenomenon rendering it in actual fact ultimately a stand-alone.

(Aren't you all glad we have science to be certain about instead of just the immeasurable uncertainties of religious faith?)

The geologist on TV this morning was particularly urgent that we all know that if a big quake happens along the fault in the next few days, that we should all consider it an after-shock and not a singular stand alone rumbler.

I'll try to remember that as my cat and I are falling through four floors of our apartment building, sofas and bookshelves raining down all around us.

TWO STORIES ABOUT NOT GETTING IT

It's "Starting Out in Hollywood 101" class. Here are two questions for the final exam based on real events that have happened to me in the last month.

A) Scenario: A moderately wealthy Christian from some homey place in flyover, decides enough is enough. Without even waiting to buy a white horse and shining armor, he swings into Los Angeles and starts taking meetings with anybody who will listen to him. "It's time for things in the entertainment industry to change," he proclaims with a sincere sense of mission. "No more banging on doors at the studios and networks. We need to stop begging and find creative new ways for Christians to make entertainment!"

Do you agree, why or why not?

B) Scenario: A young woman, with the ink barely dry on her Comm Studies degree from a small Christian college, is certain that God has called her to change television. With a boldness - some might call it gall - borne of religious conviction, she attends a Christian fellowship event, intent on making a connection with a famous, successful, and recenlty Emmy nominated television show-runner. While the everyone at the event is eating dinner, the TV writer wanna-be makes her way to the head table, kneels beside the show-runner and, after a few words of intense flattery, announces, "I am a Christian writer and have real talent. I'm ready to come on board your show and support you in what you are trying to do. Can you tell your agent to take a call from my agent about setting up a meeting for me?"

Is this a stunning coup or professional suicide? Why or why not?

Okay, class. Grades time.

If you think that either of these two Christians has hit upon a winning strategy for cultural renewal, you flunk.

If you think this kind of approach is bold instead of self-defeatingly stupid, you flunk and get expelled.

If any part of you feels the least bit of admiration for them and wishes more Christians would follow suit, you flunk, get expelled and will have your name smeared around our imaginary campus in the most rapacious graffiti.


NOTHING CREATIVE ABOUT CUTTING CORNERS

The first example occurred two weeks ago. A very well-meaning and godly man with pastoral credentials, arrived in Hollywood zealous to fix things here fast. I sat in a room with the leaders of four other Christian entertainment ministries, as the man proclaimed with a Moses-like light radiating off his face, that what was needed to fix the culture is ways around the networks' and studios' system.

He went on to suggest a few of his creative ideas...

...We should put out a national call for the most-talented Christian kids in colleges everywhere. We should get a thousand of them to submit to a kind of talent testing contest, and then choose the top twenty to come to Hollywood. Then, we put them all in a room, and have them come up with new ideas for television shows.

[response of Christian ministry leaders with glazed eyes: "Uh, no."]

...We should allocate a cable station, and start lighting Christian theater company productions for broadcast. Eventually, talented Christians everywhere will know that they have a place to air their own kind of programming!

[response of CML's with a kind of horror, "Oh, no..." (and the follow-up, "Have you heard of PAX?)]

...We should have a script contest to find the best projects "out there" and then work on getting them produced.

[response of CML's, "There is no there out there."]

Let's get to the bottom of the errors in this man's thinking. We DON'T need "creative ways" for Christians to find success in Hollywood. We need to do it THE way. We need to do what everybody has to do, just as well, and arguably even better. It takes time, lots of it. It takes paying our dues. There won't be anything sneaky or clever about it. The cleverness must all be in our work.


FAVORS ARE FOR PARTIES, NOT CAREERS

It isn't "bold" to be absurd. The young female writer in example two may indeed be talented, I don't know, but she read a stupid book somewhere that told her getting in people's faces is the way into Hollywood. It isn't. And the problem is, trying to bully your way in by playing "the Christian card" with a fellow believer, is the biggest red-flag you can wave in the Christian community of Hollywood. It freaks us all out. The weird sense of entitlement that we find in so many Christians who arrive here every day is shockingly disrespectful.

It's like, imagine if I was a great neuro-surgeon at Mass General, and one day, you, say a junior high school teacher, met me at a lunch counter. And suppose you said, "Hey, I heard you were a Christian. So am I. We need more Christians in medicine, so I decided I'm gonna do it. Can you get me into doing some brain surgery tomorrow?"

No, I'm not being facetious. It's eggzackly like that.

This happened the other night at the Barbara Hall event at Inter-Mission. In the end, this particular young writer not only blew it with Barbara, who was - God love her - just resignedly bemused at being accosted over her salmonn and spinach, but then, she accosted me afterward for shutting down the assault. After I had quietly informed her that dinner was not the place to pitch our guest, she persisted trying to get a promise of help from Barb, until I finally said, "Please stop. We don't do that here." So, after dinner, the young writer waited around to inform me with holy indignation that I had violated her, and that she was only trying to do Jesus' bidding. She questioned me with narrow eyes, 'And whose cause are YOU trying to promote?!"

I tried to tell her that no show-runner, ever, ever, ever, would agree to call their agent for an unknown, unrecommended writer who appeared kneeling and flattering at a banquet table, but she wouldn't hear me. She actually accused me of not having faith in God's power.


I share these stories by way of catharthis, and to point out that the mistakes surrounding the Therese movie are not unique to a few orthodox Catholics. We Christians have a lot of learning, and quite a bit of repenting to do before we get anywhere in the arts.

IT'S UP TO YOU, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

I have a speaking gig at a college on Long Island, on the morning of October 28th. I will be taking a train to CT for the high-Halloween holy days on the 29th. But I was thinking I might try and get together some kind of speaking event somewhere in Manhattan for the evening of the 28th.

Anybody in the area interested in helping me set something up? We can keep it informal - a question and answer kind of thing including command performance expansions on my usual schticks, or else we can have something specific on screenwriting or artists and God.

We just need a place and a little help getting the word out.

If you can help, do send me an email.

EVER RELEVANT

I'll be on a morning drive time show on Relevant Radio on Friday, October 1. They will be calling me at 6am PST, so I guess that will be 8am for the mid-country people and 9am on the East coast.... Does Relevant Radio air on the East coast?

The subject of the hour will be the first annual National Media Prayer Breakfast that will be happening at 8:30am PST here in Beverly Hills. Considering I am also attending that event, and that I live about 30 minutes from Beverly Hills, I guess I will be brushing my teeth and dressing while taking calls...or else during the breaks. It should be an interesting morning.

We're looking to doing some kind of regular broadcast for Relevant Radio. I told them I couldn't possibly start anything new until after January, but I'll probably be doing these one hour "What's Going On in Hollywood?" spots every month until then.

EMILY MONDAY

1176

We never know how high we are
till we are asked to rise
And then if we are true to plan
our statures touch the skies --

The Heroism we recite
would be a normal thing
Did not ourselves the Cubits warp
for fear to be a King --

I'M ACTUALLY MORE OF A QUIZ FAN...

...than a M*A*S*H* fan. But I'm just kind of relieved here that I didn't end up the snotty guy with the CT accident.

EXTREMELY GOOD TELEVISION

Okay, I need to know if anybody else out there watches ABC's Extreme Home Make-Over weeping copious tears. Because I do. Pretty much every show slays me, and the cornier it gets, the more I sit there sobbing and sniveling.

Tonight, I actually went and got a box of Kleenex as the episode started. Looking around the sofa, here 47 minutes later, it looks like someone has had pneumonia...

Tonight's episode, they redid the home of a family with eight children. The family, clearly cery committed Christians, is being raised by a single dad, because his wife died four years ago. The older kids - all in their teens, put their own stuff aside to help raise their younger siblings.

If you've never caught the show, it's brilliant because it combines the stuff America is best at: materialism at the service of generosity to deserving families. Check it out, and try to get your teens to watch it with you. It's the kind of viewing experience that would be very good for families, I think.

AN EXPENSIVE LEARNING CURVE

This is going to be a little rant. I'll introduce it by saying that, on Wednesday, I received a heads-up from a friend who works in marketing that the long-awaited film Therese from St. Luke Productions in Oregon, was having press screenings for its upcoming release. I emailed to be included in one of the area screenings and received the message, "Oh, sorry. The press screenings were last week. If you want to see the film, you'll have to wait to see it in the theater when it opens October 4th."

I'm trying to figure out if I should be annoyed at having been deliberately excluded, or if the press junket was just one more thing about this project that was mishandled.

I have no personal animosity towards the folks at St. Luke's. They are certainly very devout Catholics, and very sincere in their desire to put drama at the service of the Gospel.

It's just that everywhere I go, good Catholics ask me about the project, and "Isn't it a shame that Hollywood is shutting out the movie just because it's devout Catholic?!" No, the project is not being shut out because it's Catholic. If it's getting shut out, it's because it's a bad movie. It is disingenuous to try and get people into the theaters on some pretext of "showing Hollywood", when what you are really trying to do is desperately make back some of the millions and millions of dollars you obtained from good people who trusted you to know how to make a good movie.

Three years ago, I was approached to give notes on the screenplay for Therese. The screenplay, a first effort for the well-intentioned writer, was in very bad shape. The screenplay was not professionally formatted, and was missing all the most basic points of introducing and growing characters, of structuring for some kind of suspense, of thematic develpment, and also, there was really no story. The writer had lifted long sections of dialogue right out of St. Therese's work, putting them in extended voice-overs over shots of the saint doing laundry, looking out windows and gazing toward unseen horizons in prayer.

Because I have always had a special love for St. Therese, I spent a lot of time - for free - reading the script, giving extensive notes, and then trying to help in at least two extended phone calls. These were the days when I was still reading projects from non-Hollywood Christian writers for free. (I have since learned that people do not respect "advice". They respect "consultation." The difference between advice and consultation is that they pay you for consultation.)

A few months later, the writers sent me a new draft of the script. It showed some improvement, but was still far from being a commercially viable, and technically functioning project. I expressed to the writer and director, "My opinion is, you are over your head here with the screenplay. I do not discern any signs of writing talent, or even proficiency, here. I don't see any mastery - or even awareness - of any of the skills necessary in screenwriting: character creation, story, structure, dialogue, use of language, use of imagery, etc." I strongly encouraged St. Luke Productions to recruit an experienced screenwriter for the project. (I considered pitching myself for the project, but there was no way I could do it at that moment.) I offered to help them find a real screenwriter.

But no, the principles told me, "We're going to go with God here. There are a lot of people praying for us."

So then, I said, "We will be holding a month-long screenwriter's intensive in August - just a few weeks away. I will let you come for free, to sit in the back as observers. I promise you, at the end of the program, you will have a much better idea of what you need to do as filmmakers."

But no, the answer came back, "But we are planning to start shooting in September."

To which I said, "You are not ready to start shooting. You don't have a screenplay yet." They kind of laughed at my lack of faith. I remember someone saying, 'St. Therese is going to make this movie a miracle." I think I came back, "God is talking to you now. I'm on your side. I'm trying to help." I remember them kind of laughing again.

I made several other desperate suggestions like, "Please, please if you want ANY CHANCE of getting festivals, or distribution, hire some name actors." And, "You've never made a film before. Why not take $250,000 and make a short film first, just as practice..." And, "Hire a director who has made a movie before." But, no. The film went ahead as scheduled.

A year later, I got an inquiry from St. Luke Productions. I was writing a monthly column for Liguorian at the time. The request came in for me to write a feature article on the making of the movie Therese. I was kind of shocked. "Do you really want me to write something like that?" But then I thought, "Well, maybe the film will beat the unbelievably incrediblely monumentally enormous odds that it will come out mediocre....maybe, it will be a miracle."

So, I said, "Sure, I'll consider doing a feature on it. Please send me a VHS of the film so I can see it."

But the answer came back, "Oh, no. We aren't showing it to people yet. We just want you to write a feature in support of these good Catholics who are trying to make a wonderful Catholic movie." (I was actually told a few months later by some millionaires in Portland, that they had seen a roughcut of the film...but whatever.)

See, I can't support the way Therese was made. It goes against everything I am doing here in Hollywood to try and get Christians to make inroads as professionals. To the people who work at the craft of entertainment here in the business, watching the millions of dollars Christians waste in "showing" Hollywood, by outsider attempts at movie making, is heart-breaking. And kind of annoying. Multiple Emmy nominated screenwriter and Christian, Karen Hall, used to say, "It's like if I woke up one day and said, 'Hey, I have a shingle. I think I'll put it outside my front door and start doing psycho-therapy."

But anyway, they wouldn't show me the film, so I wouldn't write a feature on it.

About a year later, I got a call from two different dioceses, and also from an office at the U.S. Catholic Conference, asking me whether Therese should get the Bishops' support. Even just informal support.

So, I called St. Luke Productions and said, "Please, can I get a screener of this film? I could help you get the word out. But I have to see the film first." I had heard that the project was being shown around down to various studios, and I also offered my willingness to go to one of those. I was told that it wouldn't be possible for them to send me a screener, and that it wouldn't be possible for me to see it in the rounds here in L.A., but that if I wanted to fly to Portland, they would let me see the film there. Of course, this was an absurd thing to ask. It really started to seem to me that St. Luke's Productions didn't want me to see the film. (Which is also weird, because, frankly, I'm really not big enough to be worth hiding from...) I sighed, as I recall, and said, "No, I will not pay to fly to Portland to see the film. But do let me know when there will be press screenings here in L.A.."

This is why I got kind of mad this week, when I got an email from a marketer, asking me to help "Get the word out about Therese opening this week!"

I have participated in many, many studio film junkets. I have NEVER been treated worse, as a member of the press, than on this project coming from my fellow devout Catholics. No Hollywood studio would ever ask me to support a film without letting me see it first. This is the kind of non-professional weirdness that you have to be in the Christian market to encounter.

I hope the junket for the film here in L.A. was a little affair and maybe it was just an oversight that I didn't get invited. I think this is unlikely, because I am certainly THE ONLY member of the press in L.A. who had issued at least two prior requests to see this project. I am also certainly THE ONLY member of the press who had volunteered several hours of work in the early stages of this project. And that alone should have merited, as a professional courtesy, an invite to a screening. Hell, even the pagans do that.

I hope Therese is a great film. Although, several people who have seen it have basically kind of shrugged, "Really devout catholics will probably like it."

I hope the people at St. Lukes will make more films, now that they have had a multi-million dollar personal film school experience. Otherwise, it will REALLY be a waste.

I hope nobody ever, ever comes to me again and says, "God is going to make this movie great."

Well, I guess this is me getting the word out about Therese.

NOT A RACKET

The new Kirsten Dunst film, Wimbledon is not as bad as some of the critics have said. I went with one of my twenty-something male students, and he pronounced along with the closing credits, "That was actually entertaining." High praise, considering I had to drag him there. (It balanced out, because I let him drag me to Sky Captain...) From the standpoint of the new evangelization and guaging the "Signs of the Times," Wimbledon is pretty much a must see.

Coming from the folks who did Notting Hill and Four Weddings, this is a mostly British romantic comedy that is most funny when it exploits the "quirky group of friends and family" that made both of those prior films work. Unfortunately, all the humor drops out before the mid-point of the film, as the writers try desperately to find a reason why two people should be committed to each other. I mean, we really don't have to make a commitment anymore, do we? Why do we even want to? So, what is the point of this film?

Fascinating problem for the modern romantic comedy.

I also watched Pillow Talk this weekend, starring Doris Day and Rock Hudson. Back in the 50's romance preceded sex. And then marriage - or at least permanent commitment was the goal. They didn't have to struggle with ambivalence about the point of it all. The audience knew what to root for, and the writers challenge was in getting the two warring parties into permanent commitment in the most humorous way.

Then, we had three decades of the sexual revolution in the movies. And the net result is we don't know what romance is, we think permanent commitment is a fantasy, and we wouldn't swear that blood or marriage has anything to do with family. It's really a quandry for the whole romantic comedy genre, because they all end up turning into dramas now! In comedy, funny is supposed to be first, but in romantic comedy, a kind of crippled metaphysics is ending up first. Love it.

Wimbledon, very much in the mode of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and my friends are telling me Garden State, by the way, ultimately makes its way back to the same values as Pillowtalk, although sadly and with an air of resignation. It's like Generation X is saying, "We can't stop wanting unconditional permanent love. Our parents told us it's a phantom. Our grandparents lived as though it was real. We choooooooooooooooooooose, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, our grandparents."

One of the funniest confusions in contemporary drama is everything having to do with sex. So, in Wimbledon sex is something that needs to be gotten out of the way so that romance becomes possible. Amazing! The seediest moments of the movie occur when the Kirsten Dunst character propositions her handsome lead. She notes early on that fooling around before a tennis match is a good kind of recreation. They both agree, and so they go to bed. Then, later, when they start to really care for one another, the romance is played out in a slow-mo montage of them walking on the beach, running in the park, talking and eating. These "romantic" scenes are almost completely devoid of physical contact.

Later in the film, sex actually becomes the enemy of the relationship. The couple almost breaks up over it. But not in any Christian sense, of "By using each other like things, we have ruined our chance for real sexual intimacy." It's more that the sex is opposed to self-donation instead of being the impulse of self-donation.

It's all such a mess. A wonderful hopeful mess for us with a theology of the body to unleash. Because sex isn't going away any time soon. It's just when and how we are going to make our case. We're going to need more than academic papers here.

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend Wimbledon to unaccompanied teens, as there are too many issues that need to be processed, and I would be afraid that they would absorb some of its confusions - or have their own confusions validated. I recommend it as fascinating viewing for anybody who pastors or counsels young people.

SKY CAPTAIN AND THE CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS

I'm not someone who disses movies for being principally vehicles for special effects. The "Lookee what we can do!" impulse is one of the tings that defines the art form which is inseparable from advances in technology. Virginia Wolfe said that there could never really be a mature film criticism, because the medium kept changing so fast that there were no standards of comparison.

What I do object to, is boring the audience by being self-indulgent with the special effects and trying to make the impressions they create last for the duration of a two-hour movie. For non-computer geeks, the impact of the effects in the recent release Sky Captain really only lasts for about forty-five minutes. After that, it is all the same stuff over and over. Picture yourself on even the coolest new roller coaster for forty-five minutes. Once you done it, you've done it. The thrill is so much in the newness of it.

Inexcusably, Sky Captain has nothing to hold the viewer's brain and emotions once the CGI attractions wear thin. The plot holes in the story are big enough to drop a fifteen story steel robot through. The characters have no arc. No one changes or grows. So, by the usual definition, there's no drama here.

By way of dubious achievement, Sky Captain could be considered the first film that is purely a vehicle for CGI, which is served by the human actors - Oscar winners Gywnneth, Jude and Angelina. That is, we generally disdain movies that are pure "star vehicles." This is a movie that "uses" human actors to serve the effects. It would be fascinatingly icky, if it wasn't a complete failure as entertainment.

[FADE IN, SEPIA] Pass, Dex.

CLOSE—ON FATHER BARRY
He stands over the body of Kayo Nolan, which lies on the pallet and has
been covered by a tarpaulin.

FATHER BARRY
I came down here to keep a promise.
I gave Kayo my word that if he stood up to the
mob I'd stand up with him all the way. Now
Kayo Nolan is dead. He was one of those fellows
who had the gift of getting up. But this time they fixed
him good— unless it was an accident like Big Mac says.

Some people think the Crucifixion
only took place on Calvary. They better wise
up. Taking Joey Doyle's life to stop him from
testifying is a crucifixion— Dropping a sling on Kayo
Nolan because he was ready to spill his guts
tomorrow— that's a crucifixion. Every time the
mob puts the crusher on a good man— tries to
stop him from doing his duty as a citizen— it's a
crucifixion.

And anybody who sits around and lets it happen,
keeps silent about something he knows has happened—
shares the guilt of it just as much as the Roman soldier
who pierced the flesh of Our Lord to see if He was dead.

TRUCK
Go back to your church, Father.

FATHER BARRY
Boys, this is my church. If you don't think
Christ is here on the waterfront, you got another
guess coming. And who do you think He lines up
with—

Every morning when the hiring boss blows his
whistle, Jesus stands alongside you in the shape-up.

He sees why some of you get picked and some
of you get passed over. He sees the family men
worrying about getting their rent and getting food
in the house for the wife and kids. He sees them
selling their souls to the mob for a day's pay.

What does Christ think of the easy-money boys
who do none of the work and take all of the gravy?
What does He think of these fellows wearing
hundred-and-fifty-dollar suits and diamond rings—
on your union dues and your kickback money?
How does He feel about bloodsuckers picking
up a longshoreman's work tab and grabbing
twenty percent interest at the end of a week?

How does He, who spoke up without fear
against evil, feel about your silence?

SONNY
Shut up about that!

FATHER BARRY
You want to know what's wrong
with our waterfront? It's love of a lousy buck. It's
making love of a buck— the cushy job— more
important than the love of man. It's forgetting
that every fellow down here is your brother in
Christ.

But remember, fellows, Christ is always with you—
Christ is in the shape-up, He's in the hatch—
He's in the union hall— He's kneeling
here beside Nolan and He's saying with all
of you—

If you do it to the least of mine,
you do it to me! What they did to Joey, what they
did to Nolan, they're doing to you. And you. And
YOU. And only you, with God's help, have the
power to knock 'em off for good!
(turns to Nolan's corpse)
Okay, Kayo?
Amen.

He makes the sign of the cross.
(from On the Waterfront, writtten by Bud Schulberg)

WELL SAID! [AHEM]

Fr. Ron Rolheiser has kindly written a column expanding on a talk I gave this summer at a conference on the affective formation of seminarians. My talk was on the connection between the arts and affective formation. (The notes for said talk are somewhere in the archives on the right. Somewhere around July 12 if you're the curious sort.)

Fr. Rolheiser picked up on the second part of my talk which had to do with the spiritual power of beauty. Go here to read the whole piece.

I have reworked the talk as a three-part series for the National Catholic Register. Quite by weird accident it seems, the "kinder, gentler version" of the first piece ended up not getting printed in favor of the original "mean" version. I'm getting a lot of very positive mail about the article from beauty-starved Catholics in pews everywhere. Seems like the column really hit a chord.

Here are a couple of the letters:

(from a pastor)

Dear Barbara Nicolosi,

Thank you for your clear and enjoyable article “Art and Liturgy” in last week’s National Catholic Register. I am the pastor of a large Catholic church, 4300 families. I am trying to bring beauty back into the weekend Masses and it’s not so simple. The biggest problem is our church building, which neither acoustically nor visually supports Catholic liturgy (we are hoping to demolish and rebuild). Another problem is lack of talent or even basic understanding. I myself began a Gregorian Chant schola but am not qualified to direct any level of polyphony. I hired a competent organist as music director, but she is Orthodox and does not have a clear idea of what makes for Catholic liturgical music. I have seven different choirs and not nearly enough time to review weekly music lists. While our music director makes beautiful music, I can’t depend on her to do beautiful liturgical music. She was the best director we came up with in a 10-month nationwide search. It’s slim pickins out there!

I write for three reasons:

* to thank you for articulating, in winning prose, our current distress
* to offer you some insight into what your pastors face in trying to rebuild a lost patrimony
* to ask if you know of anyone whom we might hire as “liturgical director.” You might observe that the pastor should invest his time into directing his own liturgies, but should I do that with all of our choirs, lectors, altar servers, altar guild, environment people, extraordinary communion ministers, etc., I would have very little time left to visit the sick, direct our building program, counsel the doubtful, etc. I am quite willing to invest parish funds into the liturgy, as I know it will come back (“I can’t afford not to”). But who?

Someone with both an appreciation for beauty and an education in authentic liturgy. The latter just means, I suppose, a “Catholic” sense of sacramental rites and a knowledge of the pertinent documents.

Thank you again for articulating the problem in your article. Perhaps you can help this one parish with a solution. If you know of anyone, have them email me, or shoot me over contact info.

Fr. M.S., CA

[Note from Barb: Does anybody know of a liturgist I can refer on to Father? Thanks..]

Dear Ms. Nicolosi,
You cannot imagine how relieved I was to read your article on the Arts and the Church. I have often felt like I was the only person left in the Church who feels that what we offer God in the sacrifice of the Mass is less than stellar. I am not an artist myself, therefore, I did not feel it was appropriate to criticize and judge. However, I know something about art appreciation having spent a good deal of time in Europe and status quo isn't cutting it! When our Byzantine priest was new to the parish, he was appalled at the lack of a crucifix (we had a Resurrected Christ instead, and, by the way, what are known around the state as "Precious Moments" stained glass windows) and proceeded to "Catholic Up" the place. What an improvement! We got real icons and holy objects, he used incense and beeswax candles...it was amazing! Our Holy Thursday and Good Friday liturgies are a true offering to God. It is beautiful and Holy and one's worship is, therefore, more intense and meaningful. Thank you for writing this article! Perhaps more parishes will wake up and offer the best of our humanity through the arts to Our Lord who deserves nothing less.
In Christ,
C.C.
Lawton, OK

...and another...

I just finished reading your piece on the death of beauty in Catholic worship and I couldn't agree more. From the total banishment of Mary to the hideous new churches we are building, it seems as though there is no place for many Catholics to turn... It's almost as though the modern American Catholic church is ashamed of what we believe as Catholics and why we believe. I conclude this because one of the last things you'll ever hear at Mass is any attempt at explaining to the faithful why they believe what they believe. I now see it as almost completely my job to pass my faith on to my children. Whether its the artistic heritage that past generations took for granted or the spiritual heritage, I am primarily responsible. Sadly, I am, many times, up against my own church in accomplihing this task. Thank you for your efforts and keep up the good fight, it's worth it. God bless you.--T.B.

EMMY REDUX

I really don't have much to say about the Emmy's. They were pretty embarrassing - not funny, inarticulate, excruciatingly earnest, smugly left-wing.

You know it's a bad red carpet pre-show, when the best hosts have to be reckoned Miss Piggy and Kermit. Message to Star Jones(using the language style you adopted for your hosting duties): "Sistah, don't you go and quit you alls day job, momma!"

You know its a bad show, when you keep escaping to a rerun of Titanic and the season premiere of Charmed on other networks.

I've never seen an episode of The Sopranos, so I don't know if all the accolades are deserved. (We have a thing in our family about having seen enough entertainment in which Italian Americans are mafioso hoods. It's right up there with Irish as drunks, Southerners as bigots and Californians as surfers. We do permit French people as obnoxious, opinionated and over-critical, however. And we can do it without malice as we're half French...) I was very biasedly and unapologetically rooting for my friend,Barbara Hall's show, Joan of Arcadia to win. But the Red Sox also lost two of three to the Yankees this weekend, demonstrating that often iin this valley of tears, the virtuous and deserving go unrewarded...

As I predicted, the gay valentine Angels in America took as many awards as it possibly could. It is an election year, after all. I felt the waves of John Kerry's wince when Tony Kushner blew kisses to "my husband Mark. Maybe soon we can get legally married so you can make an honest homosexual of me!" Was the ensuing clamor, the Emmy attendees cheering, or 2 million Americans deciding to vote Republican?

Anyway, at least the clothes were mostly lovely.

EMILY MONDAY

404


How many Flowers fail in Wood --
Or perish from the Hill --
Without the privilege to know
That they are Beautiful --

How many cast a nameless Pod
Upon the nearest Breeze --
Unconscious of the Scarlet Freight --
It bear to Other Eyes --

SILENT - NO MORE!

I'm SOOOOOO excited. A friend just forwarded me the following release. It's not the law suit that's got me excited, but the project!

Celebrated director Martin Scorsese is being sued for allegedly failing to have a medical examination for his new film Silence. Hollywood Gang Productions filed the breach of contract lawsuit against the Goodfellas creator in Manhattan Superior Court on September 3, claiming Scorsese agreed in February to "submit to a physical examination" but ignored repeated requests to fulfill that commitment and consequently lost the company insurance cover for the period drama - about Jesuit priests in 16th Century Japan. Hollywood Gang Productions' lawyer, Richard Golub, says, "All we want to do is stick a thermometer in him." The company had a contract with Scorsese which gave them power to take out a $1 million policy to insure themselves in case anything happened to the director during production. They are now seeking legal fees of more than $10,000.

Oh, the project! I love Endo's Silence, and use it with all my RCIA students. Along with Howard's End (on the secular side), I think Silence is one of the most important novels of the 20th Century. Certainly, one of the greatest Christian ones.

And, if I had to handpick the director to make the movie, ten times a hundred times, it would be Scorcese. He can do it! He can do it! We need to pray for him, however.

My big concern about this project is that, like any great Christian novel, (ie. Brideshead Revisited, The Power and the Glory, Wise Blood, etc.) taken from the wrong perspective, the project could seem to be anti-Christian. So, many of my RCIA students, don't get the point of the book, and some are actually scandalized by it. But for those who GET it, it becomes a benchmark. And so, I always take the risk and keep it in the program.

So, I'm very excited and a little anxious. I was thinking of actually whipping off a letter to Scorcese's company, pleading to just have an hour or so to talk about the theological meaning of the book.... Have to figure out a way to get an audience without appearing like a complete wacko. Or a profiteer, which would be worse.

But, anyway. I'm SO excited to think we'll get to see this film soon! Get thee to a doctor, Martin!

MOORE HYPE

Michael Moore's got the biz buzz again these days for his announcement that he will be foregoing submitting his Fahrenheit 9/11 for the Best Documentary Oscar this year, and, instead, will be going for the Best Picture nod. This might be a classic case of the devil biting his own tail, but, on the other hand, this is Hollywood...

In more testimony to the weird weird extreme polarization of our times, Daily Variety reported a few weeks back that, considering the Best Picture race so far, the two top contenders have to be reckoned The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11.

It would be great to see pictures of the Suffering Savior splattered all over the industry trades for the next four months, but, honestly, I just don't see it happening. And my sense is Icon isn't going to go for it.

A few of us conservative Catholics worked really hard to get TPOTC the annual official Catholic organization in Hollywood award. This award is given at a big Beverly Hills brunch attended by the Cardinal of Los Angeles (or, this year, his delegate) and about a thousand industry Catholics. There was great resistance on the part of many of the liberal Catholics in the group toward giving TPOTC the award. The argument was that the film was offensive to "our Jewish friends and colleagues in the business." Fortunately, there wasn't any other film that offered any competition except maybe Big Fish. Well, I liked that film, but as my friend argued to the Board, "We can give the Award to an international block-buster and the most significant religious film ever made, or we can give it to a movie nobody saw." Still, we nearly lost the dispute. We ended up prevailing by making the triangulating case that the film was "Particularly beloved of the poor in the Third World, and that it would be an expression of solidarity with the poor to give the film the Award." Which is true....but sheesh.

Anyway, when I called Icon to inform them of the award, there was decided reticence about anybody from the production coming to pick it up. Certainly not Mel. I made the case, "This award could be a really important kick-off for the Academy Award campaign season." The response came back, "Mel already has his Oscars."

(Another friend recently pitched a TV series at Icon as they are now heavy into prime-time with three series this fall. My friend's series has a spiritual component to it, which, in the wake of Joan of Arcadia got the pitch a good reception at several networks. But, at Icon he was waved away, "We don't want to do anything with religion here." I guess it's shell-shock from all the anti-Semitic crap that was thrown at them last year. But it's also a little, well, ungrateful, in light of the $600 million dollars they made off of religion recently...)

Anyway, this indicated to me that Icon is not going to be pushing TPOTC for an Oscar, and without the campaign, the film's chances are dead in the water. The only way to explain an Oscar campaign is "saturation." The top contenders are generally featured in the trades through advertising or other buzz every day for three months. Clearly, Fahrenheit 9/11 will be in our faces. It doesn't seem like Icon wants to engage, however.

But even if Icon did enter the race seriously, I still don't see this town giving Oscar to a film which is a devout bloody depiction of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Sorry, but, it's hardly news that this is, culturally, a very Jewish town. One of my Jewish friends assured me that few people in the business even saw TPOTC.

No, I think that in an election year, the pressure will be over-whelming to register a vote against the "right-wing Republican Christian menace," by giving the Oscar to Fahrenheit. I could be wrong, but you have to understand how giddy with power people in this industry are. They get all sanctimonious about "Coming Out" with their opinions, as though they have earned a political responsibility along with their creative achievements. It's a kind of insanity, but they really have nothing to lose, do they? Whether it's acrimony or love the celebrities here get, the hunger for attention is still fed.

Friend and fellow screenwriter, Jan "The Maven" disagrees with me. I hope she's right.

RATED D: FOR DECEIT

Last October, Act One was contacted by an AMC film crew that was shooting a documentary on - according to the producer - "Religion in Hollywood." We were in the middle of the Act Two Advanced Screenwriters Workshop for a group of our alumni, and the film crew asked me if they could come and shoot some of the sessions. The producer-director of the piece was Jesse Moss, and Act One gave him and his people pretty open access to shoot classes, and interview students and faculty.

During his interview with me, in the middle of the questions about being a Christian in Hollywood, he asked me - what I thought at the time was - a weird question, "So, what political party do you belong to?" I was taken aback, "Whaaaaaaaaat?" He asked me directly if I would be voting for Arnold Schwarzeneggar. I remember blinking in confusion and saying somethng to the effect of, "What does that have to do with anything?"

Now, I understand that the question had to do with everything.

Some of you will have read the NY Times article or have seen the documentary last night on AMC. Turns out, the doc wasn't on "Religion in Hollywood" at all, but rather on "Republicans in Hollywood." After 30 minutes of stuff about Arnold and Charles Heston and five young Republicans at a cocktail party, the doc segues into the Act One section. The implication clearly is that, if you are a committed Christian, you must also be a Republican.

The doc also interviewed Patty Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and made the same implicit connection by doing so. I've been at events with Patty where she has clearly identified herself as a Democrat. She said at UCLA, "Becuase I am pro-life, very often I have to hold my nose and vote Republican." The doc also incorrectly id'ed Patty as being the "Founder of Feminists for Life." She isn't.

So, we're annoyed this morning at having been duped. I would never have allowed Mr. Moss access to Act One if he had been upfront that his project was about politics. Act One is absolutely non-partisan. I will, no doubt, spend the day, answering queries from faculty and friends and alumni, assuring them that Act One isn't part of the Republican insurgency in the industry.

Mr. Moss owes us all an apology, and a correction in the NY Times.

FELONY TWIST

It's really been a bad year for movies. Even here in L.A. where EVERYTHING has to play for seven days, there still is next to nothing my friends and I wanted to see at the theater this past weekend. We actually almost settled on watching a DVD at my place, but then somebody noted that the new caper film Criminal was getting strong reviews.

I can never resist a good con/caper film. [sigh] I should learn to...

Starring John C. Relly and a new guy named Diego Luna (who my twenty-something femals friends assure me is "hot" but he just looks kind of effeminate and under-fed to me.), the best thing in the film is supporting actress Maggie Gyllenhaal. Not that she does anything noteworthy here. She's just such a natural talent, that she is fun to watch even when she doesn't have much to do, as in Criminal.

Criminal is a remake of an Argentinian film Nine Queens, which also got critical raves, but, IF that prior film had the same stupid ending as Criminal, I think the real caper in the story is the one pulled on the audience.

The film plays out nicely with some good characterizations and overall technique. I did kind of wish the director would cease and desist with the unmotivated close-ups already, but I suppose this is a pedestrian way of building tension in a caper film. The story keeps your attention, but only because, all the way through, the viewer thinks it is setting up some really clever con or caper. You sit there watching for minute clues, wondering what the twist is going to be, and, for that reason, you stay alert. But then when the twist is revealed (and no, I am actually not going to say what it is for a change) it is so lame and easy that you want to throw your empty popcorn box at the screen. And not in a good way.

Basically, the story's problem comes down to a huge suspension of disbelief moment that occurs in the first five minutes of the film, and which all throughout, I kept waiting to see how the filmmakers were going to deal with. Well, they don't deal with it at all. Just kind of hope at the end that the viewers won't remember how contrived the initial set-up was from 86 minutes ago.

Well, this viewer didn't forget. And I'm still mad. And not in a good way.

Mucho pass, amigo.

EMILY MONDAY

712



Because I could not stop for Death --
He kindly stopped for me --
The Carriage held but just Ourselves --
And Immortality.

We slowly drove -- He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility --

We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess -- in the Ring --
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain --
We passed the Setting Sun --

Or rather -- He passed Us --
The Dews drew quivering and chill --
For only Gossamer, my Gown --
My Tippet -- only Tulle --

We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground --
The Roof was scarcely visible --
The Cornice -- in the Ground --

Since then -- 'tis Centuries -- and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses' Heads
Were toward Eternity --

STILL WORKING OUT THE KINKS...

...with the blog. Eventually, I know I'll be glad I did this, but right now, I just want my plain ole boring looking blog back. (Clayton help! Sean help!)

Anyway, sorry about the mess.

But it could be worse. For example, I could imagine being part of the team behind the new NBC series LAX. I'm sitting here reading, playing a computer game, cooking dinner and still managing to be insulted by the crass easiness of the pilot episode. It's so clearly trying to be ER goes on vacation, I keep expecting a group of people in teal scrubs to run by pushing a gurney.

Actually, I'm kind of glad LAX is so lame. Now, I won't have to worry I'm missing anything while I do my weekly David Caruso gazing.