I don’t know about John, but in spite of my love of mythopoeic literature, I have thus far acquired no interest in seeing this “controversial” movie or reading the Pullman books on which it is base. Other, perhaps, than to discover if the author & moviemakers can somehow manage, unlike their other anti-Catholic storymongering brethren, to tell an interesting tale without relying on the very Catholic tropes, imagery and story arcs one would think honest atheists would wish to eschew, but never seem to do. Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of three-act story structure, and the fact that it is far more reliant on the Judeo-Christian “story” than even most Christian storytellers realize. As someone once asked, have you ever read a really good Buddhist novel? (Poetry, yes, novel…not yet, but I’m open to suggestions.)

But others have seen The Golden Compass and taken pen in hand; indeed, considering how much is being written on the film, one begins to suspect that critics must have made up the better part of of the viewing audience opening weekend, given its (by Hollywood Big Movie-standards) dismal take of a mere $26 million. At any rate, one of them, Harry Forbes, director of the bishops’ Office for Film and Broadcasting, liked the movie very much, in spite of its themes, and said so on the Bishops’ office film website. But if you go there, you will search in vain for the review, because it was pulled following a wave of protest from individual bishops and Catholic laity.

But the horse had already galloped leagues from the barn–Mr. Forbes’ comments have been plastered everywhere anyway, particularly by folks eager, apparently, to defend the movie from charges of overt anti-Christianism.

Pulling the review from the site no doubt smacks to outsiders, who know little of the Wild West atmosphere that prevails in the sphere of Catholic Opinion (whatever that is) of de haut en bas clerical censorship. In which case, perhaps the moviegoing audience would have been better served if the Bishops Office had let the review stand, with a caveat saying that it didn’t represent the opinion of the USCCB; better yet, set up some forum on the site for comments–of which I have no doubt there would have been many many many.

Our Sunday Visitor has an article on the kerfuffle, and Forbes’ original review can still be read on CatholicOnline.

Anti-Catholic, Fantasy | 3 Comments »

Directed by Charles Sturridge

Starring Peter O’Toole and Harvey Keitel

FairyTale: A True Story (good title, no?) is based on actual events that occurred in England in the midst of WWI. Two young girls, aged 8 and 12, claimed to have taken photographs of fairies living in their backyard. Needless to say, the pictures caused quite a stir. Especially after Sherlock Holmes creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (played with twinkling blue eyes by screen legend, Peter O’Toole) took an active interest in the girls’ story and published the photographs in a national magazine. The photographs also attracted the more skeptical interest of illusionist, Harry Houdini (Harvey Keitel, making a rare but welcome children’s film appearance), who had something of a personal obsession with debunking fraudulent “fairytales” of all varieties.

Were the photographs, and thus the fairies, authentic? Or were the kids making it all up for attention? Or were they making it up for more personal reasons? This movie doesn’t seem to care. It embraces the fantasy elements of the story, and includes some truly imaginative special-effects of fairies flitting about the English countryside. By taking the children at face value, the filmmakers confirm the importance of child-like wonder at God’s creation. As GK Chesterton put it, “The whole order of things is as outrageous as any miracle which could presume to violate it.” In other words, a tree is as incredible as a fairy, if you think about it.

FairyTale is worth watching if only for the ensemble of wonderful British character-actors. I don’t know that any species exists more delightful than those consummate English professionals who tear into a role, regardless of shape or size, and don’t let go. You may not recognize the names, but you will probably recognize the faces of Bill Nighy, Paul McGann, Bob Peck, and Phoebe Nicholls.

The other reason to give FairyTale a viewing is that well-made family films are in short supply these days. Most insult the intelligence of the adults in attendance, which means to me that they also insult the intelligence of the children in attendance. Fortunately, the mid-1990s witnessed a string of smart, beautifully made family films, from the Secret Garden (1993) to Little Women (1994) to The Little Princess (1995).

Released by Mel Gibson’s Icon Productions in 1997, FairyTale: A True Story deserves mention in the same breath. Though not quite a classic at the level of, say, Alfonso Cuaron’s gorgeous Little Princess, this is a charming, thought-provoking movie that should enchant viewers young and old.

Family, Fantasy | No Comments »

It took me awhile before I got around to seeing M. Night Shyamaan’s much-disparaged Lady in the Water. Virtually everyone I know who’d seen the film warned me against a viewing. The flick even managed to pick up two ignominious “Razzie” Awards (the opposite of the Oscars, to put it kindly), both of which went to M. Night as “worst director” and “worst supporting actor” of 2006. But how could I not check out the latest from the director of Signs or the underrated masterpiece, Unbreakable?

So see it I did, and (to quote P.G. Wodehouse) I’m not disgruntled, but I’m far from gruntled. Lady in the Water is silly, incoherent, unsatisfying, self-indulgent…and thoroughly watchable. Even entertaining. Because Shyamalan’s movies are distinctively his own, and he believes in his own vision. The man’s self-faith borders on lunacy, but the predominantly bland, marketing-driven world of modern movies could use a few more eccentric visionaries.

Belief is a major theme of Shyamalan’s movies. The question of faith is central to most of his plotlines, as well as its ancillary: the question of each person’s purpose in life. Shyamalan’s self-envisioned purpose is clear: he sees himself as an old-school storyteller. They’re a dying breed, to be sure, and the man who considers himself an heir to Hitchcock and Spielberg earns some slack, in mind, but he can only stretch my goodwill so far.

The movie’s about a likable shlub named Cleveland Heep (who else but the wonderful Paul Giamatti?) whose daily routine as an apartment complex superintendent is interrupted when he fishes a narf out of the swimming pool. A narf? Yes, a narf: an ethereal Bryce Dallas Howard plays the Madame Narf, “Story.” Story? Yes, Story. She needs to get home to “the Blue World,” but there’s a Big Bad Scrunt that wants to eat her. A scrunt? Yes, a scrunt. And we haven’t even touched on the tartutics. 

Funny names aside, the plot of Lady in the Water manages to be both simple and convoluted, as if M. Night decided to turn an earworm jingle into a grand opera. M. Night’s previous movie, The Village, had echoes of Little Red Riding Hood, and as a storyteller he is understandably fascinated by the universal pull of mythology—but even as fairy tales go, Lady in the Water is a load of hooey. To give you one example, the plot hinges on a child being able to read secret codes on the covers of cereal boxes. Suddenly, “I see dead people,” seems the height of plausibility. And in case you’re wondering, Lady in the Water did indeed begin its misbegotten life as a bedtime story M. Night Shyamalan told to his kids.  

That touching tidbit aside, this movie was probably the wrong venue for M. Night to proclaim his genius as a Man of Letters. In a woefully misguided decision, M. Night cast himself in the film as a writer whose words will change the world. Story prophecies of a “great orator” who will one day read his (I mean his character’s) book, and “your book will be the seeds of many of his great thoughts.” Most viewers will consider this offensively hubristic. And so it is, but it’s also strangely endearing. Shyamalan actually wants to change the world. When Cleveland is asked by a hermitic tenant whether he believes mankind is worth saving, he answers “Yes” without batting an eyelash. And in a scene that will either elicit tears or groans from the audience, Cleveland holds a dangerously ill Story in his arms as he prays to his dead wife and child—“I miss your faces. They remind me of God. I’m so lost without you guys.” In an age of tired cynicism and easy skepticism, I appreciate a filmmaker who dares to invest his stories with an almost desperate spirituality. (For the record: Shyamalan is not bad in the part of the writer/genius/prophet—he’s soft-spoken, oddly charming—but like the movie itself, it was just a bad idea to begin with.)

And yet I like the guy, and I can’t help but like his movies. Lady in the Water is so un-cynical, it’s virtually begging for snide remarks. Shyamalan didn’t help himself by trading in his trademark tight storytelling for something sloppy and ill-conceived. M. Night’s follies are on a grand scale—here he aims to make a modern myth and falls precipitously short—but he’s trying, God bless him. The old saying goes: Aim for the stars, land on the barnyard roof. And you know what? The view from the barnyard roof’s not always so shabby.   

USCCB rating: A-II—adults and adolescents. (PG-13)

Fantasy, Suspense/Thriller | No Comments »