I love the SE7EN: Platinum Series DVD from New Line. Man is this a good set.

Right now I'm working my way through the extra materials, and have listened to two of the four commentary tracks. Good stuff so far.

The first track features David Fincher, Brad Pitt, and Morgan Freeman (although Freeman was recorded at a different time and edited in). A very good commentary track. Near the end of the film, Pitt and Fincher get into this fascinating discussion on film marketing, on the issues surrounding using test audiences, focus groups, etc. I loved that part because I think so many films are screwed up in their marketing, and yet the people publicizing them have the best of intentions from their point of view. It's just an interesting discussion from two guys on the inside. There's a couple of points in particular I'd like to reference, but it was fun hearing them come up, so I won't ruin them for those commentary listeners out there.

The other point of interest is that Gwyneth Paltrow is not mentioned one single time during this first track. The track was obviously recorded relatively recently (closer to now than to the release of Seven; Pitt references working on The Mexican, for instance), so the relationship between Pitt and Paltrow has been over for some time and he is married to someone else. It is just weird that they do not mention her at all, do not bring up her name one single time. Because they don't mention it it becomes an issue.

I can just see Jennifer Aniston as Brad goes off to the studio saying, "Have a good day at work Honey...No, no, I'm totally cool with it. Really. I know that it's in the past. I know it's over. Really, I'll be fine.

"Oh, if you do happen to say one word about her I will rip your d*ck off. Love ya."

Amanpour

The Exorcist special edition.

I am truly ashamed that I never realized how absolutely great this movie is. If, like me, you haven't seen it since you were a kid-- do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to netflix and add it to your queue.

It's so good, in fact, that it just made my top 20 movies of all time. I don't think I've ever really _SEEN_ this movie. 1973 was a bit early for me, and I only remember bits and pieces of it. It felt like a first time viewing: alone, late at night, with the lights down low.

First of all, the newly remastered sound is amazing. Having a solid 5.1 dolby digital system is essential-- it ups the creepiness ante considerably. Strong seperation of channels and lots of directional stuff. I love the soundtrack, too. That sparse, haunting piano theme really gets under your skin. Thankfully, the music is only used sparingly, so it stands out when it needs to and gets the hell out of the way the rest of the time. A lot of modern movies could take a lesson from The Exorcist in this department.

The really cool thing about the Exorcist is that it's scary in every way the Blair Witch project tried to be-- because of all the things that aren't shown, and aren't said but implied. The movie is at the nexus of all that hysterical uncertainty surrounding the early 70's.. the breakdown of the family unit, the uncertainty of modern science in the face of unknown diseases, civil unrest, women's lib (isn't that a delightfully quant phrase? It's hard to look at lil' Kim and say that out loud with a straight face). Most obviously, the loss of faith in the government, in religion, and ultimately in ourselves.

I wasn't sure exactly what was going on with the "movie inside a movie" theme. Eg, Ellen Burstyn (our lil' buddy from Tom Chick's Requiem For A Dream) as an acress, the filming of the movie outside a church, and the detective with the movie passes. Maybe a juxtaposition of religion and hollywood as polar opposites, drawing people in different directions?

I loved the camerawork. I can't remember the last time a stairway (both inside and out) was made so portentious with a few judicious angles. But it's just a stairway. That bright red blood shooting out of Regan's carotid artery during the spinal operation-- is that a medical procedure, or a voodoo ritual? The camera isn't telling: it's just an observer. What Blair Witch tried so hard to achieve, The Exorcist does effortlessly.

Most surprising of all, to me, was how timeless this movie is. It didn't seem the least bit dated. Many old movies fail this test miserably and suffer terribly as a result -- for example, I consider Easy Rider unwatchable. One hallmark of a great movie is that it doesn't seem to age, and Exorcist is definitely one of them. Masterfully made in every sense of the word.

The Seven commentary (and Fight Clubs) proved to me that Brad Pitt isn't a dumb ass. On the contrary he seems like a cool guy. Although he prolly smokes too much dope for his own good. I heard rumors the guy smokes ALOT of weed. yeah dont they all...

And the Exorcist is friggin scary to me still. Just thinking about it makes me NOT want to sleep on my bed. I wish i wasn't so superstitous... maybe it's cause i was brought up Catholic or sumtin.

And you have to give it to the folks who made the Blair Witch... millions of dollars in return for a cam corder movie about a witch you never see... just screaming and bad camera work and bad sound... and yet, IT SCARED ME.

etc

Speaking of movies with a strong Catholic presence...

Has anyone else noticed that AMC has been running the Godfather series all the time lately? I can't get enough of these movies. I just hope I don't become bored with them.

Even Hitler Had A Girlfriend

Very low budget film about a security guard who spends his free time watching porn and wishing for a girlfriend. He's totally inept without any social skills whatsoever. Lives in a porn fantasy world. Likes to peep into people's windows. Hits on the idea of calling escort services and, first, secretly tape records the sex sessions, then moves up to video recording them. There's a subplot involving a serial killer on the loose. The plots collide for a violent climax. It's a strangely compelling film. Funny in a very sick way. Yes, it's not a great film but it's effective... but it's like watching a car crash about to happen. You can't look away. It's also, ultimately, depressing as hell.

Here's a link to it:
http://sepnet.com/rcramer/e_hitler.htm

I think I'll pop in a Disney film now...

The Exorcist is great, BUT...

When you're talking about the Special Edition, Jeff, I hope you don't mean that awful Friedkin reworking that was released last year? It was a textbook example of why director's cuts are rarely good ideas. With the exception of the spider-walking scene (how did they do that?!?!), I hated all the new stuff. I especially hated the cross-faded images Freidkin insisted on throwing in. Ooh, look, it's the scary Assyrian demon face flashing in the dark part of the screen while Ellen Burstyn is in the kitchen! Ooh! As you alluded, nine times out of ten, not seeing stuff is scarier than seeing stuff.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that it isn't dated. When I saw it in the theatre, there was a swell of laughter when the doctor prescribed ritalin. Then there are the clothes and hair styles...egad. Unwatchable. (I'm only half kidding)

Finally, good call on the social issues being addressed in The Exorcist. It's powerful but subtle stuff. I'm not sure I credit Freidkin with any of it being intentional. It's one of my favorite movies about the horrors of the 70s, second only The Ice Storm. It's also one of my favorite stories about religion. Hollywood is such a secular and amoral force; movies rarely address religion with anything even remotely resembling respect.

Speaking of which, anyone seen Robert Duvall's The Apostle. I'd be hard pressed to think of a better movie about religion. The Exorcist would be up there. Hmm, should we start a new thread or just shanghai this one?

-Tom

>I'd be hard pressed to think of a better movie about religion

Mine is South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. That crazy devil character was always a gas. Or Clash of the Titans -- Zeus never looked better than when Sir Lawrence was playing the horny old guy.

>It was a textbook example of why director's cuts are rarely good ideas.

I don't know -- they're always interesting, at least, but I agree that they are often not better - Apocalypse Redux is a better example of that though. Directors' Cuts are usually only better when they actually are better examples of the director's intentions, before the producers mandated some cuts: like Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and Wells' original vision for Third Man. But I always find directors' cuts fascinating.

"When you're talking about the Special Edition, Jeff, I hope you don't mean that awful Friedkin reworking that was released last year?"

Yeah, the ending is royally fubared. I didn't realize what I was missing until I read this last night:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/09/092202.html

I have no idea what they were thinking there. I suppose it's ultimately a testament to the movie's strength-- even tacking on a cheesy ending can barely diminish its effect.

I enjoyed the Iraq stuff at the beginning, but that's an obvious cut for brevity. I think we get the "evil is timeless" message loud and clear when Satan comes knocking in (then) an upscale Georgetown neighborhood. However, I do think all the other scenes Ebert mentioned help the movie.

As for the satanic faces appearing here and there, I don't have a point of reference, but I thought they were used sparingly enough as a recurring motif.

Ultimately I agree with Ebert. The new ending is a travesty. But if they hadn't done that, I would recommend the director's cut.

The Apostle is a great film and Robert Duvall is a genius (for getting it made, and for his performance in it).

I agree re: The Exorcist and Apocalypse Now Redux (which never even sounded like a good idea). Blade Runner was a nice exception, and so was one of the three Close Encounters of the Third Kind cuts. Often, Director's Cuts are insightful, but they rarely make a *better* film because there usually isn't a compelling reason to add anything. They seem to do it because it's there, and because they can.

What's interesting is that a director's cut never results in a shorter film (fan backlash would be deafening, but that might be interesting for a few films out there). Since I subscribe to the theory that, generally, shorter = better, the whole idea of adding new and unpolished scenes into an already convoluted narrative (I'm thinking of Apocalypse Now here) is folly.

Also, I *really* hate that Greedo gets a shot off on Solo in the new(er) Star Wars. Ugh.

-Andrew

>What's interesting is that a director's cut never results in a shorter film

That's actually not true, although it is very rare. The Special Edition of Last of the Mohicans actually cuts more than it adds. Same with the directors' cut of Blood Simple.

>Also, I *really* hate that Greedo gets a shot off on Solo in the new(er) Star Wars

Yeah, that was probably the single worst change made in any "directors' cut". Lucas should have had Porkins take out the Death Star as well.

Stefan

"When I saw it in the theatre, there was a swell of laughter when the doctor prescribed ritalin. "

The audience i saw the re-release with was also chuckling when the doctor and burstyn's character we're smoking in the hospital... in fact everybody in the "youngish" audience took notice at all the smoking in it. Also, the audience was generally FREAKED OUT. The silence was thick with the bedroom scenes. A teenage girl ahead of me in the audience, walked out when the scene with linda blair was doing the thing with the crucifix to herself....

And then compare to the rerelease of Star Wars, which i took my younger nieces and nephews to see, they thought the movie sucked!

etc

As for the Exorcist, I can't think of a scarier movie. I thought it was more frightening than the William Peter Blatty book; which, in a sense, was written more like a psychological thriller than a horror story. Contrast Stephen King. His books always seem to be more terrifying than the movies they portray, including, "The Shining" with Jack Nicolaus. Perhaps this is a testament to Friedken's and Blatty's cinematic and colaborative brilliance.

I'm glad to see Wumpus' appreciation of, "The Exorcist"... though, comparing Blair Witch to the Exorcist is like comparing apples and oranges. Two different movies covering two different forms of evil.

Raphael

I would love to see director's cuts of The Magnificent Ambersons and Sydney (aka Hard Eight).

The director's cut that most pisses me off presently is the one on the film Aliens. Oof. The biggest annoyance there is that there is no other option for seeing that film on DVD other than seeing the goofy-ass director's cut version that was released with the Alien boxed set. I can stand a couple of the additions, but by and large this cut removes a lot of tension from an otherwise fairly taut action/thriller.

On another note, for those of you interested in DVD production, The Digital Bits (a website I totally love...I want to have, like, ten thousand of its babies) has the transcript of a DVD producers' panel they did at something called Comic Con in San Diego. It's a fairly interesting read. Here's a link to it...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/comiccon/index.html

Amanpour

>>I'd be hard pressed to think of a better movie about religion.

I saw a movie a couple of months ago about religion that really hit me hard for some reason, called The Third Miracle, with Ed Harris and Anne Heche. It's about a miracle that occurs, and the process of getting someone declared a saint in the Catholic religion. But it has some great stuff, and Ed Harris... man, what an actor. There are some great scenes with pompous bishops who can't seem bothered with the rabble that is their flock... good stuff.

And I disagree with the DVD of Aliens. I think the additions, which are mainly at the beginning and don't interrupt the intense action toward the end, actually add a bit of depth to why Ripley would care so much about Newt. Before you had to assume some sort of "maternal instinct," which didn't really resonate too strongly.

I've not seen the special edition of The Exorcist, though I am well aware of the original (and lord knows, no pun intended, I should never have seen that film when I did, as I think I was really young and saw it in a drive-in with my parents... hey, it was the 70s). Is it worth buying the DVD or is it too fucked up?

"including, "The Shining" with Jack Nicolaus."

Yeah, that one was somewhat below par. =)

"The Exorcist is great, BUT...
I'm not sure I agree that it isn't dated."

I think the hospital scenes have actually gotten more effective with age. I'm sure the equipment looked somewhat modern to audiences in the 70's, but it now appears clunky, dirty, loud and overall a lot more intimidating - even more like a series of third-world torture devices.

"But it has some great stuff, and Ed Harris... man, what an actor. There are some great scenes with pompous bishops who can't seem bothered with the rabble that is their flock... good stuff."

But this is exactly the thing I don't like about the treatment of christianity in most movies: you can't involve the church unless you're also somehow exposing it as fundamentally corrupt or simply run by idiots for other idiots. I'm kind of obssessed by this, this anti-christian attitude used as a reactionary shortcut to consequence-free "edginess". It really bothers me. And I'm an agnostic former Jew.

As Tom said, The Exorcist is one of the few explicitly pro-Catholic movies I can remember in the last thirty or forty years. And one of the only movies in which a priest character is experiencing a serious crisis of faith that isn't caused, resolved, or caused and resolved by him fucking someone.

"As Tom said, The Exorcist is one of the few explicitly pro-Catholic movies I can remember in the last thirty or forty years."

I can think of perhaps two more, Beckett and A Man for All Seasons, and those weren't so much pro-Catholic as they were pro-the Catholic protagonist.

"even more like a series of third-world torture devices. "

Maybe it was unintentional... but maybe Friedkin was alluding to all the Inquisition torture stuff the Church had done on "heretics"... wow another dimension to the movie!

Also, Exorcist only is "pro-catholic" since it forces you to be scared shitless (and go to Church or Temple or what have you, Friedkin is an agnostic so i read)... last time i watched it, it seemed pretty agnostic with its "Is God dead" stuff, and Max von Sydow dies, as does Father Damian... i guess it depends on how you look at the ending... maybe Father Damian is the christlike person thingy (dying for Linda Blairs soul n stuff)... but his beating the hell out of Linda Blair, at the end, wasn't exactly Christlike. It was a normal reaction... not religious intent. Hey, the prayers didnt work! or maybe it was self sacrifice!

and I'm of the belief that whatever you're brought up, you always go back... Jew, Catholic, Protestamt, Buddhist what have you. Oh yeah, that Ed Harris movie... oye vey, well it wasnt that bad... but I'm sure some other priests have WORSE impulses (young boys errr). I'm going to hell now...

Oh, I thought Shadowlands was a good "Christian" movie.... CS Lewis movie. Its Anglican... iirc

etc

>>you can't involve the church unless you're also somehow exposing it as fundamentally corrupt or simply run by idiots for other idiots.

Well, that's not really what this particular movie is about, but you have to admit it's more dramatically compelling to have a protagonist battling... something, be it aliens or acne or faith or a God with bad skin from another planet, then to have a film that was just about the protocal Catholics use to pick a saint. That's a documentary; conflict and drama makes it interesting fiction.

Have you ever seen the movie I was referring to? I have no idea why it really resonated with me, considering I haven't stepped foot in a Catholic church since my sister's second wedding (she had to have the first annulled so she could have a church wedding... love 'dem Catholic rules).

>>It really bothers me. And I'm an agnostic former Jew.

Well, I'm a non-practicing Catholic, which means I'll burn in hell.

"A teenage girl ahead of me in the audience, walked out when the scene with linda blair was doing the thing with the crucifix to herself...."

Heh, I don't blame her. No matter how "offensive" modern cinema thinks itself, a scene with a little girl stabbing herself in the groin with a crucifix while screaming "Fuck me Jesus" will always be the "most disturbing cinematic moment I shall ever see"... ever.

How did the modern kiddies react to the scene where Regan grabs the psychiatrist's crotch?

Ow.

Which brings me to yet another reason I loved "The Others" - it's nice to see a film, horror or otherwise, not steeped in new millenial irony. This is from The Brunching Shuttlecock's website:

"So where Jan de Bont would show a cgi-generated yuck-mouth howling for the flesh of the living, Alejandro just has a door slam itself shut for no reason. Which is twice as scary, if you ask me."

Go see it, horror fans.

FWIW I liked the Alien's cut too. Particularly the bit with the automatic remote machine guns all moving down to zero... but the aliens keep on coming.

-Andrew

A "Catholic" film I remember from my pre-seminary days with the Jesuits is Catholics starring Martin Sheen. Based on the novel by Brian Moore. Basically it's about a troubleshooter priest sent to a remote island off the coast of Ireland to reign in some "radical" monks who are saying Mass in Latin, instead of the proscribed English service. It's a thoughtful post-Vatican II film that details the church's inner struggle to remain relevant in the modern world. Good performances. Intelligent script.

I remember Catholics too, Bill. Wasn't that the one where it turned out that--I can't remember what you call the chief monk, the Abbot?--who insisted on retaining the Latin Mass no longer believed in God?

And this is moving away from films, but it seems like a good place to mention my favorite "Catholic" book: A Canticle for Leibowitz.

I suppose one could mention "The Name of the Rose" again. I remember liking the Catholic-ness of that film. I might risk ire by also mentioning "The Last Temptation of Christ", because I think Scorcese's personal religious beliefs (his own Catholicism) bled into that film and it didn't shy away from (what my limited understanding of...) early Judaism (...tells me is accurate).

But I believe we're talking about modern theology here. So, both my examples are moot.

-Andrew

The most terrifying religious film I can think of offhand is The Rapture. It terrifies me because it confuses me.

I've seen it twice, and I still don't know whether it's great or terrible, and I still don't know whether it's pro- or anti- Christianity. Although a stronger argument can be made for the latter, especially considering that it's made in part by Scientologists, and L. Ron Hubbard was the antichrist. Or so he claimed.

The Rapture is terrifying. It's about a woman who becomes a born-again Christian, and then goes somewhat crazy after her husband is killed. She decides that God is talking to her, and telling her to sacrifice her daughter. The scary thing, and I'm about to tell you the ending, is that she's right. The film ends with the apocalypse and her ascending to heaven. Or at least her imagining that this is happening.

It's creepy, and probably really bad.

-Ron

Martin Scorcese takes his "religion" very seriously, I believe he once considered the priesthood. However, it's the spiritual and humanist aspects of religion that appeals to him, not the dogmatic. Hence his interest in Last Temptation and even the Dalai Lama (Kundun). It's also a view that's similiar to Nikos Kazantzakis, the author of Last Temptation, who, by the way, was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church and ex-communicated by his own Greek Orthodox Church. Oddly enough, Last Temptation was recommended to me by a rather progressive priest back in 1979.

I agree the Rapture is a troubling film. Not quite focused in its message but does attempt to show religious mania in all of its consuming power.

Jason--Canticle is a true classic. Saint Leibowitz and the Wild Horse Woman, Canticle's sequel is hardly up to Miller's standard (and 30 years in the making) but it's fairly interesting.

Bill,
I've noticed that Catholics who've actually read Last Temptation, also tend to recommend it. Same with things like Jesus Christ Superstar. Banned by the church ('scuse me, Church) once but now embraced by Catholics who actually listened to it (and have a reasonably high tolerance for 60's slang).

And yes, that's exactly what I meant by Scorcese's brand of Catholicism. He's done what a lot of Catholics have been forced to do, myself included, reconcile everything you like, want, and need from the church with all that dogma.

-Andrew
PS: I remember really liking The Rapture, Ron. I also remember liking portions of The Seventh Sign (not to be confused with The Seventh Seal - which I liked all of...)

"The film ends with the apocalypse and her ascending to heaven."

*Spoiler follows*
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\


The Rapture actually has my favorite ending of any film ever, precisely because she doesn't end up in heaven. Despite being given a second chance, she rejects God directly, choosing eternity alone instead of "paradise" with a vindictive, arbitrary deity.

The movie as a whole reminds me of Steve Martin's old stand-up routine about the "record keeping" being right. "How many times did I take the Lord's name in vain? A million six? Jesus Cri..."

Here's Roger Ebert's review: http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1991/10/677663.html

Egad, two threads worth of stuff:

The Rapture is great, but I don't think it's a movie about religion so much as a movie about psychosis. Which is exactly why I have trouble with Hollywood's portrayal of religion. Religion is either psychosis (Rapture) or oppressive institution (Third Miracle). It's no coincidence that The Rapture was written and directed by Michael Tolkin, the Big Time Hollywood Screenwriter who gave us The Player.

Steve and Bub, I'm terribly disappointed that you approve of the special edition of Aliens. Shame on both of you! It ruins the narrative suspense to show the events on LV4201 before the Colonial Marines arrive. We don't need Hudson's "bad ass" monologue breaking up the crackerjack timing of the landing sequence and we sure don't need Ellen Ripley and Duane Hicks coyly exchanging first names as they're on the brink of self-sacrifice. The remote gun scenes are a compelling use of hardware, but I would argue that the movie is no longer about hardware by that point. There's a clear progression of technology failing the Marines and the remote guns are just another example.

Yes, Ripley's loss of a daughter, as revealed in the special edition, might reinforce her motivation to save Newt, but it's totally unnecessary. The fact that Aliens is a Clash of the Mothers on a Wagnerian scale is clearly evident by the end of the movie. It doesn't add anything to spell it out earlier. Any woman -- hell, any man -- should pity and protect a cute marooned eleven year old girl with an English accent and a dirty orphan face. You don't need to have hibernated through your own daughter's life to make this motivation clear.

Finally, the special edition isn't properly a "director's cut", as I seem to recall it was never officially endorsed by Cameron. Does anyone know otherwise?

-Tom

>>Religion is either psychosis (Rapture) or oppressive institution (Third Miracle).

Now you have movies like The Omega Code and other Christian themed movies suddenly popping up.

I think a significant percentage of Americans do view certain aspects of religion, and its proponents, as a form of psychosis and the church, particularly those wacky Catholics, as oppressive. And since Hollywood tends to dabble in extreme behavior for dramatic purposes, that's how it treats religion. You could say the same about love, drugs, violence, etc.

Which topic is Hollywood even-handed and sensitive with?

As for Aliens, I view it as a terrific action movie, one of the best (though when I saw it in theaters I was crunched in the front row of a giant theater and it almost made me ill because it was so intense at that weird angle). But I think you're getting more out of it than's actually there, which is fine. I watched Demolition Man last night and was reminded how much I actually... liked it, and could probably put out a huge thesis about all of the subtext behind each of Stallone's grunts. It doesn't mean it's actually there, but it's a good way to show off.

Aliens is probably Cameron's best script, and while I'll give you that showing the events on LV4201 is unnecessary, the other scenes don't bother me. The whole "Clash of the Mothers" is fine and dandy, but after the alien snags Newt, I think it's safe to say that anyone outside of fiction would turn tail and boogie. So giving her a bit more motivation, something beyond maternal instict or the old "child in peril" thing, is cool by me and does nothing to disrupt the last half of the movie, which is probaby one of the longest, and certainly the best sustained action sequences ever.

That's LV-426, not 4201. I will skip comment for now on Y-wings, the best class in D&D, and whether or not the Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer. :)

I actually like the sentry gun scene because it answers a question I had during the original: why aren't there more aliens? If the entire colony had been implanted, there should have been a couple of hundred aliens, and one good wave attack should have overwhelmed the handful of marines. The sentry gun scene shows that there were lots of aliens, but their numbers were significantly reduced.

"And we'd better not risk another frontal assault." - Arthur, King of the Britons.

I'll agree with Chick that the other scenes in Aliens are superfluous, and showing my lack of memory of the original, I didn't remember that the "first name scene", "Huson's Speech" or the "slept through her daughter's life" additions were added. Consequently, they didn't bother me.

But I really agree with Supertanker about the remote guns. I relished the shock and horror that those massive guns could scroll to zero so quickly and have it not make an appreciable difference in the horde's attack. It was almost like WWI, only without the tragedy (the fact the aliens didn't care about the attrition, made them more alien).

"Any woman -- hell, any man -- should pity and protect a cute marooned eleven year old girl with an English accent and a dirty orphan face."

"Why don't you put her in charge?!"

-Andrew

'Martin Scorcese takes his "religion" very seriously, I believe he once considered the priesthood. However, it's the spiritual and humanist aspects of religion that appeals to him, not the dogmatic.'

Um, not to be picky, but who are these people "whom the dogmatic aspects of religion appeal to, but not the humanist or spiritual aspects?"

"Um, not to be picky, but who are these people "whom the dogmatic aspects of religion appeal to, but not the humanist or spiritual aspects?""

I can think of five in my family alone. For many people religion is all about authoritarian rituals, mysteries, and tradition. That's a comforting, if outmoded, way of looking at things and something I didn't truly understand until I moved to a place like Milwaukee (which has an overwhelmingly large old-school Catholic population). I think it's comforting because it takes a lot of the responsibility away from the worshipper. A mindset or need, I'd wager, that's more common than you might think.

-Andrew
"Baptized, but that's the only Sacrament I underwent. Also, I married in an Unitarian church, which probably reveals a lot by itself"

It's odd but many of the Catholic's I know never delve any deeper into the mysteries of faith and the sacrements than attending Mass and confession. For many Catholics in America, it's a generational and cultural form of identity. The various traditions and rituals mark the milestones in their lives (baptism, confirmation, marriage--or Holy Orders--funerals). They adhere to the tenents because in a world grown increasingly complex and full of change, they are familiar and even comforting. In some ways, and in an overly simplistic example, being Catholic is like beng a member of a big exclusive social club. But even these same American Catholics tend to look elsewhere for deeper spiritual meaning, whether it's with the charismatics, eastern philosophies or the Kabbalah.

I look for spiritual meaning in the three-minute guitar pop song.

Or in drugs. Lots of drugs.

That explains a lot, Steve... : )

"As Tom said, The Exorcist is one of the few explicitly pro-Catholic movies I can remember in the last thirty or forty years. And one of the only movies in which a priest character is experiencing a serious crisis of faith that isn't caused, resolved, or caused and resolved by him fucking someone."

Yeah, it's weird. Religion is by far the most positive element in The Exorcist. The portrayal is remarkably sympathetic without being heavy-handed at all. I think that's why you see a few religious nuts cite this movie as "proof" of the existence of Satan. It really doesn't prove much on that count, but it makes a damn good case for the church as a humane, stabilizing force in society.. maybe that's even more shocking today than it was in 1973.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0070047

See user review by "Phil-13", which at the time of this writing is the first one on the page under "user comments".

I watched the movie again tonight with my wife, and I caught a half-dozen additional things that I missed in the first viewing. The movie feels so literary. I get the impression that every scene, even the little background stuff, is there for a reason.

I remember reading the book Hostage to the Devil by Fr. Malachi Martin some years ago (probably the most authoritative book on exorcism and possession). If you thought the single case presented in the film was disturbing (which by the way was based on a real 1949 case, featuring a little boy in Maryland ), the book details five contemporary American cases that make Regan's experience look like a child's mild temper tantrum. Some truly mindbending and mind assualting stuff. It's no wonder that when a priest is assigned a case (there is no permanent "office" of exorcist in the church), there's no assurance that he will survive it completely intact (mentally or physically).

I wish I could come up with a better description of why that phrase bothers me, Bub. The best analogy I can come up with is a liberal saying that Paul Gigot, a conservative at the WSJ, is "not a hater." I dragged this description of what bothers me about the phrase off Kausfiles.com:

'Shields, as some of Romenesko's readers have pointed out, is saying a good deal more about his own philosophy here than about Gigot's. Shield's clearly thinks that a) liberal motives are usually purer and better than conservative motives, and b) it's fair to judge politicians by their motives (as opposed to, say, the outcomes of their policies). There's a lot of smug self-satisfaction here, and a blindered quality too. In the PBS/NPR/CNN culture in which he swims, Shields probably never expected that his remarks would even be controversial. ... I don't think I'm asserting a false symmetry -- the point isn't that if a conservative said this about a liberal he'd be pilloried. You can't really imagine a typical conservative saying this about a liberal. It's a peculiarly liberal sin.'

Mostly b), that it's fair to judge someone's religion by motives ("he's in it for spiritual and humanistic parts"), instead of their actions (catholic opposition to birth control, to pick an inflammatory-I'm-not-sure-if-it-applies example). Maybe this goes back to good works vs. good intentions?

The vague point I was trying to make with that rhetorical question is that *everyone* thinks they're "not dogmatic," too. Like the zillions of teenage girls who say they're "spiritual, not religious."

Um. Anyway, back to evercamp. I'm saving up for level 4 spells!

"If you thought the single case presented in the film was disturbing (which by the way was based on a real 1949 case, featuring a little boy in Maryland ),"

I thought it was based on a St. Louis exorcism. There have been periodic stories about it in the local press here.

I did a google. It looks like it was both a Maryland an St. Louis incident:

"The case actually began near Washington D.C., or specifically in Cottage City, Maryland (not in Mt. Rainier as is sometimes reported) with poltergeist-like activity plaguing the family of a young boy. "Roland" or "Rob Doe" was a troubled boy and the only child of a dysfunctional family and was about 14 when the activity started as scratchings and strange noises in the family home. The activity began shortly after the death of the boy's aunt, with whom he frequently had played with a Ouija board with. Following the noises, the boy's bed began shaking and moving on its own and similar events also began to occur at school.

"....It was said that soon the boy gradually changed into a powerfully grotesque creature. His actions were enough to convince the Church to allow the first authorized exorcism in 100 years. He was admitted to the Georgetown Hospital in Washington but after he injured a priest with a piece of bedspring, it was decided that he would be moved to St. Louis after strange writings began to appear on his body, even spelling out the words "St. Louis"."

http://www.prairieghosts.com/exorcist.html

I'm not sure exactly how your Kausfiles example applies, Jason. To be truly considered a strict Catholic, for example, there are certain things you must believe in. The Pope, the sacrements, the scriptures, the rituals, the Trinity, the kneeling & standing, confession and absolution, and maybe most importantly, the miracle of transubstantiation. My grandparents believe these things are real, not symbolic.

In the quote that bothers you (made by Bill Hiles btw) he notes that Scorcese is a Catholic that embraces the humanistic/spiritual parts of Catholicism but seems to reject the dogmatic portions of the Faith. Certainly not an uncommon notion these days, but the Pope probably doesn't consider that a truly "Catholic" faith.

I don't think he's alleging that people who do embrace the dogma reject the humanistic/spiritual. Because my grandparents are all about "Good Works" themselves.

(Boy were they unhappy when I was dating a Lutheran though. A Lutheran? Horrors!)

-Andrew

>>I'd be hard pressed to think of a better movie about religion.

I'm pretty surprised to read that no one mentioned The Mission, which starred Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons. The Mission is one of my favorite movies and the ending, where Jeremy Irons is carrying the cross toward the attacking Portuguese, is very moving.

I've never seen The Rapture, but based on the description I'll definitely track it down. Generally I find movies/books that hinge on the idea of a rapture a little suspect, primarily because (if memory serves) the whole notion was "created" by John Darby back in the 1850s and seems to have its history rooted in various fights between the Catholic Church and the Protestant over the nature of the Anti-Christ. As far as I can remember, there is no clearly-defined mention of it in the Bible, although there are some sections of Revelation that allude to it. (Of course, the inclusion of Revelation in the Bible was a big fight in and of itself.)

I too enjoyed The Others, although anyone who has read a lot of horror fiction (particularly short stories) will figure the movie out in the first ten minutes or so. It's a pretty old idea, but The Others pulled it off rather well.

Now I just hope that Jeepers Creepers (despite its horrible title) is good. I desperately want the horror genre (in prose and film) to make a sustained comeback. Of course, given that Barnes and Nobel has scrapped its horror section, that's not very likely to happen anytime soon.

--Billy

But what about Captain Corelli's Mandolin? I mean that Captain really does play a mean Mandolin! yeehaw!

Since we're on the topic of The Exorcist, here's a bit of news about a prequel....

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/eonline/081301_exorcist.asp

Hmmm, Frankenheimer? Interesting.
I remember liking Excorist III, but that may've been my College era drug-ridden past talking.

Minor spoilers:
.
.
.
.
I recall a chilling hallway shot, a long pause, a musical "bump" just as a sheet-wearing person walks quickly after a nurse. Only the sheet-wearer is holding what can only be described as "mega-hand shears".

VERY scary moment.
Oh, and grandma on the ceiling and I liked George C. Scott's scenes parlaying with the possessed guy. How he'd go from devil bass to castriati tenor in seconds.

-Andrew

"I too enjoyed The Others, although anyone who has read a lot of horror fiction (particularly short stories) will figure the movie out in the first ten minutes or so. It's a pretty old idea, but The Others pulled it off rather well."

Call it zeitgeist... but I was in the process of writing a ghost story with a similar ending/twist to this. The important thing isn't that the ending can be guessed (to be honest, I missed it completely, which made the ending bliss for me) it's that it's so well revealed when it finally comes about. The movie is genuinely unnerving though, in a similar way that Blair Witch was unnerving. Only without a jittery camera and endless use of the word Fuck.

Oddly, The Others also features a very interesting take on religion as well. It's prominant and integral to the story, which makes it a good movie for this thread indeed.

-Andrew

>>Call it zeitgeist... but I was in the process of writing a ghost story with a similar ending/twist to this.

I wrote a story with a similar twist around ten years ago and it got rejected by everyone because it had been done a million times. I guess that's just one more difference between prose and movies, especially in terms of audience expectations and knowledge of the genre.

--Billy

I'm sure that's true William. It even hearkens back to a particularly effective Lovecraft story (I won't name the story for it would be a potential spoiler to those who've read it). There's very little one can (seemingly) do with the Ghost/Haunted House storyline. Anyway, maybe the cliched nature of that ending actually threw me off the scent.

Anyway, I've abandoned that particular story, which is probably for the best anyway.

-Andrew

>Anyway, maybe the cliched nature of that ending actually threw me off the scent.

I don't think it's reached the point of being a cliche (and I didn't mean to imply that), it's just that in prose fiction when you're dealing with editors who have been around for thirty or forty years, and they grew up reading Lovecraft and Howard and Sturgeon and all the others, it's awfully hard to impress them.

That's a luxury movies often have over prose--there is more room for the "old" stories to be retold from different angles, possibly because the audience is more generalized. A movie producer might read a script and think "this is awesome", while the editor of a fantasy magazine might read the same story and think "he's ripping off Ellison" and reject it.

--Billy

Earlier, I went to TRY to see "The Others" matinee not once but TWICE , can you believe it was SOLD OUT both times? I was pissed! So then a couple of my friends, one of them a girl, decided that we go and rent "Chocolat" wtf? I actually thought it wasnt that bad a second time... (saw it in the theatre) and it fits in nicely with the hypocrisy of the church stuff ala the Footloose syndrome...

Please dont spoil the ending of The Others for me! Btw, I was the genius when I saw Sixth Sense. I guessed the ending!~ Pretty smart, aren't I!

etc

"it's just that in prose fiction when you're dealing with editors who have been around for thirty or forty years,"

Yeah, I've noticed that. The amount of background reading you have to process and digest is staggering. So what if you had a good idea, if someone else had it first?

Then you have to worry about self-published morons who claim you stole the word "muggle" from them.

-Andrew
PS: Keep trying to get in mtkafka! No spoilers from me!
PPS: The Sixth Sense was ruined for me and my wife. How? We walked into the wrong showing! We walked in AND SAW THE ENDING!!!! It was too late. Then we ran to the right theater and saw it all the way through... it was a bummer to have the "Crying Game-esque twist of the 90's" ruined like that.

"I'm pretty surprised to read that no one mentioned The Mission, which starred Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons. The Mission is one of my favorite movies and the ending, where Jeremy Irons is carrying the cross toward the attacking Portuguese, is very moving."

Good call, but IIRC, it's another portrayal of religion as oppressive institution, a la Third Mircale. Wasn't the whole point of the movie that Jeremy Irons defied the church by staying with the natives? (It's been a while since I've seen it)

Steve's right in his earlier post to point out that this sort of thing is necessary for dramatic tension. But it's still not an accurate portrayal of what religion means to the millions of people for whom it's important. That's what makes movies like The Apostle and The Exorcist so special. They address the power and the struggle of religion without simplifying it, without setting up a false dichotomy of the institution as evil vs. the personal spirituality as good.

-Tom

That is pretty true though, especially since the 60's... organized religions have been getting a bad wrap (Muslims portrayed as terrorists, Catholics as opressors, Protestants as kooks...) though, what do you expect from the "flower" generation. If life was based on Hollywood morals ... the closest i'd be to religious would be like a Tom Cruise religion.. a new age Scientology freak, or maybe Buddhist.

But, I'd prefer that religion or spirituality or what have you, stays out of my "entertainment"... i dont like being preached at... but I will watch open minded, or as much as i can be.

etc

>But it's still not an accurate portrayal of what religion means to the millions of people for whom it's important.

I'm not so sure I agree with that statement. As a fairly religious person, the ending of The Mission, with the people flocking around the cross (while moving toward their attackers), really struck a chord with me. The notion of not abandoning your faith (and by default, Christ) is something I think a lot of Christians find very important. Was it created for dramatic effect? Sure. But that doesn't make it any less relevant.

I do agree that The Apostle is a much more "realistic" movie and really plumbs the depths of what it means to be religious person in the modern world. (Although, I found the scenes with Billy Bob Thorton hopelessly hokey.) Those scenes notwithstanding, it's one of my favorites and it's a disgrace Duvall didn't win an Oscar.

Tom wrote:
But it's still not an accurate portrayal of what religion means to the millions of people for whom it's important.

Billy wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree with that statement.

I didn't mean that Jeremy Irons' conviction wasn't an accurate portrayal. I just meant that the Hollywood concept -- as seen in The Mission -- of the church as an oppressive institution isn't an accurate portrayal of what relgion means to the millions of people for whom it's important.

But at least The Mission isn't one of those typical situations Erik mentioned, in which a priest's crisis of faith is caused, resolved, or caused and resolved by him fucking someone. Which is a beautiful line. I call dibbs on it when Erik retires.

On a related note, I really liked the first few seasons of Oz, the HBO prison drama, partly because of its portrayal of religion. Both Islam and Christianity were written with an astute and sensitive eye.

-Tom

"The Mission -- of the church as an oppressive institution isn't an accurate portrayal of what relgion means to the millions of people for whom it's important."

It sounds like you're mixing things up here. I mean, the Catholic Church of that era was oppressive. I'm not sure how you could have portrayed the Church in that sort of "semi-historical" film in a way that would be "in line with what religion means to millions of people for whom it's important." Most of those millions sided with the indiginous peoples during that film, I bet.

I mean, I do see your point about Hollywood only rarely (and then condescendingly) catering to the the millions of people for whom religion is important. And I especially agree with Erik's line in that these have become really tired cliches. But I'm not sure how you can apply that to The Mission.

I also agree with you about Oz, though again that isn't a portrayal of a religious institution, it's a portrayal of personal faith. I agree though, it was nice to see Islam get that much respect on television.

Maybe the answer lies between Hollywood and The Omega Code. It'd be nice to see religious institutions portrayed as the really tend to be: gray. Filled with promise, idealism, corruption, evil, good, and more, all mixed up because they're filled with humans.

-Andrew

Erik's line was great, and true.

>That's what makes movies like ...the Exorcist so special. They address the power and the struggle of religion without simplifying it.

Heh, while obviously you're referring to the priest's journey and struggle with faith, I also just liked the "Church vs. Evil" aspects of The Exorcist. Hell, even "End of Days" tried something similar - it's a crappy movie not otherwise comparable to the Exorcist in any way, but it sets the church up as a force for combating supernatural evil. Same with the Omen series.

I liked the portrayals of the church as a lucid organization mobilized to fight evil, supernatural creatures. That was also one of the aspects I liked about the Vampire: the Masquerade milieu.

On a somewhat related note, I also liked the integration of Pagan mythology in the (excellent) BBC TV adaptation of Robin Hood (starring Ray Winstone and, for part of its run, Jason Connery as Robin), which also included similarly themed music from Clannad. Including spiritual motivation was an interesting decision in adapting an otherwise secular myth.

>really liked the first few seasons of Oz, the HBO prison drama, partly because of its portrayal of religion. Both Islam and Christianity were written with an astute and sensitive eye.

Good call. Definitely true, and both religions play prominent roles in motivating characters.

Stefan

I liked the concept of the Vatican hiring mercs to combat vampires in Vampire$--more so in Starkey's book than Carpenter's film, though Woods was a real cool badass as Crow...

"Finally, the special edition isn't properly a "director's cut", as I seem to recall it was never officially endorsed by Cameron. Does anyone know otherwise?"

It is true that the words "director's cut" do not actually appear on the case. FWIW, the blurb on the back of the case does say, "Personally supervised by director James Cameron, this special edition includes scenes eliminated prior to the film's 1986 release which broaden the narrative scope and enrich the emotional impact of the film."

I have no idea if there is any further illumination within the actual film since I'm too lazy to put it in the player. My player's busy anyway, as it is currently playing the commentary track to "Your Friends and Neighbors."

-Amanpour

I just watched the new DvD release of Spielberg-Donner's 1985 kid's adventure, "The Goonies." Talk about nostalgia, I remember seeing this at the theaters with my wife and coming away pleased. It was just a fun movie. The DvD, however, is a bit paltry. The making of the movie seems a tad short, and Cyndi Lauper's MTV music video comes across a bit dated. The cast and crewmember section was the worst-- just a list of names. But the commentary is this DvD's highlight. Most of the cast members, including the director himself, chat about the movie in a big, unruly group which tends to get a bit rowdy. Just seeing the kid actors, now adults, commenting on the movie is worth the price of the DvD.

Raphael

Oh... and sorry about "The Goonies" non-sequitor in this very intriguing thread about cinema and religion. Now back to your regularily scheduled programming...

Raphael

Oz is a show that I will make time to watch each week. Religion ran through almost every episode last season. Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Catholics, take your pick.

Oz is one of the movies/TV shows that helped me make the decision that I will never, ever go to prison. A slightly chubby, white accountant would not fair well in most state/federal prisons. American Me is also a good prison deterrent movie.

-DavidCPA

Amanpour reminded me to pick up a copy of the Se7en Platinum Edition.

I also recently got Snatch (hey, I like Guy Ritchie's crazy editing, and Britishisms), and both Hidden Fortress and The Rock, both Criterion Editions.

With Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, and Ran, all I got left is Yojimbo and Sanjuro. Well, maybe I'll get Throne Of Blood. Actually, is Rashomon on DVD yet? I thought I heard that a Criterion edition or somesuch is slated for later this year.

And yes, David, Oz is how I justify not carrying out prison-worthy crime. I show it to my roommates, and they don't even want to try shoplifting at this point.

Thierry

>Oz is one of the movies/TV shows that helped me make the decision that I will never, ever go to prison

So it was on your agenda prior to watching a TV show?

---

Quote:

I didn't mean that Jeremy Irons' conviction wasn't an accurate portrayal. I just meant that the Hollywood concept -- as seen in The Mission -- of the church as an oppressive institution isn't an accurate portrayal of what relgion means to the millions of people for whom it's important.

---

---

Quote:

Wrong place for conversion kick, Buddhists tell Jensen

By Kelly Burke

If Sydney's Anglican Archbishop thinks Australian Buddhists are ripe for conversion, he had better think again, the Buddhist Council of NSW warned yesterday.

"There is no way any Buddhist could be swayed by the superstitious ravings of a fundamentalist Christian," said Mr Graeme Lyall, a spokesman for the Buddhist Council. "And you can assure him, we certainly won't be going out to convert Christians."

The comments were in response to the Most Rev Dr Peter Jensen's weekend suggestion that Wollongong's multicultural community, particularly those with a Buddhist background, were brought to this country by God to enable them to "share in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ".

"That's an exciting prospect, but it's also a daunting one," the archbishop said.

Just take care it does not become an offensive one, warned Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, chairman of the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW, formerly the Ethnic Affairs Commission, yesterday.

"We should all remember that whether we like it or not, we are a multicultural and a multi-faith society. We are a democracy, and although we all have the right to worship and to preach as we see fit, our government does not assign greater value to any particular religion, nor should any particular religion dominate Australian life."

Dr Jensen said yesterday that he had not intended to single out Wollongong's Buddhist community. Australia's largest Buddhist temple, Wollongong's Nan Tien, declined to comment.

But the Buddhists were not the only ones crying foul yesterday. The Supreme Islamic Council of NSW was critical of the archbishop's assertion that Christians were in the right if they chose to proselytise in Islamic countries, despite prohibitive local laws.

"God's law is higher than any law made by human beings," Dr Jensen said.

The Supreme Islamic Council chairman, Mr Gabr Elgafi, said Australian Muslims respected the country's law, and Christians should do the same in Muslim countries.

He said he was under the impression the God of Islam was the same God Christians worshipped anyway.

Dr Jensen begged to disagree. "We must be sure that when we talk of God, we are sure we are following the true God."

---

Yikes, here goes the thread...

Sean,

To portray religion as an oppressive institution is to simplify its impact on people's lives. Yes, historically speaking, religion can be as oppressive as any other institution. States, churches, business, etc., all have to preserve ideology/tradition/profitability by controlling, to a certain extent, their members. That's a function of *any* institution.

But -- at its core -- religion is unique in that it seeks to transcend the limitations of human institutions. It feeds the poor, touches God, tends souls, teaches Heaven. Yes, it has also burned infidels, temples, and books. But I would argue that these ugly episodes pale in comparison to the quieter positive effects religion has had on people's lives. It's easy to hold up an atrocity. But that's only the most visible side of a magnificent many-splendored intricate coin.

Your beef seems to be with proselytizing:

"No religion should actively seek to "convert" people of differing religious beliefs. I find this offensive in the extreme and is yet another example of the many failings of Christianity."

Consider it this way: If you had the Truth, you would want to share it. You don't have to be a Christian to understand this principle.

Or, if you'd rather regard it as a human institution, consider it this way: Any mythos or institution has to perpetuate itself. Proselytizing is religion's unique mechanism for this.

You regard this as one of Christianity's failings. No student of religion would agree with you. It is, instead, the very reason Christianity is the world most widespread religion. It is wildly successful because it's so effective at spreading its Truths (I say "Truths", plural, because Christianity is hardly a monolith).

By the way, this is in no way unique to Christianity. Christianity is the winner of the World Religion Game because it spreads itself better than any other religion. And this isn't a judgement value. It's just numbers.

-Tom

"Christianity is the winner of the World Religion Game because it spreads itself better than any other religion."

This was also known as the Holy Roman Empire and Western Imperialism/colonization (helped along by early trade Superpowers like England and Spain). I had a Religions Professor who believes that Constantine is the single most important Christian figure, only because of the Empire. Christianity was a minority when he made his famous conversion and convened Nycea.

Also, in terms of world population Christianity isn't actually winning the "World Religion Game", but in terms of world influence and power, you're correct sir.

But Tudor is correct in noting that a huge (and maybe growing) portion of the world deeply resents Christians for that very "failing". I noted it first hand when I lived in Singapore.

-Andrew

"Also, in terms of world population Christianity isn't actually winning the "World Religion Game","

Wrong. In terms of world population, Christianity is the winner. Off the top of my head, I think Christianity holds sway over about 2 of the world's 5 billion people. Islam has about half that, but it got there at a much faster rate. Everything else dribbles in at the level of hundreds of millions.

"But Tudor is correct in noting that a huge (and maybe growing) portion of the world deeply resents Christians for that very "failing"."

Bah. Religions tend to resent one another no matter how many people adhere to them. Just ask the Jews.

-Tom

"Wrong. In terms of world population, Christianity is the winner. Off the top of my head, I think Christianity holds sway over about 2 of the world's 5 billion people."

Doh! Ok, I'll concede that point then.
I must've been thinking about it in the wrong way...

"Bah. Religions tend to resent one another no matter how many people adhere to them. Just ask the Jews."

Yeah, ask the Jews. Heh, a truly non-evangelical religion I might add. ;>

Back to the subject, I agree with your point that Hollywood needs to tell more stories that show the good side of organized religion. I'm not sure it'd always ring true with some of our society but it's needed, it'd be refreshing, and The Apostle is a great warts and all way to do it. Maybe the reason they don't is because... it's a much harder way to tell a story. It's always easier to ply prejudice. And religion is often an easy victim of prejudice (somewhat deservingly - ask anyone who went to a hardline Catholic school before things got reformed in the 70's).

-Andrew

---

Quote:

So it was on your agenda prior to watching a TV show?

---

---

Quote:

Consider it this way: If you had the Truth, you would want to share it. You don't have to be a Christian to understand this principle.

---

---

Quote:

Christianity is the winner of the World Religion Game because it spreads itself better than any other religion. And this isn't a judgement value. It's just numbers.

---

With all of this religious discussion going on and because I'm re-reading the Lord of the Rings, it occured to me that despite Tolkein's (a devout RC, by the way) excellent world creating powers, his Middle Earth contains no organized religions. I wonder if that's a failing or merely an oversight? From my days as an Anthropology major, I can't remember any culture that didn't have some kind of religious belief system. To me that leaves Middle Earth with a vacuum that no amount of White Councils or Elvish magic can fill.

Just a thought...

Send the Christians in - I am sure they will convert the Middle Earth folks !!

:-)

Bill,
according to an excellent article at Salon that I read recently, and which I can't for the life of me FIND now, it was intentional.

He was striving to create a mythology out of whole cloth but didn't want to, I believe he said "cheapen", either his own faith or the book (he always considered it one book). And he felt injecting RC doctrine into the book would cheapen both. He does create a sort of religion, or at least "gods", in the Silmarillion though. But I tend to think of the posthumous as apocryphal. (Tolkien was a perfectionist and I doubt he really wanted unfinished anything to be published.)

-Andrew

"Middle Earth contains no organized religions"

Yes, but that's only becasue there are such clear cut lines between good and evil. Besides I would think that a world that has magic would more than make up for the loss. Religion is just magic.

Going back to the comment about Hollywood needing to make more visible the "Good" sides of organized religion -- anybody ever watch Seventh Heaven? It's a little cheesy at times, sure, but it really is a good "moral" show. My wife and I really enjoy it, and it seems like a good show for kids to grow up watching -- which ours will, when we have them.

"Wrong. In terms of world population, Christianity is the winner. Off the top of my head, I think Christianity holds sway over about 2 of the world's 5 billion people."

That may be true, but we must then accept that Christianity is a single religion. And that's difficult to do.

Include the apocryphal texts in the bible, and there isn't much difference between any of the religions, if you go straight to the guidelines. Or at least, there's as much similarity as there is difference. It's the beliefs and practices which divide the sects of Christianity, and in that respect Catholicism is as different from Protestantism as it is Islam.

With that as a segue: I just want to give a big "me too" on the subject of Oz and Islam. It was especially interesting when they brought in the character who was a five-percenter. Islam gets a bad rap from the general populace of the US, most likely because of our relations with the Middle East and, more likely, the Nation of Islam - which from my understanding has its origins not in Islam but on Mars.

It was good to see a positive portrayal of Islam on US television, at least until the show became Melrose Place with full-frontal.

-Ron

---

Quote:

That may be true, but we must then accept that Christianity is a single religion. And that's difficult to do.

---

"Going back to the comment about Hollywood needing to make more visible the "Good" sides of organized religion"

Yeah, movies like 'Sister Act'. That movie had it all. Great direction, convincing actors, plot twists.











HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I kill me!

"All the rest is just details, and that's where different denominations come into play. But that's just water under the bridge."

Those "details" include a great many wars, and that water under the bridge is pretty damned bloody.

---

Quote:

It was good to see a positive portrayal of Islam on US television, at least until the show became Melrose Place with full-frontal.

---

Tom wrote:
"Wrong. In terms of world population, Christianity is the winner. Off the top of my head, I think Christianity holds sway over about 2 of the world's 5 billion people."

Ron wrote:
That may be true, but we must then accept that Christianity is a single religion. And that's difficult to do.

Tom replied:
No more difficult than accepting that Islam, Buddhism, or any other widespread faith is a single religion. They all tend to splinter and kaleidescope. But no matter how you slice it, Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Again, that's not a value judgement. It's just the numbers.

-Tom

You know, I'm looking around on the web for religious population numbers and they don't look right. here, for example.

Where's China's billion people on there? Is every Hindu in the world in India, like that chart implies?

Here's another one. 60% of the world's population are a Christian variant? Huh?

I think you are reading the chart incorrectly. It's saying that 32.8% of the world's population are Christian. 31% of the world's population (94.5% of the Christians) are affiliated with a specific denomination. 1.8% (5.5% of Christians) are not affiliated with a specific denomination at all.

Tom: "No more difficult than accepting that Islam, Buddhism, or any other widespread faith is a single religion. They all tend to splinter and kaleidescope."

For me, it is more difficult. You don't have the same sort of divisions in Islam. You have two primary sects, the Sunni and the Shi'te, and while those two groups are as different as Catholics and Protestants, the Sunni make up a significant majority of the world's Muslims. Most other sects are very small in comparison.

Compare this to Christianity, where the two major denominations (which you could even divide into Catholic/non-Catholic) are both quite popular.

I know little about the different denominations of Buddhism, but my limited understanding is that Buddhism is less dogmatic about interpretation than Christianity.

Now, having said all that, I will concede the point that the majority of the world's population would identify themselves as Christian. But they would mean vastly different things when they said it.

"All the rest is just details, and that's where different denominations come into play."

It seems to me that the worship of saints, the beliefs regarding the Virgin Mary, and many other RC doctrines are more than just details.

No value judgments are implied or to be inferred.

Obviously, I meant to type Shi'ite. Please excuse the embarassing typo above.

Ron,

There are myriad schools of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. The Shia/Sunni division in Islam is no more cut-and-dried than the Protestant/Catholic division in Christianity. In Islam, 'Sunni' is just another term for orthodoxy. There are still very different types of Muslims under the Sunni umbrella, ranging from fundamentalists to reformers, split in their ideas about how to deal with the Western world, women, converts, etc., etc. In fact, the Taliban in Afghanistan are Sunni. So are the reformers in Egypt. Yet they represent very different forms of Islam.

And to presume that because Buddhists are 'less dogmatic about interpretation' (which is a fair statement) means they present a unified theology is absolutely incorrect. In fact, I would argue the contrary.

Part of what is correct is that since Christianity is almost twice as large as the next largest religion (Islam) and it is more widespread than any other religion, it's various strands are easier to see.

I grant you that it can be a provocative statement to call Christianity the largest, most successful, and most influential religion ever. Perhaps a less provocative way to put it is this: "More people's belief systems are founded on the premise that Jesus Christ was resurrected than any other event or teaching."

(FWIW, I'm not one of them, but that should have no bearing on the conversation.)

-Tom

I'm an agnostic on my good days, but I promised the Lord that if I win the Powerball lottery, up to nearly $180 million now, I'll be in church every day.

That's the power of Christianity -- hope!

(I'm only buying two tickets, though, because it's kind of a ripoff with the odds being 234 zillion to one or something like that.)

From Slate's Today's Papers:

'USA Today leads with Wednesday's Powerball lottery jackpot on track to top $200 million. The story explains the drawing's 80-million-to-1 odds this way: If you drive 10 miles to buy a ticket, your chances of winning are only one-sixteenth as good as your chances of dying in a car crash before you get there.'

"I kill me!"

I think there was some collateral damage on that one.

"If you drive 10 miles to buy a ticket, your chances of winning are only one-sixteenth as good as your chances of dying in a car crash before you get there"

I like to think of it not as gambling per se, but more of a stupidity tax.

"And to presume that because Buddhists are 'less dogmatic about interpretation' (which is a fair statement) means they present a unified theology is absolutely incorrect. In fact, I would argue the contrary."

Yep. There are many "denominations" of Bhuddists, and it's interesting how little some of the more famous Buddhists (e.g. Richard Gere) know of what the original "Buddha" actually taught (and why.) In fact, a lot of people who claim to be Buddhist are probably better categorized as more generic "New Age", since their belief system is so far afield from actual Buddhism of any type.

The wide variety of sects of Islam is pretty common knowledge, but again, even within a sect, there's a huge variation of what people believe. And almost no Muslim (gross exaggeration) has read the complete Quoran - that sucker is about two feet thick, and in no particular order.

Though Buddhism can be seen as comprising two basic schools of thought, Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) and Mahayana (Greater Vehicle), the variations within those two are as varied as Christianity. From the populist Nichiren Shoshu to the ritually intense Esoterics (Tantric), the original "seed" of Buddha's Dharma has been modified (sometimes drastically) by the incorporation of each culture's native religion. Bon influenced Tibetan Buddhism, Shinto and Confucianism in Japan, Confucianism and Taoism in China... and for all that, unlike Christianity, there has never been (to my knowledge) a war based on religious differences among the Buddhists.

Um...I really liked that one movie where these cars race really fast and there's cute chicks and stuff. Some of the guys drink beer.

-Amanpour

Dude, I'm there. Fast cars, fast chicks, and beer! That's my mantra. That's my religion. Keanu Reeves is my Buddha and we are gonna hang 10 on the cosmic wave of total bliss.

I want a chick with "Karma" tattooed on her ass. I want a Bodhisattva to teach me to play "Hey Joe" on my Stratocaster. I want Kwai-Chang Cain to teach me how to do the Drunken Monkey in slo-mo.

Om Mani Padme Hum Baby

"and for all that, unlike Christianity, there has never been (to my knowledge) a war based on religious differences among the Buddhists."

Bill,

Name me a war fought between Chrisitians. There isn't one, because wars rely on political institutions. Religions don't fight wars, states do.

You're implying that Buddhism is somehow more peaceful than Christianity. I don't buy it. A history of Buddhism has the same schisms, councils, and enforced orthodoxy as a history of Christianity. In fact, early Buddhism is characterized by the same expansionist zeal as early Christianity and Islam. There are the same wars, intolerance, and conflict. Just ask the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese.

To relate it to this site, you ever play Shogun? You know how great those Warrior Monks are? What religion do you think those guys are? They're Buddhists. And don't you think Warrior Monks were ever marshalled against other Warrior Monks? Buddhist on Buddhist action, right there.

Yeah, we're talking about a game, but it makes the point that the Buddhists are no saints. They've got blood on their hands, too.

-Tom

At this point someone might mention the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, or maybe The War of the Roses. Let me beat them to the punch. Those wars/conflicts were/are political, with admittedly religious overtones.

-Andrew

As a point of interest some of the most skilled and deadly warriors in Japan were Buddhist monks.

---

Quote:

Shugendo is an ancient Japanese religion of mountain asceticism which combines elements of Esoteric Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto. Its adherents are commonly called yamabushi ("those who sleep in the mountains").

Until the end of the sixteenth century, religious organizations in Japan wielded a considerable combination of spiritual, political, and military power which entailed training troops to maintain and enlarge their influence. Several monasteries played a key role in major civil struggles, and they posed a strong challenge to central authority. It was no surprise, then, that like any other military organizations, these monasteries developed training methods to make their monkish armies a superior force.

Warrior monks were referred to in the past as sohei ("monk warriors") or yamabushi ("mountain warriors"). Examples of warrior monks include the famous Benkei, the loyal vassal of Minamoto no Yoshitsune, who is immortalized in numerous paintings and stories including a noh play, Ataka. Also deserving mention is the monk Nen Ami Jion, who is credited as being the source of inspiration for several medieval warrior traditions

It is through the efforts of monks like the above figures, who while residing at those mountain temples, developed what would become highly refined combative traditions. It is through the long term efforts of warrior monks who came to reside at the Dewa Sanzan Shrine, that the Kaze Arashi Ryu has survived to this day.

---

"Name me a war fought between Chrisitians. There isn't one, because wars rely on political institutions. Religions don't fight wars, states do."

True, but sometimes states fight wars based on religious differences: The Crusades. For that matter, I'm not sure that the Crusades were actually wars between states; they were certainly wars based on religion. And for one based on differences between Christian denominations: The Spanish Armada (or whatever the name of that war was, since it also involved the French Catholics, the French Protestants (the Hugenots) and the Dutch.

Tom,

I realized the moment I wrote that statement that I was going to get a counterpoint expressing exactly the info you supplied. I even knew that the Japanese example was forthcoming. And yet, I still find it difficult to find a truly good example of a "Buddhist war." A war fought in the name of Buddhist principles. A war fought in the name of Buddha. I can see wars fought by Buddhists in a Buddhist country for political reasons. I can see the Japanese warrior monks fighting for the Daimyo that controls the temple lands. But I see nothing like the 30 Years War, the Crusades, the Inquisition inspired conflicts, the conquest of Mexico, the domination of the head of states by a single religious authority. In my view, for most of the history of Western European civilization, the Holy Roman Catholic Church exercised an authority above that of nation states and dictated a militant policy of intolerance that has no comparable example in Asia.

The Spanish Armada?

No one expects the Armada!

Hey, in which Woody Allen film did the Woody character convert (or try to convert) from Judaism to Catholicism? Was it Hannah? I just loved the mayonnaise moment.

My favorite quote about God comes from another of his films, Love and Death:

"As for God...if he does exist, I don't think you can say that he's evil. I think the worst you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."

-Amanpour

Not to split hairs, Bill, but would you say the majority of those wars were *really* about religion, or about money, land, and power, with religion just an excuse?

And while I'm not splitting hairs, is it appropriate to label the Crusades as Christian vs. Christian?

"Buddhist on Buddhist action, right there."

I prefer lesbian Buddhist on Buddhist action. Lesbian Buddhists rock.

-Amanpour the Simpleton

Still, I appreciate the arguments on both sides of the coin. Like politics, sports and favorite TV shows, religious discussions always press buttons that stir up something deep from our psyches. They're really no-win topics, but at least they're interesting and you do learn something now and again...

"would you say the majority of those wars were *really* about religion, or about money, land, and power, with religion just an excuse?"


In the case of Pope Julius II, I think it all came together. He's not known as the "Warrior Pope" for nothing.

Bill,

I'd freely grant that the history of Christianity seems more interwoven with political conflict than the history of Buddhism. But I think it's a false premise to suppose that Buddhism is somehow inherently peaceful in a way that Christianity isn't.

It is surprising to read about the early years of Buddhism, the 18 competing theologies, the early councils, the purging of certain monastic orders. It's not all laid back, lotus-ey, 'nom-yo-ho-ryen-ga-ko'. Buddhism established an orthodoxy and then forced its way into countries that resisted it.

I guess a few points come to mind: I suspect that Buddhism's rigid monastic roots and rejection of the material world has kept it from fully co-existing with kings and emperors, a la post-Constantine Christianity. Also, I don't have the same knowledge of Eastern history that I do of Western history. I don't know much about the conflicts in China, the Indian subcontinent, and Japan. I don't know what role Buddhism played in these conflicts.

But I do know that Warrior Monks in Shogun kick ass.

And, as Christien pointed out, very few wars are actually about religion. I would say that as a cause for war, religion ranks below power, geography, resources, and even ethnic intolerance.

-Tom

Thanks for your insight Tom. The religious/politcal situation in feudal Japan is a very complicated and bloody mess, best left for discussion elsewhere. Throw in the Spanish and Portugese and it complicates even more.

By the way, I have Shogun--any reason I should get the Warlord edition?

"By the way, I have Shogun--any reason I should get the Warlord edition?"

Yes, yes, yes! The expansion is $15 online + $5 shipping and it's worth every penny. Not so much for the additions (the Mongol stuff is kind of goofy), but mainly for the changes to the existing game.

I'm just finishing up my Gamespot review now, which should be online sometime this week.

-Tom

'And, as Christien pointed out, very few wars are actually about religion. I would say that as a cause for war, religion ranks below power, geography, resources, and even ethnic intolerance.'

Well, I'd say "ethnic intolerance" and "religion" in a lot of cases is virtually indistinguishable. It's kind of hard to separate them.

The best example of a war strictly due to religion is the never-ending Isreal-Palestine conflict. Sure, they're upset that the British gave control of "their land" away, but would the current situation exist if it was given to other Muslims?

"Sure, they're upset that the British gave control of "their land" away, but would the current situation exist if it was given to other Muslims?"

Oh, I don't know, Iran and Iraq sure did a nice job of slaughtering each other.

Also, just to throw another iron on the fire, the religious caste system in India results in atrocities that would outrage the world if the people involved were of two different colors or nationalities. The stories are endless - last week there was an account of a young couple that were publically lynched, in front of a cheering crowd of a couple of hundred folks, because the couple was "mixed" wrt caste. People of the lower caste are regularly abused and killed by the upper caste, and it is considered acceptable because the lower caste is considered basically sub-human.

"And, as Christien pointed out, very few wars are actually about religion. I would say that as a cause for war, religion ranks below power, geography, resources, and even ethnic intolerance."

Yes, and I would say that the ongoing Indian-Pakistani conflict is another example.

---

Quote:

Yes, yes, yes! The expansion is $15 online + $5 shipping and it's worth every penny. Not so much for the additions (the Mongol stuff is kind of goofy), but mainly for the changes to the existing game.

I'm just finishing up my Gamespot review now, which should be online sometime this week.

---

Thanks, I'll look into getting the Warlord edition.

Speaking of reviews, I'm trudging through a review of Divided Ground for GameSpy... ho hum.

Do I recall correctly that I read somewhere that the Warlords Expansion was actually a stand-alone, or did I make that up?

I just can't imagine $20 for a stand-alone. That would certainly make it a must-have.

Nah, nevermind, I don't need anyone to tell me how stupid I was...

I was thinking of the Kohan expansion, which will now be stand-alone.

Don't ask me why I confused them...I have no idea.

Re: Tornados and God

I remember seeing a special about Tornados. Some Bible-Belter would say "I just thank the Lord that he protected me", when his house remained untouched while the rest of the neighborhood was flattened.
I always thought that was a cruel thing to say. Did God smite down the rest of the neighborhood?

They do that about everything, jfhoffman - it's amusingly selective. "God helped me make four touchdowns, and I'm implying he doesn't like the other team to boot."

The bit I don't get is why the yokels never wonder why God apparently trys to regularly kill them with tornadoes in the first place.

---

Quote:

I remember seeing a special about Tornados. Some Bible-Belter would say "I just thank the Lord that he protected me", when his house remained untouched while the rest of the neighborhood was flattened.
I always thought that was a cruel thing to say. Did God smite down the rest of the neighborhood?

---

"But I think it's a false premise to suppose that Buddhism is somehow inherently peaceful in a way that Christianity isn't. "

Yeah, anything involving a human is bound to lead to some form of degradation, doesnt matter what religion you are. And to think! People blame God for our wars, our inhumanities, our problems! Oh no, nothing is pure and righteous when you deal with "flawed" hypocritical beings such as humanity! oooh. we're all sinners! Repent!

"I always thought that was a cruel thing to say. Did God smite down the rest of the neighborhood? "

No, but NPR agrees with you... sheesh how PC can you get. So like, if your house was the only one standing what would YOU say? "uhh hahaha its just chance!" pretty much everybody would say the same thing! imo.

etc

"And to think! People blame God for our wars, our inhumanities, our problems! Oh no, nothing is pure and righteous when you deal with "flawed" hypocritical beings such as humanity! oooh. we're all sinners! Repent! ... sheesh how PC can you get. So like, if your house was the only one standing what would YOU say? "uhh hahaha its just chance!" pretty much everybody would say the same thing! imo."

This is sort of excruciating. Does anyone else around here see "mtkafka" in their sleep? Last time I went to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg I think pretty much all 600 of the most recent messages were from mtkafka.

I read in a wonderful book called "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong (it details 4000 years, covering Islam, Judaism, & Christianity) the following quote:

"Christianity was closest to it's principals when it was a struggling, underdog, religion. It's built to be that way. It just doesn't function as well in a position of dominance."

That always rang true to me.

-Andrew

The one thing that always impressed me about Catholisism was the way they could be very flexible when the time came. Throughout Europe they were the very pillar of inflexibility, yet their missionaries to other parts of the world managed to penetrate other cultures in a way that other religions never managed. They were able to sort of tailor catholicism to the local needs and society to the point where they would be accepted, or at least tolerated. The really amazing thing was that they still managed to maintain the basis of the religion, despite changes in the way the message was given. That might tie in well to the "underdog" theory (Bub), in that the missionaries were always the underdog when pitching catholicism in faraway lands.

Too bad I'm not in school anymore. I bet that'd make a good paper.