Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

There was a Washington Post articles a few days ago (1/18) that detailed a disturbing chain of events occuring at a D.C. parish.

Before I start analyzing this, a disclaimer. Obviously I do not attend this parish. My comments are my take on the situation given the perspective presented in the article and my understanding of Catholic teaching as it pertains to this.

Apparently the trouble is at Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Anacosta. It’ s one of the D.C. Diocese’s traditionally-black parishes and opened 85 years ago by black members of the community who wanted their own church. Black and white pastors have come and gone over the years, but none has brought so much controversy with him as Fr. Donald Fest, the current pastor at Our Lady. He is of an order of priests devoted to black Catholics, so you wouldn’t think there would be a problem, even if he is white.

You’d be wrong. Protests, fliers handed out before Mass, and other disruptions, lead mostly by Bill Aston, a member of the parish, have led to major distress in the parish. Aston and other dissenters call Fest a “racists” and have submitted petitions to try to drive him out of the parish. They complain that he runs the parish “like a plantation.” Fest, who has worked in Baltimore and New Orleans before coming to Our Lady, says that “If I’m a racist, the I’ve picked some–well, I didn’t pick them–assignments.”

The auxiliary bishop of Washington has said that the “upset group should obey the pastor or find another church.” Alston, however, doesn’t want to obey, saying that “it’s not going to happen like that.” There are issues with a brother, who is black and opf the same order as Fr. Fest, who runs parish activities and committees. The dissenters don’t like his leadership style. They don’t like the new rules for the church’s famous “Panorama Room”, which used to be available for unfettered access. Now you ust have a key and ask permission to use the room for church purposes only. You must alos acquire liability insurance. Members of the church finance committee didn’t much like the change, but, as one mbmerr said, “the changes were necessary….this is an archdiocese church. It is not their church.”

The Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. Never has been. Seems like some of these folks have an issue with that. The dissenters call Fest a racist, and in p ublic there are “plenty of references to race.” They’ve compared Fest to a Grand Wizard of the KKK and some believe that the Church isn’t doing enough to satisfy the needs of black Catholics in worship,b y adding such things as gospel music and longer, Protestant-type sermons.

Not all the parishioners feel this way; it appears to be a relativly small minority that is disrupting the whole. There’s an impasse–they won’t stop protesting,a nd Fest won’t leave until he’s reassigned.

OK, my take: how can you accuse a priest who has dedicated his whole life to serving black Catholics a racist? He’s white–that doesn’t make him a member of the KKK! Let’s get real! Just because he doesn’t do things “your way” doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy. So you have to get a key to the room and use it only for Church purposes–geez, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Sounds like the way most churches and halls and things are run these days. Sounds like the “dissenters” don’t like the idea of someone coming in and changing what they’re used to. Sorry, guys, but that’s life. What is he doing that so egregious?

And we’ve also got the whole I’m going to rebel against the Church vibe. Um, look. The Catholic Church is many things, but a democracy it ain’t. The auxiliary bishop is right–if you don’t like it, leave. Just because your ancestors built this church doesn’t mean that you have a special right or ownership to it. Everybody’s ancestors built a church building somewhere. That doesn’t give you any cool authority.

And the part about adding stuff to the services? OK, gospel music (in correct, limited doses) is fine. We do plenty of gospel-inspired pieces in our choir and the congregation loves them. But “Sister Act” like stuff doesn’t belong in the Catholic Church. We just don’t do that. It’s not our thing. Sorry. It would be like asking a Gospel Choir to sing Panis Angelicus–they’d probably look at you like you were nuts. And the “Protestant like sermons”? They have Protestant Churches for that. The sermon is not the main focus of Catholic Mass–the Eucharist is. And 99.9% of Catholics would jump out of their skins if we had long Protestant like sermons! My parish can barely stand 10 minutes!

I hope this has a peaceful resolution, but this is one strange situation. How can there be such vehement opposition to a pastor? Crazy.

With the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito today (YAY!!!), the Supreme Court now has 5 (GASP!) Catholic judges! Including, dare I say, the Chief Justice and the conservative justices!! The world is ending! The Pope is setting up residence on the Potomac! eeeek!

OK, sorry, just had to get that out of mysystem. Soo glad he was confirmed and that he’s on the Court. He will be a great jurist and I’m proud of GW and the Senate Rs for GETTING IT DONE (and thanks to the Senate Ds who actually did something logical and voted for him).

All you anti-Catholics, calm down. I’m sure that B XVI won’t offer the opening prayer of the Court session in October, and he won’t celebrate the Red Mass, either. Whoa, Nellie…it’s OK. I just hope GW gets in some congratulatory points during SOTU (State of the Union) tonight. Which y’all will watch, right?? (my foreign readers are excluded, unless you get CNN or something. Then it’s on, but at like 3 in the morning or some other obscene time.)

The encyclical, that is. Whew! It always amazes me how much information a Pope can pack into an encyclical, and this one is no exception. In the 27 (internet-accessed, printed) pages I read, we managed to cover what love is, how God is love for us, how the Eucharist is the fulfillment of this love, love of others, love of God even though we can’t see him, charity, charitiable works in society, the proper place of the Church in society (it is not the same as the state), premarital sex, and other things. Whew! Are you surprised it took me awhile to read? That’s basically a summary of the high points B XVI hits, but here are my favorite parts…

1. mentions terrorism several times, including that, too often, God’s name is linked with “vengenance or duty of hatred and violence”, which I took as a reference to jihad and Muslim extremism, but there are, as we know, other kinds of religious extremism as well that this would cover. But I thought jihad was probably the most relevant reference in today’s world.

2. That love between a man and a woman is the “very epitome of love”, so I guess that rules out anything else. Like we needed to be told that.

3. Takes on the argument (first verbalized with Nietzsche, I think) that “the Church, with all Her rules and commandments, turn [s] the most precious thing in life bitter?” Doesn’t the church just stop our happiness? B XVI’s answer? No. The Church isn’t against “eros” as such, but is against a “warped and estructive form of it” because it strips love of its dignity and leads to its dehumanization. This is also where he touches on premarital relations and says that these lead to the dehumanization and degredation of man. Love must be “disciplines and purified” if it is to provide the “beauty that God intended” it to have, which leads to purification and growth. He also says that the body and spirit must be unified in love or you also lose the dignity and greatness of humanity.

Today, B XVI says, love has been reduced to “pure sex” (it’s so funny to hear a pope write or say “sex”…I’m sorry) and has become “a commodity” which leads to humanity (my emphasis) becoming a commodity. Is that what we want? No. At least, I don’t think so. This reminds me of Thomas Howard’s great parallel in On Being Catholic where he describes discipline in terms of the discipline of dancers and musicians. One must deny the body certain things in order to achieve the freedom of perfection and ability to perfectly express oneself.

4. Onto homosexual “marriage”–only “monogamous marriage can become the icon of the relationship between God and His people” and vice versa. This is why the Church is against pre-marital sex, adultury, co-habitation, homosexual “marriage”. God has given us the standard and expectation of love that we must imitate and follow. It’s not up to us to change the rules. God has given us the greatest example…and we don’t want to follow that? Do we really want less than we were created for?

5. B XVI had already written quite a bit on the Eucharist (i.e., God is Near Us , etc.) before ascending to the Papacy, so I wasn’t too surprised to see him write about the Eucharistic ties of live. The Eucharistic Communion, he writes, “includes relatity of being both loved and of loving others”. We need a “correct understanding” of the Eucharist in order to understand Jesus’ teachings on love. God is not fully invisible to us, because we can see Him in the Eucharist. We also see God through our love of neighbor–the whole thing about loving God and loving your neighbor because they are the same thing.

6. The majority of the end of the encyclical deals with charity and how we are to do it. We are responsible for making sure that everyone has “what is needed for a dignified life.” We must, however, also treat people with love, since that if often more needed than corporeal gifts. Catholics know this concept as the “corporal and spiritual works of mercy.” The book of James says this…we can’t just wish people a good life, we have to provide it. And in the same way, St. Paul says to the Corinthians that without love all is worthless “if I speak with the tounges of men and of angels….” etc. it is part of the Church’s 3 fold responsibility–to proclaim the word; to celebrate the sacraments, and to exercise ministries of charity. However, B XVI then goes on to say that Justice and Charity are two different things, and condemns marxism several times (yeah!), also saying that the role of Justice is to be provided by the State, not the Church, and that Church and State operate in functionally different realms. This does not, however, stop Christians from brining Christian tenents into their personal lives and state functions (ARE YOU READING THIS, DEMS???) “politics and faith meet” in certain spheres, but not all. “Citizens of the state,” he writes, “are called to trake part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquist their participation in the many dicfferent economic, social, legislative, adminsitrative and cultural areas which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good .” In the words of The Incredibles , B XVI “needs us to engage!” He also mentions tax relief as a good thing!!

The end of the encylical brings up the ideas of volunteering, the dignity of humanity, a long section on Mary and love, and a section I found intriguing, the idea that Christians, while providing charity, must not try to force those they are helping to accept Christ. The Christian, he writes (I’m paraphrasing here), knows the time and the place for a sermon, and the time and the place for a loaf of bread and some water. The key is not to link charity to acceptance of God. We are to serve all people, not just those who share our faith.

Overall, it’s a great encyclical, written in a style that I like. JP II, as much as I loved him, could be, shall we say, “flowery” at times which made for a harder analysis of his arguments. B XVI is much more linear, with everything building on everything else. He writes like the professor he was for 20, 30 odd years. There are lots of “in conclusion” and “in summary” and stuff like that. So if you get lost, just look for those.

Still working on BXVI’s encyclical…I want to read it through and get my thoughts before reading those of the media (you know, have my mind set before it’s clouded with dirt…:) It’s been a busy week and I’ve only been getting to it incrementally. I’m also chugging toward the end of Augustine….one more book! One more book! I’ve gotten through most of the density so I’ll have that report soon, too. Also reading Scott Hahn’s Letter and Spirit which is also incredibly good and I’m taking a lot of notes, so that’s also slow (er) reading (well, than usual). Combined with the fact that I’m getting ready to move in a month or so, so there’s a lot going on! Whew! But I promise I will have new stuff up soon…meanwhile, there’s a lot of archieves to go through and such.

One note: hurray that the Cowboy Phenomenon did not manage to sweep in the goods at the SAG awards. Whoopee!

Big day in the Catholic World.>> B XVI’s got his first encyclical out, and it’s on love, baby (maybe should’ve released on Valentine’s Day? Hmmm…) I am printing off a copy from the Vatican’s website as we speak, will read and have comments for y’all tomorrow.

By the way, does it strike anyone else as waay cool that the Successor of Peter, a Galilean fisherman, now has a website and e-mail? Who says the Church doesn’t evolve? I wonder if Christ ever envisioned this. You know, they’re sitting by the fire one night, talking, and Jesus says, “just imagine, Peter, in 2,000 years, your successor will be able to instantly communicate with anyone in the world via a little machine, and you’ll have one place to put everything the Church says and believes, and anyone can access it, at any time!” But this probably didn’t happen. I mean, these are the guys who had trouble with the loaves and the fishes. So Jesus probably didn’t want to warp their minds too much with 21st century technology. And i”m not being disrespectful to the Apostles…just having some fun here!

Check back tomorrow for the write-up. And I’m almost done with the Confessions –really! I’m on Book X (with only two more to go–I think)…

More later, amigos…

OK, I know I’m a little late posting on this but I had “procedures” at Children’s yesterday and am still a wee bit out of it (yeah, drugs…OK, not), but I need to post on this, so here we go.

I’m not sure what else can really be said on this. Obviously, it’s heartbreaking. Think of all those millions of children that never saw sunlight, never were kissed, never went to school, never learned to read or heard music or played soccer in the fields during the summer. Think of all those babies who never even opened their eyes and saw another human being smile back at them. And what did they do, to deserve death in a cold, sterile procedural room? Nothing. They were conceived, either from a night with too many beers, or a rape, or in a marriage where the parents just didn’t want another child. They could have been found to have a genetic defect, or something else that the family just didn’t want to “deal with”. This last view is exemplified best in this bone-chilling post from DailyKos:

if anyone ever says (none / 0)

I, you–NO ONE–has to “accept” whatever plops out. Having a kid, in the grand scheme of things is 1) not that special, and 2) not that hard to do.

“I don’t want to spend my time raisin’ that kid?” There’s nothing ro even say about this. I cannot imagine it. What if my mother had said that before I was born? I wouldn’t be here. Because, you know, us genetically flawed kids can’t do anything worthwhile in society, right? Worth isn’t determined by a W2 or a college degree. Worth is determined by God, and how much love you give. Even the “imperfect” are worthy of love. They can give love. It chills me to think how many on the pro-choice side are esentially condoning eugenics—the same thing that Nazis did during WWII. We were horrified by it then; now it occurs, hundreds of them, every day in America, and they’re OK with it.

But we on the pro-life said cannot be. I”m not saying burn the clinics and kill the doctors because that’s wrong. It goes against our message that all life is sacred. And it is! We must pray even harder for these people, that their hearts be changed. “Let not our hearts be hardened,” the psalmist askes in Psalm 95. How can we allow the destruction of our most innocent? Society is gauged on how we value life, the most innocent and the weakest. Last week we saw that Oregon has allowed people to end their lives when they are no longer “worth living”. And we allow parents to abort their children if their childrens’ lives are “not worth living” or are just “inconvenient”. Yes, I’ve read the stories of mothers who felt they had no choice. But there is a choice . That choice is life. Give the child up for adoption. I would love to have your child, since I can’t have children of my own. Many people would take them, and love them, and give them a good life. A life infinitely better than death. Even those that the DailyKos reader sees as so unimportant, I would take. I’ve seen Down Syndrome kids, CP kids, MS kids, kids of every kind at Children’s. And you know what makes them special? How loving they are, how great they are. Sure they have their challenges–don’t we all? But that’s no reason to kill them!

As for the idea that having a baby “isn’t that special” and “isn’t that hard to do”, um, I’m sorry, but having a baby is the greatest thing you can do. That doesn’t mean it has to be hard. Many great and lovely things are quite simple. You are creating new life–and that’s not special? How jaded have we allowed ourselves to get?!

Abortion hurts our country in so many ways, not the least of which is the corruption to our nation’s soul that abortion allows. We are not protecting the “least among us”. this is our most basic duty as Christians. Forget, for a minute, hunger, and education,a nd equal pay for equal work and all that stuff. NONE of that matters if you don’t have life . Without life, none of the rest of it matters at all. So to all those “pro-choice” Christians, I would remind you that that is THE issue. We cannot have anything else without life. And to Catholics: THIS IS IT. It is so important. Even more important that the death penalty, hunger, what have you. Vitally important. I would ask us all to remember that.

All right, I have to deviate from just one minute…

We rock! We roll! Pittsburgh’s goin’ to the Super Bowl!
We rock! We roll! Pittsburgh’s goin’ to the Super Bowl!

The Bus rolls on to Detroit….GO STEELERS!! WOOHOO!!

All right, i’m done now.

Gotten some feedback–good and bad–relating to my post yesterday about SCOTUS’ decision to uphold the Oregon “right to die” law. Usually i’ll respond to comments in the comments field on the blog, or email back if I feel it warrants it, but some of the criticism is broad based, so I thought I’d respond to it here for a change. I’ll lay them out and give my responses point by point:

1. In response to my comment that St. Paul tells us our bodies are not our own:

No, no, St. Paul tells you that so I don’t see how it pertains to other people.
Well, actually St. Paul says it to everyone who reads and believes the Bible. Last time I checked I wasn’t the only one who read and believed the Bible. And our bodies are not our own; as St. Paul continues, “we were bought with a price.” Jesus died to save us, God gave us the gift of life. We aren’t to play Russian roulette with it.

If you want to live a life devoid of quality that is your business and right. I’d be happy to take a bullet to protect said right.

“devoid of quality”? Well, who determines quality? I mean, to some people it’s the ability to dance the pas de deux from Sleeping Beauty or be able to play Beethoven. To others, it means simply being present, being alive, and being with family, as much as possible. Law should not be determined based on such a broad definition. God decides when our lives don’t have “quality” anymore. As scripture says, “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.” Only He gets to decide when we’re done living.

However, what you fail to understand is that just because you believe something that doesn’t make it right nor does it mean everyone else has to believe it.

Thios is a charge Republicans (and Catholics) get a lot. That just because we feel this way doesn’t mean we can make everyone else feel this way or that we’re right. Now, this may apply, say, in my opinion on ice cream (Chocolate is the best!) or that I think Rachel McAdams and Reese Witherspoon are good actresses. Obviously I cannot say these opinions are finite and absolutely correct and force them on the general population.

But let’s phrase this is something more similar. If I said, “murder is wrong, but I can’t inflict my opinion on anyone else,” people would think I was nuts. Murder is wrong, plain and simple. If I kill you for no good reason, I’m a murderer. Society inflicts its opinions on people every day–it’s part of living in society, the giving up of some “rights” for the good of others. Most of us have come to the conclusion that you can’t steal, kill, rape, etc., another person withouit consequence.

So it is the same with these “personal” decisions, like assisted suicide and abortion. There are some things (like these) that are intrinsicly wrong. They thoroughly disrespect life at the most basic level. These laws say that only certain people are worthy of the “right to life.” That’s not cool. It is not good for society to sanction the killing of its members. In Europe, where many of these laws are in place in countries such as England and Holland, the reach of this legislation has expanded to include infanticide (doctors killing babies who they deem unfit for life) and “wrongful birth suits,” such as one in England where a mother sued for damages after she gave birth to a handicapped child (the child, by the way, was seven at the time of the lawsuit;. Can you imagine?). We have no right to mess with life.

If someone is sane and an adult and they decide they’ve had enough of life it’s none of your, mine or anyone else’s business if they end it.

I really don’t think sanity should be a criteria. Plenty of sane people have done some nutty things; note the rare use of the insanity defense in court. “They’ve had enough of life”–well what’s next? Teens getting approval to commit suicide? If doctors have an agenda, they’ll say no one is “fit for life” and that they are “sane” and able to determine that they are ready to die. Some of these people (again, as seen in Holland) are clearly not, and doctors and families use the law to deplorable ends to terminate lives. Slippery slopes, here we come!

2.:

Maybe my copy of the Bible is defective, but surely yours, too, also includes Matthew 7:1, which admonishes, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

This isn’t judging. Like I said above, there are some things that are intrinsically right and wrong. If I say a rapist is a criminal and what he did was bad, that’s not being judgemental. It’s stating a fact. I hear this a lot in gay-rights debates. There are certain things in the world that are not open for discussion. Jesus did not come to Earth for all of us to hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ (one of my favorite phrases) He gave us the 10 commandments (including “thou shalt not kill”) and the Beatitudes, and such so that we would know how to live the way He wants us to–the way that leads to Heaven. He say forgive your neighbor, but he didn’t say tolerate everything your neighbor does and write it off as OK. When He forgave sins, He said, “go, and sin no more.” Jesus didn’t give anyone a free pass, and He didn’t expect His followers to, either.

Whatever your experience in suffering might be; whatever the martyred saints tell us about suffering, it’s all just prelude to an individual’s personal commune with God and the spirit of Christ. The decision of what a mentally competent person does at the end of his or her life is the decision of that person, not yours, nor the Supreme Court’s. You’re free to follow your conscience as follows. Kindly allow others to do the same.

Isn’t this sort of “relativist” Christianity that the Pope warns us about? I mean, if this is a valid point, then why have the 10 commandments? Why have rules? Why have laws? Let’s just let everyone do whatever his conscience tells him. That just doesn’t wash. Sure, it’s not my decision, but laws affect more than just one person. They affect all of society and what society thinks about an act. Look at abortion for an example. So many times people say, “well I don’t feel guilty, because it’s legal, and since it’s legal it can’t be wrong.” Huh?

This isn’t about a power trip, it’s not about controlling other people’s lives. It’s about setting a standard in our societies and countries that says we respect all life, even when a person is ill and suffering. We still love them and see value in their lives. We still value their contributions to humanity. The Church used to condemn people who committed suicide to Hell, because it was seen that those who committed suicide were basically saying that their lives were so bad no one–not even God–could help them. Dante saw it as a sin of the flesh, leaving those who committed suicide to be constantly mutilating their bodies in Hell.

Life is the greatest gift we have. It cannot be treated cavalierely. We must fight to protect it, and to convince people that life always has worth, even when it is hard to see. It is then that God can use us most effectively, if we can trust in His will and not be so wrapped up in what society says is “worthwhile.” God has His own standards.

Did anyone else happen to see the pics in the papers about the women who brought the assisted-suicide case before the Supreme Court? If you did, I hope you’re as disturbed as I am. I’m not able to track down a pic right now, but these women (all about 60+) were enraptured that their “right to die” had been protected. They actually were ecstatic, one of them thrusting her fists in the air like Rocky after he finished a run. It was disgusting. I mean, we are praising the right to die . I cannot imagine a life so horrible that death would be something I would be this enthusiastic about, and believe me, I’m not just talking out the side of my mouth here. I do know something about terrific pain and suffering, thank you very much. And there’s no way I would ever, ever, ever want to voluntarily commit suicide. Besides thar, the reasoning for the Oregon law are specious at best. Pain today can be controlled very well (as I well know) by IV narcotics and other drugs that can make you, if not pain-free, then you’re pretty close (like 98%). There is no pain so horrible that we can’t treat it. There’s hospice care to ease the natural process of dying. There’s no reason to have this law.

People are so afraid of suffering anymore. It wasn’t always so. St. Polycarp, a first century martyr and bishop of Smyrna, wrote this prayer before his death:

Lord God Almighty, Father of Jesus Christ…I bless you because you have thought me worthy (emphasis mine)…to be numbered among the martyrs and to drink out of the cup Your Anointed has drunk from…For this and all your blessings I praise you and give you glory, through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ the heavenly, your dear Child.

Even up to our age, the late John Paul the Great was the foremost teacher on how to live with suffering. Life does not become meaningless just because we deem it so. Life is not defined by our ability to walk, talk, speak, or go to the movies. Life is defined by love. And as long as we can love, then God is with us. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta also had this to say on suffering:

Try to increase your knowledge of the mystery of redemption. This knowledge will lead you to love, and love will make you share through your sacrifice in the passion of Christ. My dear children, without suffering our work would just be social work–very good and helpful, but it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the redemption. Jesus wanted to help us by sharing our life, our loneliness, our agony and death. All that He has taken upon Himself and has carried it in the darkest night. Only be being one with us has He redeemed us. We are able to do the same….to take upon myself some of [the poor's] sufferings.

Redemptive Suffering is a Catholic doctrine I’m quite fond of, and I would hope that more people would study it and embrace it as a concept. If the Son of God could not escape suffering and pain, how can we expect to? And how can we say ‘no’ to God at the end, in a final act of Satan’s non serviam ? How much pride can we as human beings have? It seems like there is no limit to it. At least not in Oregon.

Our bodies are not our own, St. Paul tells us. Yet we contiually act as if they were. What arrogance, or rather, what despair overcomes these people so that they feel their lives are no longer worth living when they deem themselves not functional enough, or in too much pain? God can use everything we give him–and when we are done giving Him all that we can, He will take us home. But not before then.

Some recent film round-ups, both DVD and theatrical release:

1) Fried Green Tomatoes: Kathy Bates, Jessica Tandy, Mary-Louise Parker, Mary Stuart Matherson. Great film in the Southern woman friendship genre (which I love about a middle-aged woman unhappy in her marriage who discovers a murder-mystery story from an old woman in a nursing home (Jessica Tandy). Film spends most the time flashing back to the 1930s, when Idgie (Mary Matherston, I think) and Ruth team up to be best friends and cause trouble in the town of Whistle Stop, Alabama. Great story, lots of fun, poignant moments.

2) Life is Beautiful : I saw this movie when it first came out but I had forgotten how funny and life-affirming it is. Roberto Benigni plays Guido, a waiter with an impeccable sense of humor and comic timing , who has the ability to turn everything into a fairy tale. He falls in love and marries his principessa , Dora, played by his real-life wife, and together they have a child, Giosue (Joshua). Guido is Jewish and is arrested on Joshua’s fifth birthday and taken, along with his son and brother, to a concentration camp; Dora follows them, unwilling to be left behind to wait for their return. To make the experience pliable for Joshua, Guido tells him that the camp is one big game and the first to earn 1,000 points gets a real tank as a prize. It’s a wonderful, touching story about family and faith and the first half is really, really funny. Winner of 3 1998 Oscars.

3) The Producers : Saw the musical last year, and loved it. Very funny. The movie? Not quite as funny–some songs are cut (”The King of Broadway”, “Where Did We Go Right?”, and “Springtime for Hitler” is cut down substantially), and Matthew Broderick’s Leo seemed a bit too tightly-wired in the beginning to be truly funny…itdefinitely felt like he was acting in the beginning. Nathan Lane does a fine job, as does Robert Bart (George on D.H.) and Uma Thurman. It’s a good movie but it’s not as good as, say, last year’s Phantom (which I LOVED) or 2003’s Chicago . It just screams “this is a musical that has been filmed exactly from the stage version”–even the costumes are the same, and no material’s been added or changed, just deleted. It often feels like it’s the stage version just held outside. But I will say the exterior shorts of old-time NY are nice, especially the ones in Central Park.

Note on the Oscars: alas, for long time readers of my blog, I do not know if I will be able to make my long-time Oscar predictions this year, simply because I haven’t seen any of the films nominated. Out of the 10 Golden Globe nominees for best picture, I had seen one ( The Producers )> I have ZERO intention of seeing Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, or Munich. They are all downers that either have moral values I am intensely disposed against or portray America and American politics as dark and shady, or that the war on terror is all relative, or whatever. These are thigns I do not agree with implicitly, therefore I will not spend $6.50 to see these films. I will, however, see Walk the Line probably this week. That actually looks good.