So, if you look at the culture today, there are many infections out there
that I would rather not contract. Radical cynicism, sexual degradation, horrific
cruelty -these are kinds of disturbing evils that most people would never
encounter, except that they are shoveled at them on the screen. Maybe they
aren’t ready to have these images imprinted on their spirits. Maybe their life
would never have taken them to the kinds of hells that filmmakers routinely put
into their movies – just to get the kudos of the industry which mistakes
outrageousness too often for courage. My question to the filmmakers who want to
sneer at and debunk everything beautiful is, just because you have lost your
hope and faith, does that mean you have to be busy about trashing mine? Just
because you have lost your own innocence, does that mean it is a socially
responsible thing to destroy mine? Many films today offer some small goods of
insight to the audience. But, the insights are cloaked in so much depraved
barbarity that the teeny good of the content is not worth the sliming journey of
its method. I am someone who actually believes that there is a place for decorum
and graciousness in human society. Many of the movies out there today are just
way to full of things that fall into the realm of what St. Paul meant when he
said, “There are some things that should never be mentioned among you.” In my
mind, there are some shameful things which should be the fodder for prayer and
sacrifice, but should never be served up with popcorn as entertainment. Beyond
just perversions like bestiality, which is getting a few screenings at Sundance
this year, this means things that are just crass and purely voyeuristic and
degrading. Movies like this are “Little Children” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”
They have something good to say, but they violate your innocence and defile you
so much on the way that it just isn’t worth it. It is like if you told me you
have a headache, and I said, “Oh, well I know where there is an aspirin for you!
You just have to walk through a putrid sewer for a few miles to get it.” So, on
the way to curing your headache, you pick up diptheria and typhoid. Peachy.
Thanks for that.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Good question. I think North by Northwest is more like an intriguing puzzle
than a simple story. I'm not sure if a true hero could have gotten mixed up in
such a mess - but life is puzzling in this sort of way sometimes. I also don't
think we could have enjoyed this story as much if we liked Roger Thornhill more.
You get the sense that his arrogance and selfishness brought him into all the
zany situations and it wasn't simply a matter of life treating him unfairly.I
think that's supposed to be part of the story though - forcing this
self-centered individual out of his comfort zone and certainly quite a bit of
tongue-in-cheek humor at his expense. Kind of a Don Quixote turned upside-down.I
wouldn't like all my movies to be like this one, but I do really like North by
Northwest (I admit to being a fan of Hitchcock in general).
I'm a big Hitchcock fan myself. I esp. like Dial "M" for Murder, Rear Window, Psycho, and The Birds. And maybe it is okay to go away from N by NW feeling like you need a shower! And happy that Thornhill is even a little bit pulled out of his selfishness, even if it is his own lust that is the catalyst.
What I noticed was how amoral and immoral the whole thing was. I could not sympathize with any of the characters. Roger Thornhill was a selfish misogynist throughout, except when he defended Eve against he FBI's immoral use of her. Yet he himself used her for his own pleasure on the train. Maybe one is to see in the fact that they got married in the end as a nod to the idea that in the end they had risen above simple self interest to genuine interest in the other. But the fact that Thornhill had been divorced twice before belies that for me. I really like my movies to have genuine heroes who, though flawed like all human beings, display genuine virtue. Not everyone lives or chooses to live in such a morally ambiguous world. I can't admire Thornhill. Or the professor. Or Eve.
My son said, "Dad, it was a spy movie. Everything is supposed to be ambiguous." Is immorality justified in order to fight the cold war?
If anyone has a different take, please share it in the comments. I went away from it feeling like I needed a bath.
I cannot see how anyone who reads what St. Augustine actually wrote about the body can maintain such a position. For instance, in book 1, paragraph 24 of On Christian Doctrine he clear states that the body is good and to be loved. Our problem is that we (rightly) long to be freed of the effects of original sin. "[T]he spirit lusteth, not to destroy the body, but to eradicate the lust of the body--i.e., its evil habit--and thus to make it subject to the spirit, which is what the order of nature demands." He uses the analogy of heaviness to convey the "drag" that concupiscence has on us and "lightness" to convey the freedom that we achieve once we have been thoroughly transformed by grace, a transformation that only knows its full realization in the life to come. In addressing the sects that hate the body he explicitly rejects the dualism of Mani and of the neoplatonists. I'm going to quote the passage at length:
CHAP. 23.--MAN NEEDS NO INJUNCTION TO LOVE HIMSELF AND HIS OWN BODY.
22. Those things which are objects of use are not all, however, to be loved, but those only which are either united with us in a common relation to God, such as a man or an angel, or are so related to us as to need the goodness of God through our instrumentality, such as the body. For assuredly the martyrs did not love the wickedness of their persecutors, although they used it to attain the favor of God. As, then, there are four kinds of things that are to be loved,--first, that which is above us; second, ourselves; third, that which is on a level with us; fourth, that which is beneath us,--no precepts need be given about the second and fourth of these. For, however far a man may fall away from the truth, he still continues to love himself, and to love his own body. The soul which flies away from the unchangeable Light, the Ruler of all things, does so that it may rule over itself and over its own body; and so it cannot but love both itself and its own body.
23. Morever, it thinks it has attained something very great if it is able to lord it over its companions, that is, other men. For it is inherent in the sinful soul to desire above all things, and to claim as due to itself, that which is properly due to God only. Now uch love of itself is more correctly called hate. For it is not just that it should desire what is beneath it to be obedient to it while itself will not obey its own superior; and most justly has it been said, "He who loveth iniquity hateth his own soul."(2) And accordingly the soul becomes weak, and endures much suffering about the mortal body. For, of course, it must love the body, and be grieved at its corruption; and the immortality and incorruptibility of the body spring out of the health of the soul. Now the health of the soul is to cling steadfastly to the better part, that is, to the unchangeable God. But when it aspires to lord it even over those who are by nature its equals,--that is, its fellow-men,--this is a reach of arrogance utterly intolerable.
CHAP. 24.--NO MAN HATES HIS OWN FLESH, NOT EVEN THOSE WHO ABUSE IT.
24. No man, then, hates himself. On this point, indeed, no question was ever raised by any sect. But neither does any man hate his own body. For the apostle says truly, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh."(3) And when some people say that they would rather be without a body altogether, they entirely deceive themselves. For it is not their body, but its corruptions and its heaviness, that they hate. And so it
is not no body, but an uncorrupted and very light body, that they want. But they think a body of that kind would be no body at all, because they think such a thing as that must be a spirit. And as to the fact that they seem in some sort to scourge their bodies by abstinence and toil, those who do this in the right spirit do it not that they may get rid of their body, but that they may have it in subjection and ready for every needful work. For they strive by a kind of toilsome exercise of the body itself to root out those lusts that are hurtful to the body, that is, those habits and affections of the soul that lead to the enjoyment of unworthy objects. They are not destroying themselves; they are taking care of their health.
25. Those, on the other hand, who do this in a perverse spirit, make war upon their own body as if it were a natural enemy. And in this matter they are led astray by a mistaken interpretation of what they read: "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other."(1) For this is said of the carnal habit yet unsubdued, against which the spirit lusteth, not to destroy the body, but to eradicate the lust of the body--i.e., its evil habit--and thus to make it subject to the spirit, which is what the order of nature demands. For as, after the resurrection, the body, having become wholly subject to the spirit, will
live in perfect peace to all eternity; even in this life we must make it an object to have the carnal habit changed for the better, so that its inordinate affections may not war against the soul. And until this shall take place, "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh;" the spirit struggling, not in hatred, but for the mastery, because it desires that what it loves should be subject to the higher principle; and the flesh struggling, not in hatred, but because of the bondage of habit which it has derived from its parent stock, and which has grown in upon it by a law of nature till it has become inveterate. The spirit, then, in subduing the flesh, is working as it were to destroy the ill-founded peace of an evil habit, and to bring about the
real peace which springs out of a good habit. Nevertheless, not even those who, led astray by false notions, hate their bodies would be prepared to sacrifice one eye, even supposing they could do so without suffering any pain, and that they had as much sight left in one as they formerly had in two, unless some object was to be attained which would overbalance the loss. This and other indications of the same kind are sufficient to show those who candidly seek the truth how well-founded is the statement of the apostle when he says, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh." He adds too, "but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church."(2)
CHAP. 25.--A MAN MAY LOVE SOMETHING MORE THAN HIS BODY, BUT DOES NOT THEREFORE HATE HIS BODY.
26. Man, therefore, ought to be taught the due measure of loving, that is, in what measure he may love himself so as to be of service to himself. For that he does love himself, and does desire to do good to himself, nobody but a fool would doubt. He is to be taught, too, in what measure to love his body, so as to care for it wisely and within due limits. For it is equally manifest that he loves his body also, and desires to keep it safe and sound. And yet a man may have something that he loves better than the safety and soundness of his body. For many have been found voluntarily to suffer both pains and amputations of some of their limbs that they might obtain other objects which they valued more highly. But no one is to be told not to desire the safety and health of his body because there is something he desires more. For the miser, though he loves money, buys bread for himself,--that is, he gives away money that he is very fond of and desires to heap up,--but it is because he values more highly the bodily health which the bread sustains. It is superfluous to argue longer on a point so very plain, but this is just what the error of wicked men often compels us to do.