The Movie Thread

Maddox said:
I'm waiting for it to hit Netflix or one of the other streaming channels, but I heard Ralph Fiennes's performance is very good. I loved him in The English Patient, so I'm anxious to see what he does in this film.
Click to expand...
I just went to see it. Yes, Fiennes was very good - all the acting was good and the movie was certainly entertaining. But all in all, I must say it is just one more Hollywood propaganda piece against the True Faith.

'Conclave' was the first movie I've seen in a theater since just before the COVID shutdown (when I saw 'Midway' in theater). So, about 4 years 9 months. The reason I avoid going to movies is because they are usually just liberal trash. But I am Catholic, and so I wanted to give it a chance, hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

Nope. The liberal Cardinals were portrayed as the good guys, and the villain was a conservative Cardinal who loves the TLM. I figured out who was going to be elected a few minutes before the election scene. And then came the big plot reveal, which is literally an abomination.

There were a couple of bright spots. My favorite scene (very brief) was the outside smoke break by the tobacco-using Cardinals. Also, the movie was fair in portraying the Church as having liberal and conservative factions, and what they strive for. And most surprising of all, a very honest scene about liberal virtue signaling when it comes to the issue of race.

Overall, though, it just reinforced my aversion to going to the cinema nowadays. This particular theater regularly has one-night showings of old movies, so I won't rule out going altogether. But for anything made in the 21st century I doubt I will bother ever again.
 
I decided on Sunday I would try to watch more entertainment that was religious themed if I was going to consume any at all so I decided to watch a Catholic movie called 'A Man for All Seasons.'

I chose this as I find myself increasingly unable to enjoy films that do not at least attempt to give a spiritual message of a kind. Recently among my entertainment options I see only sensationalism, indulgence in sickness and vice and a kind of theater of the depraved where I worry what is done to my mind by viewing such works.

This film was about Sir Thomas More and how he was essentially killed by refusing to go along with King Henry's marriage annulment. We see Thomas More as an esteemed man of character whose word means something in a world with a multiplying number of weasels and spineless social climbers.

The strongest scene is the court case, where Sir Thomas More - after receiving a death sentence - makes a passionate speech against the 'repugnant' Parliament. He is not the victor, yet by staying on the correct moral path he has not fallen from grace like other characters.

Another strong scene is one involving Henry and More. You can tell both men like one another in this scene and yet this key issue of faith and adherence to Catholic laws cuts through social niceties and demands resolution for their friendship to be anything other than a performance. You can see More staying resolute as Henry's moods fluctuate upon understanding More's resolve.

I didn't know an enormous amount about the historical context despite being English and I was slightly confused when I kept hearing 'Cromwell' and got mixed up with the later Oliver. Apparently this was another despicable non-religious Cromwell figure.

The story is about staying true to religious principles even if it means enormous worldly losses including the loss of life itself. There is also commentary about how the worst of people can rise up through deception while many much better and principled end up executed.

What becomes clear in the film is that King Henry probably knows on some level that Thomas More is a good man and holds out privately against his selfish and sacrilegious behaviour and that is the very reasons he increasingly prods Thomas More to make a positive declaration.

Ultimately, More just tries to be left alone but the silence becomes a statement in of itself and rather than accept any wrongdoing Henry doubles down and demand More make a positive statement or else. Unwilling to sacrifice his principles and make an oath his heart was against make him a model for putting one's spiritual life above all else.
 
Tippy said:
I decided on Sunday I would try to watch more entertainment that was religious themed if I was going to consume any at all so I decided to watch a Catholic movie called 'A Man for All Seasons.'

I chose this as I find myself increasingly unable to enjoy films that do not at least attempt to give a spiritual message of a kind. Recently among my entertainment options I see only sensationalism, indulgence in sickness and vice and a kind of theater of the depraved where I worry what is done to my mind by viewing such works.

This film was about Sir Thomas More and how he was essentially killed by refusing to go along with King Henry's marriage annulment. We see Thomas More as an esteemed man of character whose word means something in a world with a multiplying number of weasels and spineless social climbers.

The strongest scene is the court case, where Sir Thomas More - after receiving a death sentence - makes a passionate speech against the 'repugnant' Parliament. He is not the victor, yet by staying on the correct moral path he has not fallen from grace like other characters.

Another strong scene is one involving Henry and More. You can tell both men like one another in this scene and yet this key issue of faith and adherence to Catholic laws cuts through social niceties and demands resolution for their friendship to be anything other than a performance. You can see More staying resolute as Henry's moods fluctuate upon understanding More's resolve.

I didn't know an enormous amount about the historical context despite being English and I was slightly confused when I kept hearing 'Cromwell' and got mixed up with the later Oliver. Apparently this was another despicable non-religious Cromwell figure.

The story is about staying true to religious principles even if it means enormous worldly losses including the loss of life itself. There is also commentary about how the worst of people can rise up through deception while many much better and principled end up executed.

What becomes clear in the film is that King Henry probably knows on some level that Thomas More is a good man and holds out privately against his selfish and sacrilegious behaviour and that is the very reasons he increasingly prods Thomas More to make a positive declaration.

Ultimately, More just tries to be left alone but the silence becomes a statement in of itself and rather than accept any wrongdoing Henry doubles down and demand More make a positive statement or else. Unwilling to sacrifice his principles and make an oath his heart was against make him a model for putting one's spiritual life above all else.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am a fan of this movie, but I also like Anne of Thousand Days (1969), starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This covers a similar time period as A Man for All Seasons, focusing more on the relationship of Henry and Anne, but also involving Thomas More and the other major figures of that story.

The movie Cromwell came out in 1970, and tells the story of Oliver Cromwell and King Charles I. All three of these movies were made around the same period, and have a similar style. Modern movies put too much of a modern spin on these stories. It's better to see them from a more traditional point of view, although even these movies from the end of the 1960s still show some signs of modernism.

In all three movies, the King is highly conscious of his role as King by divine right. Theological issues are discussed quite a bit. However, I feel that in the 60s they did it in such a way as to present what people back then spoke and thought, but with a certain wink wink nudge nudge that we know better now. They make a point to show how hypocritical many of the characters are, spouting off about divine rights and God's blessing and endorsement of their rule, while they also are obviously filthy sinners, sleeping around freely, and executing people left and right in a way that seems like pure murder now.
 
Last night I decided to rewatch the 2022 movie TAR as it popped up on Netflix

Basic story is that it's about an award winning composer called Lydia Tar who has achieved everything in the game of classical music but has various problems in her personal life, especially when it comes to her fetishization of young women.

The film starts with two strong character building scenes - one, an interview, highlighting her in depth knowledge of the genre and another University lecture where she dresses down a wokester with language like 'the narcissism of small differences makes the most boring conformity.'

This builds her up as someone formidable and intelligent. Over the course of the film, we see how these positive traits are tempered by a lustful thirst for younger women. Over time, this becomes her undoing as allegations from the past work to disrupt her cushy indulgent lifestyle.

The writer is clever not only in creating a convincing looking world of classical music but also in the decision to place a woman in the titular role. Although feminists were mad anyway, in the current climate people would not be able to handle an unlikeable lust driven male protagonist in a position of power. They would have to be the villain.

Despite the gender swapping, I still had moments where I was unsure whether I was supposed to want Tar to be taken down for her behaviour or to feel upset that such a talent was no longer needed nor wanted in the modern world of political correctness. It's a bit of both but then this mixture can make it a bit of a cerebral and emotionally confusing watch.

I found myself more just frustrated that she made such selfish and poor choices repeatedly and was ultimately glad that she got some comeuppance. The final shot felt like a fair ending for her - exiled but not totally destroyed. Was that what I was supposed to think or feel? I don't know. The intent of this film is murky.

I found the 'relationship' between Tar and the new cello player well done. You could tell that she was a gen Z with a confidence and arrogance which leads to a disrespect of paths forged before but still with a desire to gain what she can in value and prestige from it.

In general, the use of online culture with emails and smart phones playing a role in the plot make it feel very of this moment. Meanwhile, the focus on classical music and the high art culture around it give it a high brow quality. It's a satisfying combination that allows the film to make points about quite low brow things such as tabloid sensationalism in a world of intelligentsia which appears to be rapidly in decline.

Ultimately, the world won't have people like Tar in it for much longer. If this is supposed to be tragic, the point could have been made more strongly. But in any case it's certainly not a thing to rejoice in if the alternative is a world of brainwashed leftists. That's what I took away. I'm glad this film was able to Trojan horse that message in through a lesbian played by Cate Blanchett.

It's a cold heady watch and a tough adjustment at first once it gets going it is hard to stop watching.
 
I can't even remember the last time I saw a movie in a theater, but I will probably check out Gladiator 2 when it comes out. Hopefully it isn't woke and gay.

The first Gladiator is amazing. One of my favorite movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top