Conference bookie::movies

	What's it about? It was mentioned to me last week.
	Have you seen it Bob?

	Richard

    It's about a Catholic priest who has to reconcile his religious beliefs
    against such things as homosexuality, celibacy (or rather, not
    practicing it), and the seal of the confessional (or whatever it's 
    called....).
    
    I've seen mixed reviews-- for example, Roger Ebert didn't care for it,
    Gene Siskel liked it, Entertainment Weekly liked it (A or B rating), I
    forget what the Globe thought.
    
    Cheers,
    
    
    kim

    
    Re:1
    	Richard,
    		It's suppose to be good. reply.2 gave a fair synopsis
    		of the reviews. I hope to see it this weekend in town
    		(Boston). I think it goes deeper than being a gay priest
    		or celibate. To me it sounds like it depicts a much
    		more tortureous life.(sp?) I happen to know a gay priest.
    			and from what I've seen it is real difficult
    				to live a dual life especially one
    					that contradicts the other.
    
    
    			

    Old (and not-so-old) timers will remember Dennis Ahern of Acton, MA.
    The Boston Globe published his letter to the editor regarding a quote
    by US Presidential candidate Robert Dole that they published. Dennis
    wrote along the lines of (I paraphrase):

       Bob Dole says that the movie Priest will make people think all Catholic 
       clergy are gay. If he thinks the public is that stupid, then since 
       we've seen All the President's Men we must also think all Republican 
       politicians are criminals.

    Lisa

    
    	good one! :-)
    

    
    	I heard from two friends who were very surprised by this movie and
    	found it to be an incredibly moving and emotional story. They were 
    	surprised because the movie turned out to be not what they expected 
    	from the trailers (which gave them little interest in seeing this one,
      	but nothing else was playing so they saw it), instead it was a very
    	involving movie (one of my female friends even said she cried).

    	They said it was a must-see movie. I hope to see it this weekend...

  I saw "Priest" last evening with my SO and a friend of ours.  It was a very
  powerful and thought-provoking good film.  My two companions thought the film
  was excellent and agreed together that it was a deep and emotional phenomenal
  experience for them, involving their Catholic upbringings in a manner that no
  other film had ever done in this way for them before.  I felt so too, but at
  just one notch less than them it seemed.  They gave the film five stars, I'm
  not sure where I'd put it yet.

  For starters, if you were raised Catholic, I think you should see this film.
  The film hit home in many overt ways, but also in some of the incidental
  things that happened in the margins of the screen which none the less still
  stirred up a flood of old forgotten memories and feelings.  For each of us
  last night, the film rekindled many of the things we liked and cherished and
  loved about the Catholic church, as well as captured many of the things we
  each disliked or questioned or hated about the Catholic church as an entity
  (the good and bad in its teachings, masses, ceremonial customs, and clergy).
  And about the clergy, the film showed a good accurate (to me) composite of
  types, in that I saw parts of the various personalities of the local priests
  from my own parish as I knew them growing up each displayed somehow by the
  characters on the screen.

  I'm not sure what to make of all the controversy that surrounded this film.
  At times I can see it, and then seconds later I don't.  As usual in this
  area, the controversy gets blown out of proportion and pushed to its extreme
  (usually by people who haven't seen the film), and when you finally see the
  film for yourself, your overwhelming reaction is "yeah maybe, but I can't see
  anyone getting THAT worked up about this like they did."

  To begin with, any of the more sensitive scenes were all handled very
  tastefully and respectfully yet still truthfully we each thought.  This came
  as a surprise to us, it was different from what we were expecting based upon
  all the controversy...  which had me half expecting a painful "Piss Christ"
  utterly disrespectful artistic view of life inside the Catholic church.  Any
  R-rated film has scenes of far more objection in terms of sex and scantily
  clad people than this had [I can imagine if Hollywood produced this we'd see
  scantily clad priests from the get-go :-)].  I don't understand the
  objections on this ground if the playing fields are equal.  I admit some
  scenes were purposefully very difficult to watch, as they made you probe and
  inspect your feelings on a very deep level.  Which to me was the whole point
  - and power - of this film (regardless of the outcome of your inner feelings
  and findings).  Yet they were still tastefully handled.  We were the youngest
  people there, many were over 50, and at the end most if not all were sitting
  in their seats, appreciatively looking toward the film, with tears in their
  eyes as they were affected by the emotional ending of the film.  No one, even
  from this older generation, seemed to be taken aback by the visuals of the
  film.

  So I don't really understand the controversy from the Catholic Church on
  these grounds.  However I do understand part of it on another.  And I think
  the controversy created by the Catholic Church over this film couldn't have
  been choreographed any better to deliver the messages of the film any
  stronger than it worked out to have been.  In this regard the film and
  controversy fit together like hand in glove in a powerful combination.  The
  problem the Catholic Church had with the film is that the film showed priests
  as real-life human beings.  Not as some supernatural perfect beings who are
  completely unaffected by human feelings or emotions or fallibilities or
  pitfalls, who are just mysteriously showing up at rectories from some
  factory, like a rectory full of Data's from Star Trek.  It shatters that
  childhood perfect image that nuns aren't real women underneath those asexual
  habits but instead are some non-human and above-human showpiece, delivered
  perfection-free from the heavens.  It shatters the same views of priests as
  perfect unaffected individuals with none of their own human feelings and
  human needs.  Part of the message of the film was how much the church fears
  this above all else, the rift between image and actual human reality, and the
  real-life controversy just underscores that point all the stronger.  One of
  the threads I also found interesting was how the whole celibacy ritual came
  about in the church, and how at one point it is one of the priest's
  suggestion that it had more to do with the church keeping its hands on its
  properties rather than them all going to the widowed wives of priests.  The
  film also gave some insights into the politics and career-move mentality that
  afflicts some in the church hierarchy (alas showing the church as a human
  organization and not as some heaven sent 'something-different').

  The pace of the film felt like, well, like the pace of a church mass to me.
  It was slow moving and little uneventful in places, as your mind wandered and
  thought of your own things, but then those quiet moments are punctuated by
  scenes of intense emotions and happenings.  I felt the intent was to
  illustrate life at a rectory.  You have two men in a quite lonely older
  house, not much going on between them, until someone arrives with problems
  and throws the priests' emotions and formerly quiet day into an incredible
  fray.  What was especially poignant was the pain of keeping information heard
  in confessional bottled up inside under the vow of secrecy, while you watch
  people suffer without being able to help them or say anything to the
  authorities to stop it.  And then life retreats back to quietness, until a
  mass comes around which delivers more excitement and the cycle begins anew.
  I feel like I received a real-world glimpse into life inside a rectory and
  into the life a priest must lead via this film.  You feel as if you were
  actually there, living it and suffering through all of the same issues
  yourself.  I never quite realized just how much of a difficult life it could
  be to lead, especially regarding the confessional.  The film gave me a
  glimpse into a world that was mostly unknown to me, something which gives the
  film genre great power I feel, and something for which I am always grateful
  when it happens to me.

  The acting here was truly excellent throughout.  The male lead could convey
  pages of writing about his emotional inner-turmoils just by a simple change
  or two in the quiet expression on his face.  The characters were very
  believably delivered.  All the actors felt more like English film versions
  than artificial Hollywood ones.  They each had a ring of true life about them
  [ie, these priests didn't have plastic surgery and silicon-enlarged pecs a la
  Hollywood :-)]. 

  There was enough humour in the film to keep things moving and fun and not
  entirely entrenched in the 'work' department as you sort through your
  feelings.  If you liked the Meg Ryan orgasm scene, wait until you see the
  scene in here, it had the audience screaming with laughter.  The Latin
  priest's housekeeper was very funny too, I loved her line about what was for
  dinner.  The crack about Sitting Bull having reservations was pretty funny
  too, in a real life "that's so bad" way.

  All in all, it was a very powerful film.  It brought up many forgotten
  internal struggles I had with the religion while growing up, and gave me a
  lot of food for thought about things I just let slide off my radar scope
  without thinking about them again, starting afresh.  It was a very emotional
  film as well.  The ending scene were forgiveness is given from the one and
  only person who could be excused and understood for not giving it, was truly
  heart-wrenching.  There wasn't a dry eye in the theatre.  I'd want to give it
  five stars as well, but I expected more political right-wing vs left-wing
  dialogue from the controversy.  It turns out to be a more British view of
  things than American (less of a rush into political infighting and more of a
  focus on the social aspects of the issues).  It was more simple than I
  expected from all the controversy (no long political essays presented on
  either side, just the people involved in them), but nevertheless it is still
  a powerful thought-provoking film.  Another concern is the pacing, but that
  had its desired effect too.  This deserves five stars, yet somehow I can only
  give it four stars (leaving room for another film to go more in-depth into
  the political side of things and to give full-length treatises from both
  sides of the various arguments).  But still, it's an excellent and very
  involving film. A definite five stars for audience involvement.

  I think the film may have a greater appeal to American Catholics who try to
  sort their feelings out over the older-style teachings that come out of the
  Vatican than with the die-hard rule-by-rule Vatican Catholics who follow them
  without question and who dislike the stereotyped a la carte American
  Catholics who chose their own precepts to live by.  For us anyway, some the
  the priests' battle to get their hands around all of their faith rang true
  for the things we and our classmates went through in our childhood.  But
  either way, the viewing will be thought-provoking from either position.

  But in other words, your viewing may vary greatly...

  -Erik 

  PS- we saw this at the new Cinema Internationale in Framingham, boy, what a
  complex that place is!! Concession stands serving Taco Bell and Uno's pizza??
  Far cry from sticky floors and ju-ju bees.  :-)
                       

    rep .6
    
    Erik,
    
    Thanks for that great review, it's been a long time since anybody
    out there in noteland took the time and energy to write a thoughtful
    review.
    
    				Bart

    We saw this last weekend, and agree that it was a very well done,
    thought-provoking film. The major plot line is the conflict, as has
    been previously stated, of the priest, Father Greg, between his vocation
    as a priest, and his just as strong inclination as a "practicing" gay
    homosexual. The subplot indeed deals with the problems of being bound
    by the seal of the confessional when it deals with an ongoing criminal
    situation.
    
    We went to see it mostly because it's set in Liverpool, from where my
    husband hails, and we were glad we did, although the parts of Liverpool
    shown are the worst parts. It's not a movie you enjoy, the acting is 
    excellent, and you feel Father Greg's internal torment. There
    is some humor, and it is well placed, giving comic-relief where
    it's appropriate, while not detracting from the serious nature of the 
    subject matter. The problems I had with the film are not really film
    problems, but with the decisions that the characters made. However,
    these are decisions made by people like these everyday, so they were
    not in any way artificial, but real-life. More after the FF
    
    
    I felt that both Father Greg and Father Matthews should have left the
    clergy. In one speech, Father Greg agonizes over his failings, saying
    that the Church pays them, clothes them, feeds them,and in return all
    it asks of them is celibacy. This being true, they should have both
    left and become any number of related things, social workers, lay
    ministers, etc. but were in fact, both living a lie. In fact, in light
    of the subplot issue with the incestuous molestation of the young girl,
    and the gay issue, Father Greg should have left the clergy, giving
    him more leeway to help the girl. But then, the movie (which could
    still have been made) would have taken a very different turn.
    
    Not mind candy, but a film that reminds you of what a powerful vehicle
    film making is. 
    
    See it.
    
    
    Marilyn 
    
       

    It indeed was a very good film. More after this:

    

    >I felt that both Father Greg and Father Matthews should have left the
    >clergy. 

    The way I figure it, what both priests did was the equivalent to 
    having an extramarital affair. You don't necessarily leave the marriage
    because of the affair if you and your spouse can work it out. Granted,
    we don't know if God can forgive the way a spouse might, but if the
    priest felt he could live with himself and truly felt God was forgiving
    of what he did, then it's up to him to decide to leave or not.

    Lisa

    RE the last:
    
    
    
    
    Not to rathole this topic on this, but the issue is not whether God can
    forgive or reconcile, but the Church which is arguably a VERY different
    animal from God. It is the Church, not God, if you read my note and
    remember his words that requires celibacy. God probably doesn't care,
    but the Church does, and their contract, if you will, is with it and
    not God. A contract cannot be unilaterally broken and still be binding 
    on the injured party, unless they agree, which is the problem the 
    Church wrestles with constantly at the risk of losing some (lots?)
    of its clergy.
    
    To bring it back to the movie, Greg refused to admit that maybe he
    wasn't meant to be a priest. Father Matthews told him to leave and be
    with his lover, and he point-blank said no. Here's where I disagree
    with him, God (or our interpretation of His will) can want you to serve
    Him in several ways, but if he (Greg) couldn't fulfill the one
    requirement of one of the ways, there were certainly other avenues
    available to him to still feel he was serving God. Same for Matthews
    but his was an easier choice; he at least wasn't tortured by his
    decision.  
    
    Marilyn

> ... but the Church which is arguably a VERY different animal from God.

	Yes, only one of these animals exists, and the other was created
	by the first ....

    re .11

    
    
    >It is the Church, not God, if you read my note and
    >remember his words that requires celibacy. God probably doesn't care,
    >but the Church does, and their contract, if you will, is with it and
    >not God. 

    This is the difficulty and why the movie works for me. The movie is
    about the difficulty of man's "rules of engagement" with God versus a
    man's personal relationship with God. 

    I never knew that one of the reasons for priests not marrying was
    the inheritance rights of a widow and the Catholic church's desire to
    keep its property. 

    Lisa

    re -1 
    
    The movie works for me, too. I just disagree with their decisions, much
    like I disagree with many who are struggling with the same issues in
    real-life. 
    
    
    Marilyn

re: .11

  I don't want to step into a rathole either, but am curious...

  I'm curious whether your being upset over Father Greg's anguished decision to
  stay with the Church based upon how good a Catholic and how deeply much a
  Catholic he felt he was despite having 'fallen' once and broken one of the
  Vatican's many rules, whether that translates to other Catholics for you as
  well.
    
  The surveys and polls of American Catholics show that an overwhelming number
  of them have used contraceptives, agree abortion should remain legal, etc,
  which all clearly break with the most stressed Vatican rules.  Should these
  Catholics leave the church as you suggest Father Greg should too? If the pews
  contain only those Catholics who have never broken any of the Vatican rules,
  say even those Americans who have never in their life used a contraceptive
  before, the Church would be pretty empty I'd think.  More so than it already
  is.

  I'm curious if you hold some rules above others.  For instance, my parish had
  priests with severe alcoholism problems (one in particular), who none the
  less was an extremely well liked (and good) priest.  He was not stripped of
  his priesthood by the Church hierarchy.  Up until the point were he could no
  longer function intelligibly at mass, he still remained the head priest.
  After that point, they simply transferred him to another rectory to get some
  help, yet always he remained "a Catholic Priest."

  Did you consider Father Matthew and Father Greg to be good priests despite
  their failings? If their failings remained hidden and non-public, how does
  that affect the equation? If they were priests but in another non-Vatican
  faith?

  The difficult interplay of issues here is what really made the film work for
  me.  I think this conversation illustrates the power of the film (and film in
  general) for me.  The discussion afterwards with my friends accounted for
  perhaps even half the enjoyment of the film for me.

  Since we're sharing our impressions from watching the film...  my take on it
  is that I felt both Father Matthew and Father Greg (especially) showed many
  inherent personal 'inner' traits and abilities that proved them to be
  excellent priests to me, that they are in the ideal avocation for their
  abilities, performing in their best suited roles, and doing their most
  possible good for society in those roles.  Not many people could subject
  themselves to a life of those sorts of unselfish and all-giving roles.  My
  advice (strangely enough matches yours) to them personally would be for them
  to move to another non-Catholic faith altogether, where they can flourish in
  their abilities and get out from under the cloud of some of the more inane,
  archaic, man-made and purely institutional Vatican rules.  Like everyone
  else.  There would be no one to turn out the lights if they all left because
  of one or two broken Vatican rules.  Unfortunately for them personally but
  fortunately for the Catholic Church (imo), they feel more Catholic on the
  whole than not, and decide to stay with the institution.  This anguish and
  decision-making is fascinating to watch, a personal struggle to come to grips
  with a global man-made institution.  I don't think it's healthy for them
  personally to stay within the confines and clouded shackles of that
  institution, on some level it's sad that they wish to stay.  But I can see
  where they feel they are at that their core Catholic, and perhaps can also on
  some level agree with them that they may be, and so firmly would support them
  in their decision to remain Catholic priests.  It is where they are best
  suited to be.  Many other priests (especially young ones) decide differently,
  it's surprising the extreme shortage of new younger Catholic priests coming
  into the profession hasn't reached the critical stage long before this.

  But all in all, this makes for simply fascinating human drama! At the core of
  this is the question: what makes a priest? Someone who is celibate but lacks
  any and all human interaction skills and understanding or even basic
  compassion (like the far-removed-from-people Latin priest), is he? Someone
  who has all the most ideal and wished-for qualities in a priest, a
  super-star of the profession/avocation, but who did not remain celibate, is
  he? Fascinating questions!

  -Erik

    Re .16
    
    To answer your question, I am no longer a Catholic precisely because I
    disagree with so much that the Church requires or forbids as the case
    may be. BUT, and this is the key, I respect the Church enough not to 
    mock it by staying in it despite my disagreement with so much of its
    basic tenets. If a religion is a set of BELIEFS about what God (whoever
    s/he may be) wants us to do, this does not change simply because it is
    no longer fashionable for these beliefs to be held. That would be
    Religion du jour. My personal opinion is that if I can no longer
    reconcile my beliefs with that of my religion it's time for us to part.
    
    That a priest, who is after all the main proponent of the Church, 
    deliberately and continually choose to break the main requirement
    posed on them, is hypocrisy of the highest order, after all they are 
    supposedly God's "workers" on Earth. I am not saying that they cannot
    serve God any longer, but when you knowingly break the Church's
    commandments you are no longer a Catholic anyway. There are many ways
    to serve God, they were simply choosing what what perhaps most
    comfortable for them. This last is my opinion, I don't think it was
    fully explained why neither just left.
    
    
    Marilyn 

    
    Ooops! That last should read, Re .15
    
    Sorry for the confusion.
    
    
    Marilyn