Oxford Murders

Not sure about this one. Anything which opens with a few minutes of half-accurate exposition of Wittgenstein has to be good in my book but… I watched it with my mother-in-law who described it as flat in pacing and like a TV movie. Couldn’t disagree really. 3/5

Rev.isited

This is by way of a response to Jon who thinks I’m too harsh on Adam Smallbone and who argues “Smallbone’s ‘I’m tired of having to tell people what they want to hear all the time’ is something that I would guess most of us think at some stage in our ministry. Moments like those have been the basis for much of the comedy in the series and, in my experience at least, seem an authentic reflection on an aspect of being in ministry. In the context of the story told in the final episode, that comment was then deliberately undercut by the writers in the denouement to the episode where he says exactly what his dying parishioner wants and needs to hear and this is restorative both for the parishioner and himself.”

Trouble is, if that is the truth – and yes, all good art is open to multiple interepretation – but if that is the truth then, for me, the ending is denuded of all value. Let me explain.

I read the climax of the series, when Smallbone is collected by the police and taken off to do his proper work, as a moment of anagnorisis. In other words, in the midst of his drunken gropings, the overflow of self-pity and self-hatred, Smallbone is recalled to his essential vocation, a vocation expressed in ministering with truth and dignity in a sacramental fashion. In other words, there is a break with what has gone before – which, in retrospect, is seen unfavourably. That had great power for me – it is why I liked it.

If, however, Jon’s analysis is true, and Smallbone is still saying ‘exactly what his dying parishioner wants and needs to hear’ then there is a consistency between Smallbone’s behaviour leading up to this moment and what he then does. In other words, there is no anagnorisis, there is no crisis, there is no growth in self-knowledge. How dull!

The trouble is that I really could believe Jon’s analysis of the writers’ intention to be true. That is, I found the ending so wonderful because it undercut what had gone before, not because it was consistent with what had gone before.

Something else needs to be touched on.

The problem is that ‘saying what people want to hear’ is a consistent part of Smallbone’s nature, and it ties in with what I see as a lack of character. A previous moment that I felt was telling was when Smallbone half-apologises to his wife that they have never had children, and the wife responds that she already has one, ie him! Perhaps they should have called the character ‘Adam No-Backbone’ instead.

There is all the difference in the world between refraining from speaking the truth – out of pastoral concern and sensitivity to kairos, say – and speaking what people want to hear. The one is a prudent forebearance that keeps at least one eye on the main purpose, the other is a rootless drifting in the currents of the world. It is because Smallbone had seemed to be so much of the latter kind that I found the ending so wonderful a contrast.

I would not wish to argue, either, that this is a matter of strength of character. Indeed, that is to perpetuate the most fundamental theological error in the programme. God is more than happy to make use of weak vessels to accomplish his own ends, indeed, as St Paul tells us, this is in some ways the essential point in being a Christian. Again, this is what I found so wonderful and true about the ending – a weak man being the means of divine grace.

The trouble with Smallbone is that he lacked a place to stand outside of himself, somewhere that is not comprised of (and compromised by) his own narcissism. He lacked, so it seemed to me, any sense of the otherness of God, of that power greater than himself within which he found his own true calling and nature, which loved him and enabled him to be himself – to precisely not be a false self, presenting what other people wanted to hear. I don’t think it a coincidence that there was so little exploration of worship in the programme – perhaps they couldn’t, as it was a comedy – yet without that, any true presentation of priesthood collapses. I often felt that the programme could have been changed into a non-religious context without any serious alterations of character being required – Smallbone could easily have been a social worker or government bureaucrat, and much of the comedy would have remained.

To put it succinctly, Smallbone had no fear of God in him. That is why I shall continue to see him as the construct of the secular, liberal elite – they have no understanding of the fear of God, no sense of it as a living (and life-giving) reality – and their presentation of the faith shares that failing. They don’t understand it, therefore it doesn’t exist – other than as a quaint delusion shared by the uneducated or mentally deficient. Smallbone is a nice guy, doing his best.
Forgive me, but I believe that there is more to being a Rev. than that.

Rev.

Two brilliant things about that latest and last episode of Rev, which was watched late by me:
– the ending,
– the portrayal of what it is to be a fed up vicar, flopped on the sofa watching rubbish TV with beer in hand (‘I feel like a remnant of an illusion that people used to believe in’ – great line).

Could relate to both of those things.

What I really got frustrated with, however, was the continued lack of authenticity in the portrayal of the vocation, summed up when Smallbone says ‘I’m tired of having to tell people what they want to hear all the time’. Throughout the series he seemed to have no moral centre, no anchor – a representation of what the liberal elites think about faith. Gah!

I’ve enjoyed the programme – and I’d watch another series if they made one – but I still long for a portrayal of a priest that isn’t filtered through a secular mindset.

Inception

A very clever film, and very enjoyable, and even has an emotional punch, but… not sure. There’s something not quite perfect about it (might just be that I don’t like Leo very much). Perhaps the overall balance wasn’t completely right. Not enough emotional substance? Perhaps I’m just being too picky – it’s certainly a cut above most films.

It was also not as confusing as I had thought it was going to be, though I’d kept clear of various reviews so as not to prejudge things, which probably helped. I look forward to watching it again when it comes out on DVD.

I think – in sum – it’s a contrast between two things for me – the end shot (reproduced above) which reminded me so much of the end of Tarkovsky’s Mirror (no higher praise) with wonderful ambivalence – and the distraction of some of the action sequences (some were phenomenal, but the snow-battle was a distraction I feel). Hmmm. Still thinking about it – must be a good sign.

4.5/5
PS I think this review says it.

Whiteout

This film would have worked much better with an old soak playing the character of the Marshall. Instead we had Kate Beckinsale, a good actress, being used as eye candy. Frustrating. 3/5

Gangs of New York


Underwhelming, and I’ve been trying to put my finger on why.

Suspect number one has to be Leonardo di Caprio. I know that the little girls love him, and I actually think that he _can_ act… he just didn’t have the weight for this part. Too pretty? Too blond? Didn’t help that he was up against Day-Lewis.

Suspect number two, though, is that very same performance from Day-Lewis. Every so often he seemed to be impersonating Robert de Niro, which I guess was deliberate, but was veryoff putting. I kept expecting him to say something about milkshake to little Leo.

Suspect number three has to be studio interference, which apparently was extensive. Yet even with a further half hour or so of coverage, it’s not as if the film was too short – more like the opposite. Is it simply that Scorcese need to be reined in? Don’t know.

Some great moments, mainly involving Day-Lewis, but I finished it feeling ‘so what?’ Not a good sign. At some point I’ll watch it again with the Director’s commentary, and see if that reveals anything useful.

3/5

Inland Empire


Wow. I was trying to keep track of the different levels of reality and gave up after six – and then realised that I was missing the point, and went instead with the flow of ax(x)on hopping through the Inland Empire. A remarkable performance from Laura Dern which was the only thing that kept it at all coherent, and a surprisingly positive and integrative ending which I loved.

Of course, it’s only really for Lynch fans, and if you haven’t already watched Mulholland Drive – preferably several times – then much of the texture of this film would be missed or misunderstood, as in many ways it is an extension of his quite savage critique of Hollywood explored there. For me a 5/5, for other, perhaps more normal people(!) no more than a 3 🙂

Moon


Quite brilliant, and very interesting, well worth a re-watch – but not sure if there is a religious sub-text or not (as opposed to simply a meditation on being human). Excellent ‘riffs’ on 2001 et al. 5/5