The muses are gaily capricious in the favors they bestow upon us, but humorlessly imperious in the demands they make of us. One never knows when inspiration may strike; one knows only that, when it comes, it must not be resisted. In my case, the occasion was an idle afternoon this past week, as I was irascibly considering the reaction of a few conservative Catholic critics to Terrence Malick’s strange, beautiful, perhaps slightly mad, and deeply Christian film The Tree of Life. One review even described the sensibility of the film as “New Age,” a judgment bizarrely inapposite to Malick’s often dark, often radiant, emotionally austere, and deeply contemplative art.
The film, in fact, is brilliant, mesmerizingly lovely, and almost alarmingly biblical. Even if one is not enchanted (as I most definitely am) by Malick’s signature cinematic mannerisms, or by the fleeting hints of his more recondite intellectual preoccupations (Heidegger? Gnosticism? Buddhism? Russian Sophiology, perhaps?), surely one ought to recognize the ingenious subtlety of the scriptural allegories around which the film is built, and of the film’s meditations on the mystery of God’s silence and eloquence, and on innocence and transgression, and on the divine glory that shines out from all things.
Or so I was thinking as I drowsed there, warming my pelt in a pool of sunlight. Then, however, it occurred to me that perhaps, after all, these critics did have a kind of point. Oh, yes, The Tree of Life is profoundly, if mysteriously, scriptural—with its images of Eden, Cain and Abel, God speaking out of the whirlwind, divine Wisdom dancing at the heart of creation, Christ the man of sorrows, and so on—but is that sufficient to make it a truly Catholic film, at least of the sort these earnest critics so obviously crave? And I realized that probably it is not: It contains no pericopes from the catechism, no triumphant affirmations of papal primacy, no satisfying deathbed conversions, no heartwarming tableaux of the happy Catholic family warm in the embrace of Mother Church, no nuns, no Bing Crosby, no Italians . . .
And that was when Melpomene pounced (the frolicsome wanton). In an instant it came to me, like a flash of lightning: the plot of the perfect Catholic film. Not simply a Catholic film, mind you, but that film than which none more Catholic can be thought. I shall not describe to you the instantaneous thrill of elation that seized me—that intoxicating sense of mingled fear and bliss, so like a giddy bride’s exquisite apprehensions on her hymeneal night—but I will say that I leapt up from my window seat and immediately began sketching out the scenario. I have thought of little else since then, and have applied myself assiduously to the mighty task. It’s slow going, admittedly—nothing truly great emerges quickly from the blazing crucible of poetic transport—but I’m getting there. Here is what I have so far (I’m sure you’ll keep it to yourself):
Scenario for Prey of the Hound of Heaven
1952. Long shot of an old but handsome house in a respectable middle class neighborhood of some eastern American city. Close up of a garden statuette of the Blessed Virgin, standing in a bed of white lilies. A distant murmur of solemn voices. The voices suddenly become fully audible; cut to interior panning shot: white plaster walls, a crucifix, a fading photograph of a young man in military uniform (World War I) bordered by black funerary ribbon, another photograph of a very similar young man in a priest’s collar, and finally an attractive woman in her forties kneeling alongside her three children (two girls and one boy, all around ten years old), praying the rosary. Close up of one girl, Mary Catherine: a bored and sullen expression, warily darting eyes, lips barely moving; she is not really praying; she idly fingers the beads of her mother-of-pearl rosary. Close up of the boy, Danny [or Anthony], who smiles knowingly [or scowls uncertainly] at his sister as he prays in a clear voice.
Cut to dinner table that same night. Father—an imposing yet dapper figure in a high collar and necktie—is saying grace. Passing of plates, distribution of food, close ups of enigmatic expressions [or barely suppressed laughs] on the children’s faces. Father tells of labor agitations down at the docks [factory, garment district, corn exchange] where he works. “In hard times,” he declares at one point, “men will turn to anything, even a godless socialism.”
[Perhaps we had better make the year 1932 instead of 1952.]
Mention is made of Grandfather, who has lived a reprobate’s life for some years in a foreign city [Berlin? Singapore?] and is no longer in regular contact with the family. Mother announces that a letter has arrived from Uncle Ben. Mary Catherine asks why Uncle Ben does not return home from [name of some South or Central American nation where there may have been a communist insurgency or anti-clerical government in 1932 or 1952]. Mother patiently reminds her that, after Uncle Edward was killed in the Great [or Spanish-American] War, Uncle Ben took holy orders and devoted his life to the Indians [or peasants] of [the nation mentioned above], who need him now more than ever. Danny [or Anthony] asks why God does not make everything all right for the Indians [or peasants] and bring Uncle Ben home. Mother explains that sometimes grace must crush us utterly (“Like dust on the heels of God”) in order to make us whole (“That’s how we know it’s grace”). Close up of Mary Catherine, who is not listening.
Cut to Uncle Ben, unshaven, unkempt, superbly seedy, seated at a plain wooden table in some hovel without any glass in its windows. His clerical collar has become detached at one side and hovers limply over the open top buttons of his sweat-soaked black shirt. He is staring at a faded and wrinkled photograph (of his family, taken in his childhood), next to which stands a nearly empty bottle of mescal; he picks up the bottle with a violently trembling hand and places it to his lips. At that moment a stunningly lovely young Indian maiden [or peasant girl] rushes in and tells him [Spanish with subtitles] that the Federales [or rebels or “soldiers”] are coming and that he must flee to the forest with the tribe [or village]. Ben looks at her with an expression of infinite fatigue. She enjoins him again to follow her, now with greater urgency: “Who will pray for us if you don’t come? Who will give us the body of Christ or hear confession when we are dying?” Ben sighs, rises wearily and somewhat unsteadily, and says, “Sí, sí, entiendo. Vendré.”
Cut to the band of refugees, now deep in the jungle, kneeling before a makeshift altar—two rotting boards supported on piles of rocks—where Ben is saying mass. Many close-ups of haggard but reverent Indian [or peasant] faces. [This scene should be unnecessarily prolonged.] Cut to Ben, later, sitting on a boulder by a running stream. He draws the mescal bottle from his knapsack, finds it empty, and flings it morosely away. Enter Pedro, one of the tribal [or village] elders, who tells Ben that everyone is relying on his faith. “Faith?” says Ben bitterly as he stares at the water from incarnadined eyes. “Do I even know what that means any more?”
Cut to interior of a church back in the States. Mother, Father, and the three children are kneeling in their pew, the priest is at the altar (Latin mass, plenty of incense), golden light streams down from a high window. Close up of a statue of the Blessed Virgin, tenderly cradling the infant Christ in her arms. Close up of Mary Catherine, not praying but instead staring covetously at the magnificent earrings of the lady in the pew in front of her. Close up of Danny [or Anthony] gazing with precociously haunted eyes at the crucifix above the high altar.
Cut to the end of the service, the priest shaking the hands of his parishioners as they are departing. He asks after Mother’s father; she grimly reports that they have had no word for some time. The priest assures her that her father will always find a warm welcome in the parish.
From this point on, I have not yet worked out the exact order of scenes, but I have a general idea of the plot. The action in North America will leap forward twenty years to 1972 or 1952, but will continue to be intercut with scenes of Uncle Ben in 1952 or 1932.
Father is now dead, having perished in a Typhus epidemic eight years earlier. Mary Catherine has become estranged from her family, having been debauched by a laodicean Protestant, then having lapsed into a life of frivolous materialism, and finally having become infatuated with a communist named Rod who has taught her to scorn her faith. When she tells Rod she is carrying his child, he merely laughs at the conventions of monogamy and the bourgeois family and tells her that she is only one of the women with whom he shares his bed.
Meanwhile, Danny [or Anthony] has begun to sink into despair, no longer certain what he believes. Philosophy has corrupted him. His childhood friend Tony [or Donnie] has become involved with a local crime boss, running numbers [or drugs]. There are some plot complications [to be determined later], in consequence of which Tony [or Donnie] is shot by a member of a rival gang and dies in the rain, late at night, on the pavement outside a Catholic church, with Danny [or Anthony] bent over him weeping and cursing heaven.
Later we see an angry Danny [or Anthony] talking to his priest, asking how a good God could let his friend die like that—or, for that matter, permit “what happened to Uncle Ben.” The priest explains the necessity of suffering in a fallen world and then holds forth on Purgatory for five minutes or so, explaining the concepts both of sanctification and of temporal punishment. When Danny [or Anthony] says he finds it all so hard to believe, the priest assumes an avuncular tone and remarks that the truth is often incredible. Later Danny [or Anthony] visits his mother, who tells him that, but for our sufferings, we could know nothing of the love that heals. “Think of Uncle Ben,” she says.
Uncle Ben’s story resumes in medias res: soldiers have surrounded the refugees in the jungle and are methodically massacring them; Uncle Ben is screaming “No!” over and over again as two Indians [or peasants or soldiers] hold him back. Later, he and the surviving refugees are marched through the jungle and imprisoned at a compound governed by the dreaded and elegantly mustachioed Comandante “El Monstruo” Rodriguez [or by the dreaded and coarsely bearded rebel leader known only as “El Toro del Bosque”]. Executions are to commence at dawn and to continue until the surviving Indians [or peasants] reveal the whereabouts [of something—maybe a gold crucifix from their church].
Among the prisoners is a dissolute old ruffian called Carlos who mocks Ben for believing in God in this world where only force rules, and who curses the nuns who taught him the same lies when he was a boy in the mission school. Ben merely says, “Perhaps you’re right,” and goes on caring for the wounded among his fellow prisoners. We see him administer last rites to the same lovely young woman who persuaded him to flee in the first place; he does not shed any tears.
At some point Ben is interrogated by El Monstruo [or El Toro], a surprisingly urbane if darkly cynical soul, who asks Ben what has become of his God—“The God who left these wretches you love to die in the forest”—and who reveals that he was raised in a devout household and even briefly studied for the priesthood, before learning that the universe is nothing but a cold chaos of violence. At the end of his strength, Ben admits that he does not know if he has any faith left.
The next morning, as executions are about to begin, Ben asks to take the place of [someone—details to be worked out later] before the firing squad. As Ben is led away, Carlos kneels to receive his benediction. Poignant strains of movingly discordant Indian songs [or plangently sad peasant melodies] accompany him as he departs into the light shining in through the dungeon doorway. Later, we see El Monstruo [or El Toro] alone in his office; he opens his desk drawer and removes a small crucifix from beneath some files; “Madre…mi madre…” he mutters. He instructs his lieutenant to release the prisoners.
Back in the States, in 1972 or 1952, Mother has received word from Grandfather. He is near death and longs to see her. Mother, Danny [or Anthony], and [name of third child] journey to Grandfather’s vast stately home in England. The old man is failing fast. Carla—his mistress in years past, now merely his constant companion—has summoned a priest on several occasions, but Grandfather will not receive him. The priest, a garrulous and cheerful old Irishman, assures Mother that, in the end, the nets of grace can catch even the most elusive fish. At the hour of Grandfather’s death, with his loved ones kneeling all about him and the priest bending over him, unctuous cotton swab in hand, and with Danny [or Anthony] praying for some clear sign, the old man feebly crosses himself and promptly expires in the odor of sanctity. A cloud passes from before the face of the sun and the room is filled with golden light. Danny [or Anthony] has found his faith again.
Mary Catherine is now a whore living in a dismal single room above a cheap dive whose neon light flashes through her window all night long. She has left her baby in the care of the nuns at a foundling home “over on the East side.” Danny [or Anthony] finds her, after months of searching. She does not want to see him, but he forces his way in. He begs her to come home, but she merely tells him to leave.
Before going, however, he draws something wrapped in a pink handkerchief from his pocket and gives it to her; “This is from Mother,” he says. Mary Catherine unwraps it; it is her mother-of-pearl rosary. She begins weeping uncontrollably and sinks to the floor. Her brother crouches beside her, holds her close, and tells her that love—the love of God and of her family—will never let her go. Thereafter, brother and sister retrieve the baby from the orphanage and return home, where Mother embraces her daughter and takes the baby in her arms. Mary Catherine gazes rapturously at her child. We see the garden statuette of the Blessed Virgin again, somewhat more weathered, but still standing.
The last scene is of Indian [or peasant] girls laying flowers on Uncle Ben’s grave, marked by a humble wooden cross, now obviously many years old. Long shot of sunset over the jungle; reprise of the poignant Indian [or peasant] music from Uncle Ben’s death scene.
Cut to credits. Allegri’s Miserere [or the Misa Criolla].
David Bentley Hart is contributing editor of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press). His other “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Kevin Collins, Tree of Life Yields Little Fruit
Thomas Hibbs, A Story From Before We Can Remember: A Review of Tree of Life
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Not having seen "The Tree of Life", indeed, not having yet decided if I will see it, (I find the 18th century Pitts and Penns preferable to the 21st) I cannot comment on it specifically. However, I am open to different ways of presenting Christianity and can only hope that yours is the correct perspective. One can understand, however, the scepticism most faithful people feel when told about Hollywood's adaptation of Scripture. While I appreciate your utilization of Greene, Waugh, et al, to spoof the critics, your story, while making a bad book, could make a pretty good movie. The Brideshead bit is too clunky and has to be replaced, but in the right hands, the story of the Americas sounds good.
To those who talk (without having seen the film) of a 'Hollywood' adaptation of scripture, may I point out that Terrence Malick has very little to do with Hollywood, and his films hardly fit in any conventional Hollywood mold.
DavidW: a veiled slur of what? To me it is quite an open satire of bad art that sells itself through obvious 'pious' gestures, as well as a challenge to people who think that the only legitimae artistic expression of faith is somethin ponderous and homiletic and derivative.
And, Mr Hinshaw, please have a care. This column is an acid test: can one recognize the difference between kitsch and art?
Don't give up your day job and put it to better use by writing about stuff in a more straightforward manner (if you need a scriptural source: "let your yes be yes....").
patricksarsfield
To which I can only offer a hearty d'accord! I think David Hart has written enough in defense of real Catholic history, again its modern cultured despisers, that he should be allowed to write a satire of pious trash in the arts without being suspected of some hidden hostility towards piety as such.
Mr. Del, your defense of critics of a film you have not seen is a waste of your time and mine.
Mr. Hinshaw, please tell us you're joking. The Americas material would make a silly, obvious, emotionally and spiritually fraudulent piece of rubbish, just as David suggests. The faith is not served by lousy melodrama. Malick's film, by contrast, is a Book-of-Job-like meditation on God's hiddenness and self-manifestation in the sublimity of nature, and on the presence of grace in the ordinary. It really is an invitation to see the world with new eyes, with gratitude to God, and to seek to see God precisely where we often think we see only divine absence.
Did someone out there call me a Protestant?
Oh, well. If my satire of what I think of as middle-brow kitsch, and of a set of tired clichés, and of the false pieties of "pious" cinema, struck anyone as a comment on Catholicism itself, my apologies. But I don't really feel that the misprision is entirely my fault.
That's how I see the tea leaves. Other than that, I troubled my mind with how appropriate it was to name the one character "Ben". This was a very personal question, mind you. Is this Catholic or Scriptural? Because, in my experience, The Old Testament is not a very popular name-book for Catholics. Then it dawned on me. It could be either. Benjamin or Benedict. Ahh, the ambiguities of life, and the puzzles they force upon us!
Thanks, Mr. Hart. I look forward to the next one.
With all due respect, I think you've missed the point by a pretty wide margin. I think this is just a satire on bad Catholic art, of which there really is a hell of a lot. As for the name 'Ben', it's the name by which Dr Hart is known in his own family; and 'Uncle Ben' has something to do with rice; and I think that's already more than you should read into the name.
And there is nothing wonderful, to my mind, in the canned Catholic story. That sort of bad melodrama makes faith look silly and cheap.
The Tree of Life is such a rich film, I hope the discussion on it continues indefinitely. What a wonderful and strange cinematic treat to get amidst a summer of typically mindless entertainments. Perhaps if a rumored 6 hour cut ever comes to fruition or when the sister project 'Voage of Time' is released that will provide occasion for further contemplation and discussion.
And I half expected the comments about bad art/good art. I guess I was thinking along the lines of Book V in Augustine's Confessions when he goes on and on about how truth can have an eloquent presentation or a plain one, and so can error, and so we shouldn't judge truth by the clothes it wears. So even bad Catholic films can display a picture of a beautiful redemption, even as beautiful films can truly be "scriptural" and yet fail to redeem. (As I said, I haven't seen the film, so I am just going by the reviews.)
But yes, I do think that Hart does not seem to be praising Catholic art as valuable, but at the same time he doesn't say the "message" of bad Catholic art is negligible.
1. A disbelief that anyone can possibly leave the Catholic Church. (They are always pursued by the "Hound of Heaven" - there can be nothing serious or stable outside the Catholic Church.) Thus, inevitably, Mary Katherine is going to end up "a whore living in a dismal single room above a cheap dive whose neon light flashes through her window all night long" - the rock bottom on a predictable arc to repentenace. Is there any doubt at all that Grandfather will cross himself before death or that El Toro will happen to find a small crucifix?
2. Everything is always immediately part of a grand metaphysical battle. Of course, Father will mention "godless socialism" at the dinner table. Of course, Fr Ben is being persecuted by an anti-clerical ex-seminarian insurgent who will query him about faith during interrogation. And Rod can't simply be a predator - he has to be a communist predator.
3. Faith is never a matter of reasoning or conversation (too Protestant; Hart tellingly includes very little dialogue). It comes through the sudden evocation of mystery, usually heightened by the required presence of an authority-figure. Danny finds faith through a sudden vision of a cloud and golden light.
4. There is a fascination with suffering as some sort of Romantic self-destruction. Of course, mother says things like "grace must crush us utterly in order to make us whole." And, naturally, Ben's whole drama with faith is resolved in a sudden act of self-destruction.
5. There is also a fascination with objects in place of words. The mother-of-pearl rosary, the watching statuette of the Blessed Virgin Mary ... Of course, El Toro wants a gold crucifix - it has to be "something," not a comparatively uninteresting text.
6. There is also a fascination with somewhat unreal characters that show us just where grace supposedly touches nature. We have the saintly mother, the innocent Indians - all holy in their lack of complexity.
Thanks again (from a Catholic). This was the best thing I've ever read in First Things.
That said, as a believing Catholic, I was deeply troubled to read the misperceptions of several Catholic critics concerning the film. After all, it is one thing to say that 'The Tree of Life' is not (sufficiently) Christian; however, it is another thing to say that it is 'New Age.' Unless the referent is 'the age of the world to come,' this criticism is woefully unfair.
Indeed, 'The Tree of Life' is a deeply Christian film - ultimately, concerning 'the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.' (And if the filmgoer has any doubts, let him or her consider the music playing during the coda.)
Thank you, as always, Mr. Hart, for using both wisdom and humor to open our minds to the sheer splendor all around us!
John Huston's "Wiseblood" based on the Flannery O'Connor novel. Huston was an atheist, but loved the story, and the film's perfect because the novel could not be transcribed to cinema better. The Fitzgeralds (the family O'Connor was closest to, and in whose home she wrote Wiseblood) were invited by Huston to participate in the film production, and at one point an argument broke out about a particular scene, the Fitzgeralds insisting that the Jesus reference had to be left in (Huston wanted to cut it), otherwise the film's meaning would fall apart. The next morning Huston came onto the set perturbed and said something to the effect, “Fine - Have your Jesus!”
Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" was based on the Catholic novel by Anthony Burgess that explored, among other Christian themes, how violence remains cyclical from every honest pagan/secular perspective (even Nietzsche succumbed to this view with his Eternal Recurrence), and we are trapped like rats in that cycle until we are liberated by Jesus, the only source of a progression out of cyclical violence onto the path toward the Omega Point. Kubrick was also an atheist.
Robert Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest". Bresson called himself a "Christian atheist," convinced that although it is perfectly logical to reject a belief in God, it would be crazy to reject much of what Christianity has revealed about the human condition. He adapted one of the great Catholic novels of all time by Bernanos, and it is clear that this is a perfect Catholic film.
The point is that a truly perfect Catholic film requires only one element: the truth, nothing but the truth, whether one believes in God or not. For Jesus was clear: only the truth will set us free. So it is that for me atheists like Kubrick, Bergman, Rossellini and Antonioni have made great Catholic films. And although I'm a Malick fan, having seen all his films, I never suspected him of being Christian (someone once told me he was Buddhist). But I have always been certain that his films are Catholic.
By the way, I recently read a column by that grand Protestant, Martin Marty, speaking of different definitions of "Catholic." On the one hand, there is the common understanding of "Catholic" as "universal." But Marty has always appreciated an alternative. He says that he heard it from Walter Ong, SJ: "through-the-whole," or "throughout-the whole." "Like yeast, a limitless, growing reality that affects everything but does not convert everything into itself."
I'm trying to think of how "Tree of Life" looks at language and how it is used to convey life to everybody. If I may add a personal note. I live in Austin, TX, where all the Texas girls are "spiritual but not religious." I.e., I love grammar of my faith, but it is not going to win me many dates in Austin, TX. But Malick's use of the grammar of my faith, say from the the book of Job, though it may be in a whisper, shows the riches of my point of view here in Austin.
I find that the oddest stereotype you list, particularly if Catholics themselves do it. Traditionally reasoning and conversation is quite important in Catholicism, moreso than in what I know of Orthodoxy or even most Protestantism. As I understand Orthodoxy it largely rejects scholasticism as semi-pagan and hair-splitting. Most Protestantism focuses on faith and the Bible alone, not discussions about ontology or what have you.
Maybe I'm biased on that. My father's conversion to Catholicism was all about reasoning and conversation. It had little, or nothing, to do with an authority figure he knew well.
Its ripple effects , to benefit the rest of the world , in many of its problems - may be even the weather !
Gee'z Liturgy ( of semitic roots ) with its beautiful chantings available for all , along with the goodness and beauty and power of all other Catholic Sacraments and sacramentals ; the former thus become familarised world over , to help with the yearning for more indepth spiritual connectedness , of upcoming surge of Catholics in Africa and elsewhere !
The beauty of such an experience , carried over to the disenchanted youth who search for The Incarnate Father Love , in The Person of Lord Jesus , thus becomes an experience that no tabloid can catch - they do not even need such so that the vast sums spent up in same , now available for many other worthy causes !
Of course, every Christian tradition values reasoning and conversation. We are not talking about Catholicism at its best.
I would suggest that a (somewhat misguided) Catholic is more likely than a (somewhat misguided) Protestant to try to settle a theological argument with an aesthetic argument or an appeal to (usually visual) imagination. A (somewhat misguided) Catholic is also more likely than a (somewhat misguided) Protestant to try and settle a theological argument with a sort of appeal to mystery - to suggest, for instance, that human subjectivity is unable to mediate revelation and must be humbled before the mystery of God and the vastness and seeming infinity of the universal Church.
This (somewhat misguided) Catholic isn't really capable of conversation because if his conversation partner isn't immediately fascinated with the beauty of holiness or doesn't quickly fall on his knees before the Catholic experience of the sublime, the (somewhat misguided) Catholic really doesn't have anything more to say.
Again, this is "bad" Catholicism. There are different forms of "bad" Protestantism, and, I suppose, "bad" Eastern Orthodoxy.
I think that we clearly see this in Hart's brilliant parody.
Nick, I'm afraid your argument is nonsense.
1) There are bad forms of X
2) Therefore X, as such, is bad
Clearly this doesn't follow for any entity X, religion included.
What happened to the dead child? Did God "give" him and then "take" him? The characters seem reconciled to this interpretation of Job's claim. The mother says to God: "I give him to you, in other words, "I give him to you God, who gave me a son and who has now, for some reason too mysterious for me, a mere human, to grasp, has taken my son. But you God, I am sure, know what you're doing.]. Does Malick invite us to agree or provoke us to disagree with this line of reasoning, this brand of sacrificial economy? Isn't fidelity to the gospel fidelity to the idea that death, which is NOT a part of God's order and is not caused by God, is transformed into life via our "yes" to God's way of transforming death through his son's "yes"? This is very different from the "mature" and "rational" response (the mother's) of accepting the necessary-ness of death as just one of God's many mysterious acts.
Is it at all possible that Malick (playing with our wrong-headed impulse to interpret Job non-allegorically) wishes to prepare or tease his audience into making the move from this pre-Incarnational way of thinking and feeling, from the pre-Incarnational reality of the film, into an Incarnational reality? Or, does Malick simply allow himself to be pulled into a foggy theology?
I did not give it much thought as I wrote the sentence, but only sensed that the word "necessity" wouldn't do. If "necessity" implies a "state" of being necessary, then I might argue that "necessary-ness" implies an "atmosphere" or an "ethos" or, better, a "normative habit" of being necessary. I suppose it was my attempt to noun-ify an outworn noun, to make the noun more noun-ly. On the other hand, you're probably right: my word might add unnecessary confusion (or, worse, the unnecessary-ness of confusion.)
Are you suggesting that the Catholic-themed films that came out of the "Golden Age" of Hollywood (The Song of Bernadette, The Keys to the Kingdom, Going My Way, etc.) are just sentimental tripe? God bless.
Is it your judgment that Mr Hart's work-in-progress is sentimental tripe? If so, simply look at the films you mention and see how they are similar and/or dissimilar to Mr Hart's story. You might also reference Gil Costello's comment above and compare to those fllms. There you have your answer.
Personally I don't think Mr Hart was reacting to any specific Catholic-themed films but to those who criticize "Tree of Life" as not sufficiently Catholic.
And the bad art satirized by Mr Hart is not limited to Catholic movies -- there are evangelical Protestant movies that could be equally easily satirized thus.
I call myself a catholic Evangelical, btw.
I did not say that Mr. Hart's "work-in-progress" was "sentimental tripe". It seems to me, though, that he is criticizing movies like the ones I listed because they contain scenes similar to the ones in his satire of an "ideal" Catholic movie. The films I mentioned are considered popular Catholic films. Yes, they are plenty sentimental. I don't consider them tripe, but Mr. Hart seems to hint that they are.
Good article, by the way, DBH.
If the former is true, then Tree of Life was a Christian film, because it had lots of Christian music, ritual, allusions, and values.
If the later is true, then Tree of Life was not, in substance, a Christian film, because the characters kept searching for a God that was "up there." God never incarnated Himself in their experience (unless the mother is to be seen as both a Christ and Mary figure; I haven't quite wrapped my head around that yet).
The answer to the question of "was Tree of Life Christian" depends in large part upon our own understanding of the nature of our faith.
Thanks DBH for the great article and it is really a good read. Looking forward for the coming ones too.


