Anthony, Warrior of God

Title: Anthony, Warrior of God

Director: Antonello Belluco

Studio: A.B. Film

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Excellence: 1 Star

RadTrad Review Rating: MAT

Why? Scenes involving a prostitute, a child ridden down by a horse, and a skull are not appropriate for a seven-year-old.

Summary in a Sentence: St. Anthony of Padua is shipwrecked in Sicily, makes his way to Assisi, and thence to Padua, where the people love him.

Reviewed by Eric Jones

I was in the movie rental store the other day, looking for another film, but I happened to pass one of the “featured” shelves, and noticed a Catholic-themed movie, “Anthony: Warrior of God.” Thanks to the “trad grapevine,” I usually hear about these movies well in advance of their actual release, so I was rather surprised that I hadn’t seen this before somewhere. The case looked sharp, and it was only 99 cents, so I thought “why not? I can watch it, and review it on TradReviews.” And that, my friends, is exactly what I am doing. The long and short of it is: “Anthony” isn’t an immoral movie, and it isn’t really awful in terms of the production itself, but it’s definitely skippable, and is one of those rare flicks where I get up from my chair afterwards and sincerely wish I had that two hours of my life back, so I could watch something with more substance.

Anthony: Warrior of God is a 21st century “life” of St. Anthony of Padua. It shows a few memorable scenes from his life (such as his preaching to the fish after some heretics refused to listen to him –accompanied by dramatic swelling music and neat indirect lighting effects, to boot) and basically conveys that the saint was a “good and beloved man.” As a portrayal of his life and “values” (to use the modern term,) I really have to say that the movie falls flat.

Things start off in a very promising way: we see a ship tossing about in a ferocious storm, and a bit later we see some monks in a convent talking about the glorious martyrs in Africa. Martyrs? Shipwrecks? A name like "Warrior of God?" Perhaps this film might be an undiscovered gem? My dash of cold water in the face was, sadly, not long in coming... Basically, I had a hard time telling that St. Anthony was a Catholic. In fact, he sounded just like a modern protestant preacher, with slightly “1960s” ideas about “social justice.” In a fiery scene in a courtroom, he flabbergasts an uptight cleric type by making a false contradiction between the Church and God’s truth, saying that heretics would be right and the Church wrong if said heretics were speaking the truth. There were a couple of other scenes where it’s hinted that the Church is corrupt and problematic. More is said by omission than by actual statement.

The whole movie seems insipid and shallow: there is a lot of emotional music, to cover the fact that there’s little of substance in the main character. In one scene with a lot of crying (in the middle of a rainstorm when there are perfectly good buildings on all sides) the thought came to me that if this were really how St. Anthony acted, he would have been locked up as a madman and forgotten in a week. The whole movie is a cry-fest –somebody’s sobbing or wailing in virtually every major scene.

St. Anthony was a religious, and this movie is about he and his fellow monks. Yet, there was absolutely no liturgy in the movie whatsoever, and exactly one mention of the Mass. There were three scenes where somebody is blessed with a liturgical formula, and in at least two of these, the Latin is inaccurate. In a couple of other blessing scenes, there is some random and watered down protestant-style “blessing.”

In the movie, there are several deathbed scenes. None of the deaths in the movie are very edifying, and nobody calls a priest (if there isn't one there) even if they express contrition for their sinful life. Anthony's death is emotional and theatrical, and particularly unedifying. One can't help but wish that they'd stuck with the "classic" idea of a holy death, expressed in the line in so many saints' lives, "He died with the Holy Name of Jesus (or Mary) on his lips." The brothers, instead of helping Anthony prepare for death, stand around while he is in a depressed fit, assuring him that he's a saint. As an aside, there is very little devotion to Mary in the movie ----I can't think of a single instance.

Bringing up the rear of the complaint list, a word simply must be said about the music. It was typical “soundtrack sound,” nothing to write home about, except that it got a bit annoying, because we heard it swell in every other scene. One wishes that the producers could have used some Gregorian chant, or perhaps early polyphony, to give the film a more period and authentic feel.

Finally, we come to the good points. The “bad guys” in this movie are the nasty men (and woman) who practice usury and oppress the poor. It’s quite overdone, of course, but nevertheless, you don’t often see usury portrayed as bad in any way, shape, or form today. I liked this. Of course, bowing to political-correctness, it did not portray them as Jews (Catholics in this time and place were not permitted to be usurers, but Jews did not fall under the Church’s authority and were thus free to loan money at exorbitant interest rates for hefty profits.)

Costuming was very good. The movie did a decent job of portraying 13th Century Italy, in the dress of townspeople, country peasants, and clergy. The Pope and his cardinals looked as if they were dressed by a Halloween costume supplier, but the Dominican habits were nice-looking, and it was very refreshing to hear them (as semi-villains in the movie) sticking up for things like “loyalty to the Church.” One of them makes a comment about “the usual Franciscan nonsense” when St. Francis is about to preach: if the sermon which followed this were really an authentic Franciscan sermon, then one could see perfectly well why the Dominican would say this! Actually, this little scene was interesting, because it shows us how effective modern film propaganda is: The Dominican calls it nonsense, the viewer is expected to take offense at this slight to St. Francis, the sermon really is nonsense, but the ingrained loyalty to St. Francis, plus pretty music and some theatrical gestures and an approving crowd, is supposed to make the typical viewer believe that the sermon really was profound and theologically-sound, and that the Dominican was therefore in the wrong. Interesting stuff they can do with these moving pictures, eh?

That said, the movie does do a nice job of portraying a world full of simple, Catholic faithful, where religious were a common sight. I can’t complain about this. The viewer is further immersed in the world (until a scene of blatant emotional manipulation forces him out of it to waggle his finger) by the movie’s speech: the entire film is in Italian, with English subtitles.

In conclusion, don’t see this movie: you really aren’t missing too much. You might benefit if you’re a student of Italian and could watch this instead of something immoral on foreign-language television, but otherwise, there’s not too much to recommend here, which is too bad, because the Italian language, (think of the effect of The Passion of the Christ) decent costuming of the extras, and understanding of the social ills of usury could have produced a first-rate film. I suppose it would be a waste of breath to ask what happened to St. Anthony, the Hammer of Heretics? Methinks the production crew has seen too many of those sweet 1950s Holy Cards where St. Anthony of-the-ridiculously-loony-face holds the baby Jesus in his arms. Oddly enough, though, they didn't even include this, perhaps the most famous miracle and event in the saint's life, in a film devoted to him.

Au Revoir, les Enfants

Title: Au Revoir, les Enfants

Director: Louis Malle

Studio: Unknown

MPAA Rating: N/A

Excellence: 4 stars

TradReviews Rating: MAT

Why: Indecent jokes and some sexual references, all involving teenaged boys.

Summary in a sentence: In Occupied France, an eleven year old boy learns that the priests running his boarding school are hiding Jews from the Nazis.

Those who believe that the Catholic Church was complicit in the Holocaust would do very well to watch this movie. Not only does it expose the falsehood of these allegations, but this film also reveals the just how and why Catholic culture collapsed so easily. The fact that director Louis Malle actually experienced the events that he later depicts on film only adds to their raw, gutwrenching power.


As the opening credits roll, it is the fall of 1943 and Julien Quentin is leaving Paris for a Carmelite boarding school near Bourdeaux. A pampered Mama's boy, Julien springs from a wealthy and nominally Catholic family from the north of France. His brother Francois, a macho skirtchaser, privately longs to join the Resistance. Their parents, however, have until very recently supported the Vichy French regime of Marshall Petain.


Despite being under the keeping of the saintly Pere Jean, the school has failed to keep out the plague of secularism. When their priests and teachers are not looking, the school boys drink, smoke, swear, and sell their school's food supplies on the black market. (If this kind of subculture was common in Catholic institutions, it is not to be wondered at that the the 1960s caused so much devastation!)


Towering above all this madness is the figure of Pere Jean. A dignified, sacrificing priest of the old school, Pere Jean is taking a terrible risk when he introduces three new students partway through the school year. Among them is Jean Bonnet, a shy and modest eleven year old with a talent for music and mathematics.


At first, Julien detests Bonnet, both envying his talents and regarding him as a threat. However, after they both get lost in the forest during a game of "Capture the Flag," a subtle and bumpy friendship develops between them. Eventually, Julien ferrets out the truth, Bonnet's real name is Jean Kippelstein. Pere Jean, like thousands of other Catholic priests, is secretly involved in protecting Jews from the Nazis.


One of the most truly satisfying moments in this film, comes as Pere Jean's actions are at last revealed to the entire misbehaving student body. All their former scorn for the priests who educate them dissipates before the viewer's eyes. At that moment, every student knows that, with all their Secularism, they are not worth the dust on Pere Jean's feet. This scene alone is worth the price of the film in itself.

A Night in Casablanca

Title: A night in Casablanca
Director: Archie Mayo
Studio: Loma Vista Films/United Artists
MPAA Rating: N/A
Excellence: 3 stars
TradReviews Rating: MAT
Why: jokes by Groucho Marx that have a double-meaning, and a scantily clad woman who rises out of a basket at the call of a flute
Summary in a sentence: Nazis in post war Casablanca seek to take control of a hotel to attain a treasure, while Ronald Kornblow is brought in to run the hotel, and they must get around him and the other Marx Brothers if they are to get the loot and bring it back to Germany.

The Casablanca hotel is going through a crisis. Their last few hotel managers have been mysteriously murdered, and the story is so widely known that no one would dare take the job. So the hotel owners decide to look far and wide for a new manager, and find Ronald Kornblow (Groucho Marx), a name no one knows to manage the hotel.

This is much to the consternation of Count Pfferman (Sig Ruman), who we discover is really a tupee wearing Nazi named Heinrich Stubbel in disguise. He is really behind the murders of the managers hoping to be named manager himself so he can get the treasure and run without being caught. So, Gottlieb decides to do as he has done, and kill Kornblow as well.
His task proves difficult, as Rusty his servant (played by Harpo Marx) loses his toupee in the wash, and Gottlieb can not go out in public because he'll be recognized as a Nazi. In addition, Corbaccio (Chico Marx) who is a camel driver, discovers the plot with Rusty and both seek to protect Kornblow from Stubbel's assasin, the beautiful Annette (Lois Collier). Amidst the movie are frequent musical antics by Harpo and Chico Marx on the harp and piano respectively. It is interesting to note that harp scholars have tried for decades to discover how Harpo actually played the harp, and according to most of them he should not have been able to do the things he did.

Sadly, this movie is not clean either by 50's standards or our standards. In terms of jokes by Groucho Marx's character that have a double meaning which refers to a physical reality and to a sexual one. However the sexual innuendo and slapstick never rise to the level of offending. A priceless scene is when Chico Marx acts as Groucho's bodyguard and follows him from room to room to prevent him from being alone with Annette. Definitely there for a good laugh, even though on comparison with their other films this was not as good.

Perhaps one of the most humorous incidents was prior to the movie taking place. Warner Brothers, which had produced "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart, attempted to sue the Marx Brothers because this script featured a character named Humphrey Bogus, and other direct spoofs of the movie. Groucho Marx was able to turn it into a well publicized PR stunt for the movie. Part of his letter which he published in local papers ran like this:

Dear Warner Brothers,

Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)

That is a sampling of the hilarious antics you can expect to see in any Marx Brothers movie.

Narnia: Prince Caspian

Rating: Decent
Rating: FAM 14 for violence
Summary: Too much Lord of the Rings in Narnia
Probably not worth ending your Disney boycott!

I guess for all intents and purposes the Rad Trad Review is kind of a dead project, as none of the original writers have the time or, apparently, the interest in keeping it going, not even for books which are more laudable than movies by far. Oh well. I'll keep the process of review going on here until I can't anymore.

Just as a warning this will contain some spoilers.

Prince Caspian is an adaption of one of the lesser books in the C.S. Lewis' 7 part series. Over all, in terms of casting and costumes, sets and the majority of the story it was pretty well done. There are significant points of divergence with Lewis, but we'll cover that later.

My biggest problem with Prince Caspian is the lack of realism. This will give some people a reason for pause. What does realism have to do with fantasy?
If we think seriously, fantasy's ability to entertain us is based on the amount of realism it employs to get us to suspend our reason in order to enjoy the story. This is true of any fictional work, regardless of whether it takes place in the world we take for real, or the one we know is not.

The scenery matches what I imagined when I read the book last year, and it a lot o fit is beautiful. The armor for the Telmarenes is also gorgeous, and their fighting style resembles that of the late 14th century just before the invention of fire arms.

In spite of all that, the realism, much like in Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, simply wasn't there from a military perspective. The better part of the last 2 years of my life has been devoted to military history, to the hows and whys of classical and medieval armies, and I take recreation of medieval style warfare with the greatest interest. There simply wasn't a lot of realism here, much like in the latter Lord of the Rings movies. On a battlefield, the knight in full armor controlled the scene. This is why the Latin kings of Jerusalem could defeat as many as 100,000 Arabs with 500 heavy cavalry and 200 armored support troops, and that was before the invention of plate armor. A fully armored knight could only be beaten by certain types of weapons, a pike engineered with a thick thrusting point to puncture armor, a strong Gothic ax with a point at the end, a halberd or a cross bow bolt from close up. (That reminds me, cross bows shoot bolts, but the Telmarene's cross bows were firing arrows with fletchings). A sword was not capable of penetrating plate armor, and a sword did not penetrate chain mail with side blows, swords simply weren't sharp enough. It had to enter in through a point to find a weak spot in the armor. So an orc hitting a fully armored knight of Gondor with a mace and killing him is just ridiculous. The same is true for the latest Narnia movie. Centaurs with swords, boys with swords, fauns and assorted creatures with swords striking down soldier after soldier in heavy mail and partial plate armor just doesn't work. Not to mention that someone decided to have Susan running around like Legolas with her bow and arrow. I just found it lame. Minotaurs wielding axes, yes, believable. Otherwise, no. This holds true for the last battle as well, you have thousands of Telmarene soldiers marching in heavy armor, wielding halberds in a fashion like a Macedonian Phalanx (which is slightly inaccurate, Medievals whom Lewis' characters are modeled after fought in a spear wall, which was more maneuverable than a phalanx and capable of shifting at a moments notice). Then, they began running through these soldiers and striking them down, which is impossible. The Centaur charges a series of Halberds and shields, which is suicide, but he runs through killing hosts of men, and of course, he must retreat even though he is felling soldier after soldier.

Oh well. No sense in flogging a dead horse, least of all a well armored one. I just got constantly annoyed by the lack of realism at that point.

Secondly, the movie dramatically increases the fighting, creating an extra battle scene, and doubly prolonging the final battle, not to mention putting Susan at the forefront of battle, something Lewis would have been taken aback by. In the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lucy and Susan don't have a major fighting role (and then it is against monsters not people), while in this movie she is shooting human beings.

Now there were two places the movie really shined with. One of course was Miraz and the whole presentation of the Telmarenes. I always imagined them somewhat Spanish like (Miraz evokes the thought of a moorish spaniard), and their castle was really cool. It was a lot like the famous crusader castle Krak de Chevaliers, but bigger and more defensible. Miraz was sufficiently cunning and his nobles as well to match the book's character.

Then there is Trumpkin. I was half expecting him to be like a LOR Gimli, the butt of all jokes with an over the top personality. Thankfully it wasn't the case, the character was simple, not over the top, slightly pessimistic, but not despairing like Nikabrik the black dwarf.

Unfortunately, that is where the positives end for me. What was mildly annoying in the last movie takes front seat in this one. Susan was bratty before, challenging Peter, warning that they ought not be in a war. Well, that doesn't stop her from killing, how many Telmarines with her bow? Anyhow, at every point of the movie she is calling Peter into question, second guessing him, sometimes almost mocking him, which ultimately tears his authority. Peter acts like he has a huge chip on his shoulder, whereas in the book he was somewhat more humble. The relationship between the siblings is almost ignored, with the exception of Susan second guessing everyone! The bright spot was the relationship between Lucy and Trumpkin, which takes the place of Mr. Tumnus in the last movie.

What I disliked was the lack of Aslan overall. In the book he was much closer to the children and Caspian. The movie makes it seem as if Peter thinks he is greater than Aslan and will take upon himself the need for battle, whereas in the book they knew Aslan was coming. In reality the children found Aslan early, while in the movie he left them completely, and allowed so many to die. In the book he led them there just before the sorcery which might have brought back the white witch (much more dramatic in the movie than the book).

Oh well. Furthermore, the dialogue when Lucy finds Aslan is troublesome. In the book, she says "Aslan, you're bigger!" And he responds, "that is because you are older, little one." Not because you are?" "I am not, but every year that you grow, you will find me bigger. " In the movie however, when she asks if he's bigger he says "I grow every year that you do." This to me, makes it sound as though Aslan (God in Lewis' little world) is finite, while the former, clearly shows that God is greater to us the more we grow in the spiritual life, but he does not change in fact. The movie's Aslan "changes" with the times. At least that is what I got out of it.

Overall, was the movie that bad? Not really. My wife enjoyed it. I might have if I wasn't a military historian. The essence of the book's story was there, with various additions, but in my opinion it was missing its finer points, and destroyed the character of the older children. In the books Susan doesn't turn out well in the end, so maybe the writers were anticipating that. Who knows. Then there was the cheesy romance between Susan and Caspian, which was nothing other than random infatuation. It was annoying. But that is me. A generous 2 1/2 stars for the Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and I hope that we have different directors for the next one.

The Village

Title: The Village
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Studio: Touchstone Pictures
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Excellence: 3 Stars
RadTrad Review Rating: MAT
Why? Violence and frightening scenes inappropriate for a seven-year-old
Summary in a Sentence: Life in an old-fashioned village is dominated by fear of the outside world, personified in the fierce creatures which inhabit the surrounding woods.

Reviewed by Eric Jones

Spoiler warning: This movie is touted as a “thriller,” and is intended to be dramatic and frightening in places. If the plot is known in its entirety beforehand, the suspense will be lessened considerably. However, the movie explores complex concepts and “spoilage” is necessary to touch on the actual message of the film.

M. Night Shyamalan has a reputation for unique films, and The Village is no exception. It is set in a seemingly-idyllic 19th-century village, which is completely isolated from the world. The populace is terrified by an oral tradition of evil creatures that live in the forest surrounding the village, referred to throughout the film as “Those whom we don’t speak of.” Events, however, conspire to force a young and courageous blind girl to leave the village and travel through the woods “to the towns,” in order to procure medicine to save her beloved, who was the victim of a knife wound. In the process of this journey, the girl learns that the creatures are actually townsfolk in costumes, keeping the villagers frightened and in the village –or more properly, out of the “wicked” towns. We see, in the end, that the entire village is a utopian community, in our own time, yet completely cut off from the modern world, the “elders” being those who initially fled some years previously. And… well, that’s it. The girl returns, after her very brief encounter with modernity, delivers the medicine which might cure her young betrothed, and the movie ends.

One need not look far to see the message of this movie. Its creator shows us a 19th-century protestant utopia, with property held in common, and shows us its motivating and sustaining force: fear of the outside world. It is a very thought-provoking movie, but does not, so far as I am able to see, seek to foist off any sort of “anti-isolationist,” or anti-religious sentiments on the viewer, which is a most refreshing thing. As a Catholic, I came to the conclusion, watching the film, that life in such a segregated community would not truly be so bad, probably better for the soul than the modern world, (thought I very much doubt that Catholic womenfolk would like the look of the movie’s dresses!) but that if some endeavor of the sort were attempted, it would necessarily have to be undertaken along Catholic principles –it is sinful to tell lies, even small ones, and certainly, it is disordered to found an entire community on a lie –fearsome creatures who eat men and live in the immediate surroundings. The desire of the “elders” to eschew the evils of modern society is entirely understandable and laudable, but their methods were not those of Christ (who is never mentioned in the movie) but rather, those of the modern world itself, in the form of fear and deceit. Watching the movie, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the “elders” did not plan out their utopia very well, and that it must inevitably disintegrate as soon as they die and a generation who has not been outside the village comes of age.

Morally speaking, the movie merits high praise. There is romance, but it is entirely platonic in its portrayal, and there is no language or other immoral content. There are, however, several violent scenes, where children scream, a man is stabbed several times, and a man falls into a pit and dies. Because of these, and because of the generally dark and unsettling character of the film, it warrants a MAT rating, and should not be seen by children.

The film’s acting is very good, in my opinion. I am never particularly critical on this point, but in this case, as the cast is made up of experienced stage actors and actresses who have virtually all received prestigious awards, my judgment need not be taken on its own merits. The characters act naturally, and their world is, for the most-part, very realistic as well. (As a matter of fact, the characters spent several weeks on a living history farm, learning the ins and outs of the life they were affecting to live, and thus the movie has a very realistic feel to it.) One might quibble a bit about the styles of the gentlemen’s hats, but this is almost unworthy-of-mention.

To sum up: I did not care for the insubstantial feel of the movie, caused by its jarring and non-conclusive ending. The overall message is thought-provoking, and as Catholics, we can conclude by saying that we should not fear the world; rather, we should convert it, which is what the film implicitly says to us. The movie is very clean, though I did get chills once or twice. In conclusion, I would not go out of my way to see the movie again, though I am glad I saw it once. It is not a bad film, and if you enjoy the thriller genre, I don’t see how you can go wrong with The Village.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Title: The Wind That Shakes the Barley
Director: Ken Loach
Studio: None
MPAA Rating: Not Rated. This writer, however, would give it an "R" rating, due to violence, sexuality, and frequent profanity, including the F-word.
TradReviews Rating: QUES = of questionable value for any Catholic (Nacho Libre, V for Vendetta anything by Jim Carrey)
Why: Set during the Irish War of Independence and ensuing Civil War, this film pulls no punches in portaying the violent and ugly nature of insurgency warfare. Not for the sqeamish or for young children.
Excellence: 5 Stars

Summary in a Sentence: In a County Cork during the early 1920s, two brothers fight together against British rule, but find themselves on on a collision course during Ireland's Civil War.



This reviewer must admit, first of all, that he was really looking forward to this film. Having grown up on family stories about the time in question, he could barely contain his excitement. Unfortunately, graphic violence, swearing, sexual content, and the Socialist heresies of the director severely marred an otherwise beautiful film.



The plot is roughly as follows; it is 1920 and the British Government is fast losing its grip on Ireland. Desperate to defeat Michael Collins and the I.R.A., the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have recruited death squads composed of drunken and traumatized veterans of the First World War. Dubbed the "Black and Tans" and the "Auxiliary Division," their mandate is to destroy Irish Nationalism by all means necessary.



Meanwhile, Dr. Damien Donovan is about to leave his village to pursue a medical career in London. However, after a game of hurling, a lifelong friend addresses the Black and Tans in Gaelic and is bayoneted without trial. Although at first reluctant, Damien changes his mind and is sworn into the I.R.A. by his older brother Teddy.



At first believing the war to be a game, an idealistic Damien is confronted by its brutal reality when he is ordered to execute Chris Reilly, a British informer who is little more than a boy. Although Chris is a close friend who has always looked up to him, Damien chooses to pull the trigger himself.



Later, Damien must watch as his fiance, Sinead Sullivan, is brutally tortured by British paramilitaries in reprisal for the IRA ambush of their comrades. Out of ammunition, Damien can only watch.



Shortly after, the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 grants Ireland Dominion status within the British Empire. Teddy, as commander of the local IRA Brigade, accepts it as a temporary stepping stone to full independence. Damien, however, regards it as a betrayal of those who have died fighting the British. Although it remains unspoken, he also longs to escape his brother's shadow. With a small number of Anti-Treaty dissidents, he vows to enforce his views on the Treaty, even if it means Civil War with his own countrymen.



Damien's increasingly Socialist views have ursurped the place of God in his heart. When his parish priest pleads for peace between Irishmen, Damien interrupts his sermon, accuses the Catholic Church of always siding with the rich, and storms out of the church doors, never to return.



Teddy, now an officer serving the new Irish Free State, vainly tries to show Damien the folly of Socialism. Damien responds by vainly trying to pursuade Teddy of the equal folly of laissez faire Capitalism. (What a pity that neither of them read Chesterton!) The debate ends with Damien calling Teddy a traitor and Teddy begging Damien not to "do anything stupid." As can be expected, neither listens to the other.



Later, when Damien kills a Free State soldier during a gunfight, Teddy must choose (as he sees it) between his brother's life and his country's freedom. He desperately tries to turn Damien into an informant so that he can be granted amnesty. Damien, however, indignantly refuses, saying, "I shot Chris Reilly in the heart. I am not going to sell out."



The subsequent execution of Damien is also the death of a dream for both brothers. Teddy had dreamed of a free Ireland where they could both raise families side by side. Damien had dreamed of a Socialist Republic where no one would be rich or poor. Damien dies defiantly, but Teddy is a broken man.



One is left to ponder the words of Sir Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons." "I think that when statesmen forsake their private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos." Perhaps this is the best epitaph for Teddy and Damien.

Brave New Family

Title: Brave New Family
Author: G.K. Chesterton, edited by Fr. Alvaro de Silva
Publisher: Ignatius Press
Excellence: 5 Stars
RadTrad Review Rating: INT
Why: Thought provoking essays by Chesterton on family in the modern world
Summary in a Sentence: "All that we call modern is already antiquated. All that is called Futurist is already a part of the past. And the new thing is still too new to be seen". -G.K.

Fr. De Silva has performed a magnificent service not only to us but to society with this anthology of Chesterton's work on what are called today life and family issues. Though the book weighs in at 269 pages, it reads like it was merely 100. The powerful and pregnant prose of Chesterton fills the reader with interest, laughter, horror and all the emotions, which prove that he is alive. The pages speed by, organized in a flowing and easy to read manner.

The book brings essays from Chesterton starting on the family, and the adventure of childhood, and then continues to the subjects of men and women and husbands and wives, and the joys and adventures of love, as opposed to free love. In the essays Fr. de Silva has arranged, Chesterton has marvelously expressed the poetry of the home and family, while deflating the hot air balloon of modern social science which hopes to re-invent the family in 180 days or less.

"It is the wrong way of putting it to say that Woman should be confined to the Home, as if it were a Home for incurables. The Home is not a prison, or even an asylum; nor is the case for the Home the idea that certain people should be locked up in it because they are weak-minded or incapable. It is as if men had said that the Priestess of Delphi should be kept in her place, which was to sit on a tripod and deliver nice little oracles. Or it is as if Miss Maude Royden were accused of saying that a woman should be locked up in the pulpit and not allowed to pollute the rest of the church. Those who believe in the dignity of the domestic tradition, who happen to be the overwhelming majority of mankind, regard the home as a sphere of vast social importance adn supreme spiritual significance; and to talk of being confined to it is like talking of being chained to a throne, or set in the seat of judgment as if it were the stocks." (pg. 149-150)

And again:

"If a man reads about a pig, he will think of something comic and commonplace, chiefly because the word "pig" sounds comic and commonplace. If he looks at a real pig in a real pigsty, he will have the sense of something too large to be alive, like a hippopotamus at the Zoo.
This is not a coincidence or a sophistry; it rests on the real and living logic of things. The family is itself a wilder thing than the State; if we mean by wilderness that it is born of will and choice as elemental and emancipated as the wind. It has its own laws, as the wind has; but properly understood it is infinitely less subservient than things are under the elaborate and mechanical regulations of legalism. Its obligations are love and loyalty, but these things are capable of being in revolt against merely human laws; for merely human law has a great tendency to become merely inhuman law. It is concerned with events that are in the moral world what cyclones and earthquakes are in the material world....
"The defence of domesticity is not that it is always happy, or even that it is always harmless. It is rather that it does involve, like all heroic things, the possibilities of calamity and even of crime." (pg. 83-84)

The end of the book has two sections, the "Assassins" of the family, and "the Superstition of Divorce", where Chesterton directly takes on the modern evils of abortion, contraception, of free love, and especially of divorce, which was a taboo being made fashionable in the England of his day (and now positively prevalent in the West, where husbands and wives trade each other in like used cars looking for better deals).

"The horrible human, or inhuman, hive described in Mr. Huxley's romance [Brave New World] is certainly a base world, and a filthy world, and a fundamentally unhappy world. At least a certain amount of bravery, as well as brutality, would have to be shown before anything of the sort could be established in the world of fact. It would need some courage, and even some self-sacrifice, to establish anything so utterly digusting as that.
"But the same work is being done in other worlds that are not particularly new, and not in the least brave. There are people of another sort, much more common and conventional, who are not only working to create such a paradise of cowardice, but who actually try to work for it through a conspiracy of cowards. The attitude of thse people towards the Family and the tradition of its Christian virtues is the attitude of men willing to wound and yet afraid to strike; or ready to sap and mine so long as the are not called upon to fire or fight in the open. And those who do this cover much more than half, or nearly two thirds, of the people who write in the most respectable and conventional Capitalist newspapers. It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the family in the modern world was Capitalism. No doubt it might have been Communism, if Communism had ever had a chanec, outside the semi-Mongolian wilderness where it actually flourishes. But so far as we are concerned, what has broken up households, and encouraged divorces, and treated the old domestic virtues with more and more open contempt, is the epoch and power of Capitalism." (pg. 191)

Though Chesterton speaks advocates the economic theory of Distributsim, it is only a subtle point in the book, mentioned perhaps 3 or 4 times. Nevertheless it is the system by which Chesterton understands the established order to nourish and build up the family. The crude, base and inhuman materialism of Capitalism is for Chesterton the other side of the coin from Communism. It reduces man to commodity, and the family a unit merely for producing children who will be future creators of wealth for the wealthy. In the remainder of the paragraph Chesterton declares:

"It is Capitalism that has forced a moral feud and a commercial competition between the sexes; that has destroyed the influence of the parent in favour of the influence of the employer; that has driven men from their homes to look for jobs; that has forced them to live near their factories or their firms instead of near their families; and, above all, that has encouraged for commercial reasons, a parade of publicity and garish novelty which is in its nature the death of all that was called dignity and modesty by our mothers and fathers. It is not the Bolshevist but the Boss, the publicity man, the salesman and the commercial advertiser who have, like a rush and a riot of barbarians, thrown down and trampled under foot the ancient Roman statue of Verecundia."

From that breakdown has arisen, for Chesterton, all the sociological evils with which he did battle in his writing. The break down of the family for Chesterton, is systemic following the unhappy social situation that Capitalism or Communism foists upon the family. The false philosophies of contraception, of abortion, of eugenics, or population control are endemic of the need to market new products to the broken family, to market to the new situation of men who spend the whole day with women other than their wives, and women without their husbands. In another essay called "Birth and Brain control" he says:

"[Our opponent] has said, let it be noted, that passion is not natural and legitimate; he distinctly says it is natural and therefore legitimate. In other words everything that is natural is legitimate. So far so good. It is natural for a man to wish to rush out of a burning theatre, even if he tramples on women and children; it is natural and therefore it is legitimate. It is natural for a man called upon to face death or tortures for the truth (of Mrs. Stopes, let us say) to run away and ide; it is natural and therefore it is legitimate. That is quite understood; and so far we are all getting along nicely. But if everything that is natural is right, why in the world is not the birth fo a baby as natural as the growth of a passion? If it is unnatural to control appetite, why is it not unnatural to control birth? They are both obviously parts of the same natural process, which has a natural beginning and a natural end."

"The normal and real birth control is called self-control."

On divorce:

"These writers are always explaining to us why they believe in divorce. I think I can easily understand why they believe in divorce. What I do not understand is why they believe in marriage. Just as the philosophical burglar would be more philosophical if he were a Bolshevist, so this sort of divorce advocate would be more philosophical if he were a free-lover. For his arguments never seem to touch on marriage as an institution, or anything more than an individual experience."

This book is not only a must read for Chesterton fans, it is a must read for any Catholic living in the west today. It provides witty and logical arguments that are still valid today, but most importantly, it provides inspiration and zeal for the family. It is the zeal for the family that brings life to it, and a living family is a challenge to our modern society which is so hell bent on conformity. As that well known quote goes, "A dead thing can go with the stream, only a living thing can go against it."

Looking for Reviewers

I thank those of you loyal readers who have continued coming here in spite of the sparsity of reviews. We are all very busy and sadly writing doesn't pay our bills.

However, we are looking for more reviewers who would be willing to review books and movies. We require only a few things:

1) That one is a Catholic and accepts Catholic teachings on faith and morals (one need not be a Traditionalist Catholic to apply)

2) Has the ability to break down the basic ideas of books and/or movies and present them in a Catholic perspective

3) The willingness to do so for simply for the fun of it (sorry, we're not endowed).

Interested parties can send an e-mail to athanasiuscm at yahoo . com

The Crisis of Civilization

Title: The Crisis of Civilization
Author: Hilaire Belloc
Publisher: TAN
Excellence: 5 Stars
Rad Trad Review Rating: GEN
Why: Good information on history, a little economics and theology, presented in a general format in general terms, easy to read
Summary in a sentence: If western society is not transformed anew by the Catholic faith then it will sink back into the pagan slave economy which the Church destroyed.

There are few books in which one can get the general idea of what an author wrote their entire life. However, the Crisis of Civilization essentially makes a summary of every work that Belloc ever wrote dealing with history and culture, and combines it into a general thesis concerning economics and the brave new world of the future.

Belloc, in this scholarly work, presents to the reader the economic, cultural and military life of the pagan empires of Greece and Rome, and the transformation of Rome by the Church into Medieval Christendom, and the freedom it provided to the peasant by transforming him from slave, to serf, to free man with land that was his. Then by presenting the collapse of western civilization in the medieval decline, and the devastation of the protestant revolt, Belloc traces the general outlines of the economic and moral decay of the West.

One of the positive elements is how he dispels stupid explanations given by modern anti-Catholic historians to how the Empire fell, blaming it on Christianity. The empire wrought its own ruin, and the Church saved all that could be saved, transforming its corpse into the glory of medieval Christendom, which realized its greatest ages in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Like everything great however decline invariably sets in unless it is vigilantly maintained, and Belloc demonstrates excellent prose the process of decline, coupled with the apparent material gains brought by the Renaissance and the scientific discoveries. Most importantly, what the Church failed to do through corruption, namely check superstition, led to the revolt of the Protestants, and the looting of Church land and property. This shattered the political and religious unity of Christendom, and led to the growing crisis of civilization, which is in the spiritual aridity of modern man, and the economic question which is gradually turning men into slaves by depriving them of property.

Belloc devotes a good deal of time to the question of property, distinguishing between Medieval economy and the work of the guild, which fixed prices within industry and guarded against unfair and immoral business practices, and secured against Usury. Then however with the breakdown of the guild by the force of the protestant empowered state, (by which we mean the state outside of Church authority, not run by protestants per se) the market was reduced to mere supply and demand, which favors the wealthy not the good of society, and allowed the wealthy to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Which has led to the crisis of civilization, that we are at a crossroads between re-establishing well divided property or re-establishing the slave economy of pagan civilizations, which works hand and hand with the decent back towards paganism which modernity makes in its morals and culture.

He takes some time to advocate a model for how widely distributed property might be achieved, which again summarize some of the arguments found in "An Essay on the Restoration of Property". For Belloc, a sane economic standard divorced from Darwinian sociology and free market dictatorships, which includes the wide distribution of property to the family is only achievable through the reconversion of society to the Catholic faith.

"A conversion to the Catholic culture is necessary to the restoration of economic freedom because economic freedom was the fruit of that culture in the past. The guild, the cooperative agricultural system, the whole network of safeguards for family property-all these things which we have seen in the past and propose as a program for the future-came out of the Catholic culture which was itself the product of Catholic doctrine....We cannot build up a society synthetically, for it is an organic thing; we must see to it first that the vital principle is there from which the characters of the organism will develop. You will not be able to set up in a pagan or an heretical or a wholly indifferent society the institutions characteristic of economic freedom; you will not be able to curb competition which alone would be sufficient to destroy such freedom, nor pursue permanently and consecutively any one part of the program. The thing must be done as a whole, and it can be done as a whole only by the ambient influence of Catholicism." (pg. 191)

This he believes, might be accomplished, not only through awareness of the Church's own members, but through periodicals and perhaps historical fiction, apart from evangelizing zeal of counter reforming saints. Books will have only so much effect, it is in the periodical that Belloc sees the strongest arguments for the Catholic faith to be made, in a short form which can be digested easily by the reader.

Paradoxically, the drawback to this work is the same as its strong point, namely that it embodies the totality of Belloc's thought on other issues in history and politics all condensed into one book. This is an advantage for someone who has never read Belloc and possibly might not read one of his works (which would be a shame), you would get a piece of what Belloc thinks on almost everything. On the other hand, it is a drawback for those who have read much of Belloc, and find that many of the arguments which he is familiar from other sources. Perhaps also this can be an advantage for the latter, as a refresher.

All in all, Belloc's work on its own weight merits the consideration not only of every Catholic, but of anyone who would wish to stop Western Civilization from crumbling into a new dark age.

Song of the South

Title: Song of the South
Director: Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson
Studio: Walt Disney Studios
MPAA Rating: Not officially rated (personally I would place it at a G rating, but having noticed that some Shirley Temple movies have been rated PG because of situations involving bodily harm or adults quarreling, then this movie may be considered PG)
TradReviews Rating: FAM7
Why: Simple to understand, not too complicated to follow, contains nothing harmful for children
Excellence: 4 stars
Summary in a Sentence: The stories of Uncle Remus come to animated life in this delightful story about a little boy learning how to grow into a good little man, even though his life is very difficult with his father being away, and his mother is trying to find out who she is.


Most of the rides at Disneyland are (um, were ... at least when I was a little kid) easily recognizable in regards as to which feature films they were derived from. You knew the flying elephants came from Dumbo, the swirling tea cups and kettles came from Alice in Wonderland, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride came from the Wind in the Willows (I believe that one has since been replaced by Roger Rabbit something r' other), and on and on.

The only ride that puzzled me as to it's origin, was Splash Mountain. If you've been there, it's a ride you take in a floating log through briars and swamps, while bears, fox, bees, rabbits, and other animals sing happy little songs like "Zip-a-dee doo Dah" and a couple other cute little tunes that get stuck in your head. Having read the Uncle Remus stories (Bre'r Fox, Bre'r Bear, etc.) when I was a child, I did kind of recognize some scenes at this ride from the books, but I sure couldn't figure out which Disney movie this ride came from. Little did I know that one of the best films ever to come out of the Walt Disney enterprise, had been shut up, locked away, and forgotten, never to be seen or heard of for about 20 years, and even now it is still only available by bootlegged DVD.

Song of the South is a nice, kick back and watch film, to be enjoyed equally as much by adults as by children. Bobby Driscoll is a little 7 year old boy in his first film role, and plays a young boy who's parents are separating for a while because of a disagreement between them over politics. The father is the editor of a controversial newspaper (the civil war is over, the slaves have been freed, but some white people still held grudges against blacks at the time, while others fought to show them how blacks are just as human and just as dignified as every human being is; Bobby's father is one of the latter sort, and it kind of seems that his mother may be part of the former group). Luana Patten plays a poor little daughter of a white sharecropping family, who befriends Bobby's character when he finds the constant company of stiff and starched southern adults boring (Bobby Driscoll and Luana Patten appear together in many other films afterwards with Disney at the helm, most notably So Dear to my Heart, and Johnny Tremain). The best character of all though, is Uncle Remus, played by James Baskett. A real southern gentleman with a big heart and lively imagination, his little house becomes a haven for the two children who are living pretty hard lives. The little house is transformed into a cartoon world (complete with Disney animation!) whenever the children visit Uncle Remus and he tells them stories about his friends Bre'r Rabbit, Bre'r Bear, and Bre'r Fox. Each little story has a lesson embedded in the funniness, and in addition to being able to laugh until your stomach hurts, you also find yourself learning a bit about life and how to live it.

The problem crops up when Bobby's mother forbids him to keep going to Uncle Remus' for stories, as she thinks it is un-civilizing him to spend time with former slaves (who have elected to remain on this particular plantation as hired workmen) and imbibing their happy, simple ways of living. His mother's very shallow view of the world and what her selfishness is doing to her son is played sharply against the contrast of the kindly old Uncle Remus, who always admonishes Bobby to obey and respect his mother's wishes even if he doesn't agree with them, and who finds ways to teach Bobby lessons without seeming as if he's preaching to him. He is so kind and dignified that he endures criticism and anger from people he loves, without defending himself against their false accusations. He knows that when they find out the truth, they will be ashamed of the way they had acted, and that will be enough to teach them their lesson.

So why was a truly enjoyable film, with catchy songs and heartwarming tales gradually taken away from the public from 1986 on, until there was hardly a copy left in circulation? There are a couple theories, but the the most plausible is that when Disney was working on the film the NCAAP expressed disapproval of the way black people had been portrayed. Since they didn't officially ban the film, it was allowed to continue, be shown in theaters, and was enjoyed by countless people. When the film was re-released on the big screen in 1986, however, a whole different game of ball was played. When the NCAAP expresses disapproval of something, people bend over backwards to make sure they fix the problem before it becomes too widely publicized and perhaps even escalates into a ban. So all copies of the film, records of the music, children's books containing the pictures, and everything else having to do with the film were slowly, quietly collected and hidden away, and no one ever spoke of it again... except the people who had enjoyed the film and were puzzled as to why they couldn't find copies of it for themselves to own. These are the people you can obtain copies from if you search for them on the internet.

It's rather sad, because from what I saw, the former slaves were portrayed in a very respectful and dignified manner, some of them being better people than their white counterparts, so I really don't understand what the NCAAP found offensive, unless it was the fact that Uncle Remus treated his former owners with a servantile respect (he is, after all, a hired man, and a very respectful man towards ladies, so I would have thought his attitude to be very admirable; I guess the NCAAP doesn't like gentleman of darker color showing respect of any kind towards people of lighter color). It seems to me that organizations like the NCAAP actually promote racism, by insisting on differences between the races, instead of promoting the fact that we're all human and can all get along regardless of culture or skin color. Anybody who treats anybody else badly is bad, regardless of skin color, and differences should be noted as to who is good and who is bad; not who is white and who is black.

A very enjoyable, hard to find little gem of a film, I highly recommend Song of the South.

Night at the Museum

Title: Night at the Museum
Director: Shawn Levy
Studio: 20th Century Fox
MPAA Rating: PG due to action sequences
Excellence: 2 stars
RadTrad Review Rating: FAM7
Why: Fun plot-line, no bad language, no inappropriate jokes, parental guidance suggested for young Catholic children, as the father in this film is divorced and younger kids might not be ready to have that explained to them. There are also some references to evolution and monkeys as our brothers, but no one seems to take the speaker seriously.
Summary In a sentence: A fun to watch movie that even the adults might enjoy.

I was getting kind of tired of renting movies that make your heart pound and stomach knot up, the kind that actually take what I call "a commitment" to watch. Gods and Generals, The Matrix, Les Miserables, Lord of the Rings, while all being excellent films, leave you feeling exhausted when they're over; at least they do to me. So, every once in a while, I like to rent something that looks "non-committal", something you can just sit back and enjoy, which you can pause to get a snack or something without ruining some great acting moment (:-P), and Night at the Museum was exactly this type of movie.

Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) is a divorced father who seems to have been a failure at everything he's tried to accomplish. He had great ideas, great hopes, but nothing ever panned out for him (as a side note, his wife must not have loved him very much, as she obviously didn't stick with him through the hard times; she's shown in the movie as a lawyer living in a very expensive looking apartment with a banker something fiancee). His very nice son is the only bright spot in his life, and he does everything he can to encourage his son to never give up on his dreams, because life is pretty un-satisfying if you let yourself get beat down into accepting a career just to pay the bills ... not because you freely chose to work at something you love. This advice sounds rather hollow coming from him, since he clearly had wonderful ideas that he gave up on after encountering too much resistance, but just because he hasn't succeeded yet, doesn't mean he didn't learn something in the process.

Unfortunately, Larry is going through another failure period in his life at the moment, and tells his ex-wife (Kim Raver: don't recognize the name? Audrey Raines from 24 ... don't remember her? Don't blame ya) that he is on the verge of losing his apartment. This concerns "Mom", because she doesn't think their son could take another move on his father's part, and all this ... instability, so she guilt trips Larry into agreeing that if this does indeed happen, he should leave their son with her, so as not to damage his precious little developing personhood (yeah, whatever, like you considered that when you divorced his somewhat wimpy, but otherwise very nice and obviously loving father? *eyes rolling*).

This decision leads Larry to frantically search for a job, any job, just anything to keep him from losing his apartment, he doesn't care what it is. An employment agency tells him that there is just one thing he might be considered for, so he takes it; the job of night watchman at the Museum of Natural History. Not too ominous sounding, actually ... yet. The former night watchmen (Mickey Rooney, Dick Van Dyke, and Bill Cobbs) let him know through fake smiles that his job has only been made possible because the Museum is losing money and is therefore canning the three of them, in order to downsize to one of him, so, he's a privileged character here. What none of them bother telling Larry, is that "things" happen at night that he'd better be prepared for. Their excuse later is that he wouldn't have believed them anyway, which is most probably true.

Larry's first night at the Museum quickly goes from boring (playing with the intercom system, sleeping in his chair), to unreal, as he finds out that every single exhibit in the museum comes to life at night! Including the gigantic T-Rex bones, Attila the Hun, little soldiers with weapons, and the display animals, all of which seem to want to kill him and each other! The figure of Teddy Roosevelt saves his life this time, but warns him that in the future, he'll have to take care of himself. As soon as day comes, everybody goes back to their original places, and he's left to clean up the mess.

Not exactly a job he cares for, Larry tries quitting the very next day, and as he walks out of the front doors, free, he bumps into his son bringing some friends with him to see if Dad can get them a really cool tour. D'oh, Larry tells them he's busy now, but he'll definitely see about doing it later, and does an about face to get his job back for his little boy's sake. It is then that the former head night guard decides to share a rather important little set of rules that had been written up, designed to help him stay alive in there at night, along with the secret of why the museum comes to life at night. It seems that, back in the 1950s, a tablet was brought to the museum, along with an Egyptian mummy, and this tablet's curse brings all the creatures to life at night. Okay, I guess that explains everything. Meanwhile, Larry's got a lot of history to study today in order to understand the characters he's dealing with.

But the living creatures at night are not the biggest problem Larry has to deal with. The Museum's (very gay looking) director does not like one jot or tittle out of place in the museum, and constantly threatens to fire Larry if he can't keep things together (if he knew what Larry was dealing with at night, he might have a different attitude, but he doesn't, so he's a jerk). If Larry gets fired, he'll not only lose time with his son, but also what very little admiration the boy has left for him. Larry's got to figure out how to make the creatures at night get along, not mess up the museum, and find out how to win his little boy's heart back away from the annoying ex-wife's fiancee. He does in fact wind up accomplishing all this and more, becoming a hero in his son's eyes by the end of the movie.

There were very few negative elements in this film, which is why I recommended it for so young an audience. Any battles between the soldiers and other creatures are bloodless, and they don't die. They do, however, turn to dust if they happen to get caught outside the museum's walls when the sun comes up (that's another part of Larry's frustrating job, keeping them all inside!). The only things I didn't particularly care for (and I usually have a list a mile long when I'm talking about movies afterwards with my husband), were a guard who calls people names (dumb things like snack-shack and tub-tummy, which he says in a mean way, but are put in there for comedy; not something I'd really like my kids imitating), a museum tour guide woman who wears really tight, thin blouses (she doesn't get much screen time though), and a scene where this nasty little monkey, whom you'll want to strangle, pees on Larry while Larry is yelling at him through metal bars. Having raised lots of animals myself, and having been peed on many times by them, I actually found the scene amusing, but parents might not like that as their kids are usually not exposed to that kind of stuff in real life. The cursed tablet aspect might also raise some flags for parents, but it could also be an interesting opportunity to discuss the fact that the gods of the pagans are demons, and that demonic activity does really exist (not like the demons would bring silly museum characters to life, but that would explain it a little bit).

All in all, it was very entertaining in a very non-committal way, and it had a happy ending, which I like.

The Marx Bros: A night in Casablanca

Title: A night in Casablanca
Director: Archie Mayo
Studio: Loma Vista Films/United Artists
MPAA Rating: N/A
Excellence: 3 stars
TradReviews Rating: MAT
Why: jokes by Groucho Marx that have a double-meaning, and a scantily clad woman who rises out of a basket at the call of a flute
Summary in a sentence: Nazis in post war Casablanca seek to take control of a hotel to attain a treasure, while Ronald Kornblow is brought in to run the hotel, and they must get around him and the other Marx Brothers if they are to get the loot and bring it back to Germany.

The Casablanca hotel is going through a crisis. Their last few hotel managers have been mysteriously murdered, and the story is so widely known that no one would dare take the job. So the hotel owners decide to look far and wide for a new manager, and find Ronald Kornblow (Groucho Marx), a name no one knows to manage the hotel.

This is much to the consternation of Count Pfferman (Sig Ruman), who we discover is really a tupee wearing Nazi named Heinrich Stubbel in disguise. He is really behind the murders of the managers hoping to be named manager himself so he can get the treasure and run without being caught. So, Gottlieb decides to do as he has done, and kill Kornblow as well.
His task proves difficult, as Rusty his servant (played by Harpo Marx) loses his toupee in the wash, and Gottlieb can not go out in public because he'll be recognized as a Nazi. In addition, Corbaccio (Chico Marx) who is a camel driver, discovers the plot with Rusty and both seek to protect Kornblow from Stubbel's assasin, the beautiful Annette (Lois Collier). Amidst the movie are frequent musical antics by Harpo and Chico Marx on the harp and piano respectively. It is interesting to note that harp scholars have tried for decades to discover how Harpo actually played the harp, and according to most of them he should not have been able to do the things he did.

Sadly, this movie is not clean either by 50's standards or our standards. In terms of jokes by Groucho Marx's character that have a double meaning which refers to a physical reality and to a sexual one. However the sexual innuendo and slapstick never rise to the level of offending. A priceless scene is when Chico Marx acts as Groucho's bodyguard and follows him from room to room to prevent him from being alone with Annette. Definitely there for a good laugh, even though on comparison with their other films this was not as good.

Perhaps one of the most humorous incidents was prior to the movie taking place. Warner Brothers, which had produced "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart, attempted to sue the Marx Brothers because this script featured a character named Humphrey Bogus, and other direct spoofs of the movie. Groucho Marx was able to turn it into a well publicized PR stunt for the movie. Part of his letter which he published in local papers ran like this:

Dear Warner Brothers,

Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)

That is a sampling of the hilarious antics you can expet to see in any Marx Brothers movie.

Neo-CONNED

Title: Neo-CONNED!
Author: Various, Edited by D.L. O'Huallachain & J. Forrest Sharpe
Publisher: Light in the Darkness Publications
Rating: CHAL
Excellence: 4 stars
Why: Because it is morally incumbent upon every Catholic, especially Catholic Americans and Britons, to investigate whether we are engaged in a just war.
Summary in a sentence: The most compelling collection of essays explaining Catholic war just theory and its specific application in Iraq available.

Review by Stephen Heiner
(N.B. Originally reviewed for TradReviews)

I've put off this review for months. It's rather like the priest who has not had the chance to say his Brievary all day. At around 6pm, the task seems daunting. So too, overwhelmed by the magnificence and articulation of this volume (and we're not even talking about the 700 page plus sequel) I've been at a loss of how to "review" this collection.

What I've decided to do is to take each of the parts and discuss important ideas from the various essays included. I hope that I do the ideas some justice, but to get a better idea of the whole picture, read and buy this book yourselves. The reason it is rated C is because it is for serious readers only. I was at first tempted to rate the book SY, but since it deals with Catholic Just War doctrine, it cannot be considered secular, though it contains secular writers. The content and breadth of the book requires that you bring your intellectual A-game, at the very least.


Fr. Lawrence Smith's remarks, included in the front of the book:

IHS Press does a tremendous good work by its efforts to disseminate the riches of the social teachings of the Catholic Church. Of course, that wisdom is not limited to economics. It is essential to fidelity to our common patrimony within Western civilization, our citizenship in the United States, and our duty to God and His Church to be informed about the issues of our day. Regardless of one's position on the so-called "war on terrorism" and its prosecution in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the streets of America, this collection of essays published by IHS's imprint, Light in the Darkness Publications, should offer anyone in pursuit of intellectual honesty an opportunity to weigh the arguments so seldom heard in the media, from politicians, and at the coffee counter.

Part I: The Statesmen Speak: A War both Unnecessary and Vain

This part begins with an interview with Jude Wanniski, an economist under Ronald Reagan and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, that is devastating.

The first question and the beginning of its answer sets the tone for the entire piece.

Q: The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and Britain was based primarily on the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, theoretically being manufactured to threaten other countries. How much truth was there in that assertion?

A: None at all. The U.S. Armed Forces only considers nuclear weapons to be weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor chemical or biological weapons. The only thing it may have possessed were some of the ingredients necessary to develop chemical or biological weapons (p. 3).

Wanniski then sets upon roasting chestnut after chestnut that NeoCons have brought forth as "alternate reasons for war." For example, if there are no weapons of mass destruction, well, Saddam was a threat to the region, etc.

He discusses how the US self-sabotaged the UN inspectors and the inspection process after the First Gulf War, as well as the strange policy of sanctions that punished only the people of Iraq, not Saddam. He states: "The fact is that the propaganda surrounding our effort to starve more than 20 million Iraqis into submission to cover up the botched job of our political establishment in that sorry land has been among the most effective of the twentieth century" (p. 6).

Indeed, Saddam was once our ally against what we supposed was a larger threat, the Iranians. "The United States supported Saddam in his war with the Islamic fundamentalists because it suited our purposes" (p. 16). But by 1998, "Saddam essentially believed...that all that was happening was that Anglo-American demands were forever increasing, and Iraq was getting precisely nothing in return. No government with any self-respect would accept such a situation. Saddam's government also said that it would not cooperate with the inspections because many of the inspectors were American spies. It is important to note that they refused cooperation because of their doubts about the inspection team's composition and aims" (p. 15).

The interview even gives voice to Saddam, and it is strange and disconcerting to hear a man speak reasonably whom we have only been given to believe is a murderous maniac:

"Iraq came out of the war (First Gulf) burdened with $40 billion of debts, excluding the aid given by Arab states, some of whom consider that too to be a debt although they knew - and you knew too - that without Iraq they would not have had these sums and the future of the region would have been entirely different...We began to face the policy of the drop in price of oil. We then saw the United States, which always talks about democracy, but which has no time for the other point of view...When planned and deliberate policy forces the price of oil down without good commercial reasons, then that means another war against Iraq. Because military war kills people by bleeding them, and economic war kills their humanity by depriving them of their chance to have a good standard of living. As you know, we gave rivers of blood...but we did not lose our humanity. Iraqis have a right to live proudly. We do not accept that anyone can inure Iraqi pride or the Iraqi right to have high standards of living...because without pride life would have no value" (p. 18-19).

The famous story of the gassing of Iraqi kurds is even rendered dubious as Wanniski asks rhetorically after discussing the background behind the story: "Is it really credible that the man who would have authorized the use of gas to kill civilian Kurds would have been aided by Kurdish leaders?" (p. 27) Indeed, our own Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a classified report that postulated that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi (p. 26).

A little further on, in a separate piece, Dr. Marc Bossuyt brings us back to the question of sanctions, namely, what we did to the Iraqis prior to this second war. He comments: "It should be emphasized that much of the controversy around the number of deaths is only serving to obfuscate the fact that any deaths at all caused by the sanctions regime indicate grave breaches of humanitarian law and are unnacceptable" (p.90, emphasis in original).

As for the Iraqi children? UNICEF statistics noted that "13 percent of all Iraqi children were dead before their 5th birthday. For the most part, they died as a direct or indirect result of contaminated water" (p. 105). Good luck getting that statistic on Hannity and Colmes anytime soon.

"Economic sanctions are rapidly becoming one of the major tools of international governance of the post-Cold War era" (p. 109) yet "They are often discussed as though they were a mild sort of punishment, not an act of aggression of the kind that has actual human costs," (p 110) like it actually does. "Those who are least able to survive the ensuing hunger, illness, and cold are the very young, the elderly, and those who are sick or injured. Thus the direct consequences of siege (here presented as economic "siege" upon a population -s.) is that harm is done to those who are least able to present the least military threat, who have the least input into policy or military decisions, and who are most vulnerable to hunger, cold, and illness" (p. 114).

Dr. Bossuyt closes the article by talking about this weapon of "mass distraction," discussing the humanitarian emergencies, smuggling, kickbacks, surcharges, and profiteering that went on the US-sponsored UN-led sanctions program. Perhaps these sentences sum up his (and what should be our) sentiments best: "If the goals of sanctions are the enforcement of humanitarian standards or compliance with legal and ethical norms, then extensive and predictable harm to civilians cannot even be justified by reference to survival or military advantage. Insofar as this is the case, sanctions are simply a device of cruelty garbed in self-righteousness" (p. 121).

This essay is followed by Patrick J. Buchanan's now classic Whose War? which first appeared in the March 24, 2003 The American Conservative. Blockbuster would be an understatement for this at-the-time timely indictment of purposes, intention, and persons involved in the path to war. While the last sentence of this essay does it no justice, perhaps it gives some insight into the ground Mr. Buchanan covers: "Though we have repeatedly said that we admire much of what this President has done, he must at some point jettison the neoconservatives' agenda of endless wars on the Islamic world that serve only the interests of a country other than the one he was elected (twice) to preserve and protect" (p. 147).

Part II: Conservative and Anti-War: Patriotism, Prudence, and the Moral Law

This part of the book goes a long way in attacking the idea of "unpatriotic" as a necessary label to be placed on those against the war. In the preface to Charley Reese's Legal Nonsense article, the editors comment: "Michael Novak, for instance, tried to tell the Vatican in February 2003 that the U.S. was justified in attacking Iraq because of what 'a spark of contact' between Saddam and terrorists 'could' have accomplished, implying that America's right to make war arose from the possibility that Saddam could have done something to the U.S. His 'just-war doctrine' includes the idea that America must ensure that no nation possesses the capacity to inflict harm on it, and make preemptive war in any direction it thinks will best 'protect the lives and rights' of its people.

Happily, Novak's fantasy isn't part of any just-war doctrine permitted to Catholics, for a true title to make war comes only from an ongoing or imminent, grave and actual violation of a nation's rights - not from a merely potential one, regardless of whether the potential might be a clandestine, unannounced (terrorist-style) attack. Nor does it particularly matter, from a moral point of view, that submitting to the moral law in foreign affairs carries perhaps more risk than ignoring it and obliterating anyone who possesses the capacity to do us harm" (p. 166, emphasis in original).

In an article called Riding the Red Horse: War and the Prospects of Success, Dr. Thomas Fleming, editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, poignantly postulates: "Empire - or rather, the concept of benevolent global hegemony - is one of the gifts of Mesopotamia, but it is a poisoned chalice. The story of the Tower of Babel is the Bible's commentary on the Babylonians' attempt to build a multi-ethnic state, and the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon and Persepolis should warn the most rugged imperialist against the danger of walking in the footsteps of Sargon and Sennacherib" (p. 179).

In the same article, in a line seemed classically designed to answer the "creating democracy in the Middle East" canard told to us all, he states: "The history of the Middle East gives little encouragement to those who imagine that an oil-rich Switzerland can be established among the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon" (p. 174).

And speaking of oil, Wendell Berry, in an article entitled The Failure of War makes a statement that seems to slip our mind everytime we pull up to the pump: "At present, in the face of declining finite sources of fossil fuel energies we have virtually no energy policy, either for conservation or for the development of safe and clean alternative sources" (p. 195).

Part III: The Venerable Tradition: Putting the Brakes on Aggression and Securing Justice for Iraq

Fr. Juan Carlos Iscara's article, entitled, Might is Not Right: Why 'Preventive War' is Immoral starts out this section. His article is short and to the point, filled with citations not only of assertions of the neocons, but with the Catholic teachings that oppose them. Perhaps this paragraph sums it up best:

Thus, the Catholic "just-war theory" is the acknowledgement of the right of nations to self-defense against an unjust aggression. This is simply an application of the natural law - legitimate defense is a natural right. Just as it is obvious that every man has the right to preserve his own existence, so too does the state have the natural right to defend itself against a real, immediate and grave threat to its very existence and essential good (p. 212).

Fr. Iscara does not choose his words lightly. Real. Immediate. Grave.

Also in this section, Dr. Thomas Ryba's article Epistemic Inadequacy, Catholic Just-War Criteria, and the War in Iraq, a decidedly focused and scholarly piece, attempts (successfully) to "show that formulations of just-war theory that concentrate on the criterion of probable just cause - and particularly the Bush administrations's theory of the justification of the recent war in Iraq (insofar as it may be called a theory in any important sense) - attempt to dodge the issue of moral certainty in favor of the certainty of the preponderance of justice (a probabilistic and material criterion). What I will attempt to show is that, certainty about the probability of justice liberalizes the grounds for war, and that such a liberalization is problematic" (p. 223, emphasis in original).

In another essay, a writer uses a quote of Paul W. Schroeder, writing in The American Conservative: "The more one thinks about it, the more implausible it becomes to claim that the United States, a superpower with an historically unprecedented position of unchallenged military superiority, is threatened by an impoverished, ruined, insecure state halfway 'round the world" (p. 250).

Part IV: Judgment and Inspiration: The Church Still Speaks With Authority

Dr. Cavanaugh's piece, To Whom Should We Go? Legitimate Authority and Just Wars starts by making this important point: "Decisions about if and when we Catholics should kill should be left to the President. This line of thinking is dangerously wrong" (p. 269, emphasis mine). He continues: "Moral judgment in the Christian tradition is a matter not just of information, but of being formed in the virtues proper to a disciple of Christ" (p. 272).

An extremely fascinating part of this essay is Dr. Cavanaugh's discussion of David Urquhart and the work leading up to the First Vatican Council in developing Church policy on modern war and warfare. Among other things, "Urquhart urged the Vatican to establish a 'diplomatic college' qualified to rule on whether or not a particular war met just-war criteria. If a war were declared unjust, then absolution would be refused for all killing in that war, and communicant soldiers would be expected to refuse orders" (p. 281). Pius IX, of happy memory, was very supportive of the project and perhaps Urquhart's proposal, which made it onto the agenda of Vatican I with no real opposition, would have passed. Ironically, the very Council which might have put together a methodology to oppose modern war was broken up an unjust war itself, which culminated in the theft of the Papal States.

Dr. Cavanaugh continues: "...the individual Catholic has a grave obligation to inform his or her conscience as to the morality of any given act of war, and not to cede such judgments ot the state" (p. 284). "Pope John Paul II's opinion should count more than Donald Rumsfeld's or Bill O'Reilly's. At the very least, the Catholic should not simply abdicate moral judgment in this matter to leaders of a secular nation-state" (p. 288, again, emphasis mine).

Part IV also contains the sobering Lenten 2003 letter of a lone courageous Romanian Catholic Bishop, John Botean. From the letter:

Please be aware that I am not speaking to you as a theologian or as a private Christian voicing his opinion, nor by any means am I speaking to you as a political partisan. I am speaking to you solely as your bishop with the authority and responsibility I, though a sinner, have been given as a successor to the Apostles on your behalf...Humanly speaking, I would much prefer to keep silent...But what kind of shepherd would I be if I, seeing the approacth of the wolf, ran away from the sheep?...Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See, bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just-war theory (p. 293).

In a separate article, the Bishop laments: "The Catholic youth of this country, I am convinced, need moral and political protection from the power and shrewdness of old men and women, who, because of a lifetime spent amid the machinations of nation-state politics and economics, have become desensitized to the reality of what it means to send a young boy or girl to kill and to die on behalf of their elaborate agendas" (p. 298).

In his article Peace Is Still Possible: The Unity of the Church in the Face of the Iraq War, Deacon Keith Fournier reiterates a timeless truth in examining these matters: "We Catholics must always start with Catholic teaching and then inform our thought, rather than using that teaching as a cloak for political, economic, or social theories that don't correspond to its correct conceptions of the human person, solidarity, authentic human freedom, economic and social justice, and matters of war and peace" (p. 307).

Part V: A Higher Law: Conscience, Morality, and the Transcendent Vision

Dr. Rao's piece, entitled Decadent, Belligerent, and Incorrigible talks about the problem of how the American political reality, beholden to no one and to no morality, has made a wreck of the modern nation-state construct. Two quotes deserve our attention.

"...one of the most dangerously criminal forces operating internationally in union with America: the State of Israel" (p. 325). This is the first time Israel has come up in this review, but it has come up many times in the book up to this point. It is a major part of our "Iraq policy" that Americans overlook. That is, that much of our blood and treasure is spent on defending people who comprise an incredible minority of Americans, but who wield an unparalleled lobbying power.

"...the 'free society' infected with the Western malady is always one in which the strongest wills of the unrestrainedly passionate predominate" (p. 325). Indeed, this is part of the problem with those who cannot place criticisms of America by Americans in its proper context. If we lament America's problems, it is at the very least because America is capable of greatness, true greatness of the type only Christ can bestow, if it were only to acknowledge its Creator. Until that time, our "free society" is our religion. And indeed, we may say to ourselves "evil, be now my good."

Paul Likoudis' The Morality of Weapons Systems was the most disturbing chapter of this book. It discusses the widespread use of "depleted uranium," a type of material used in many projectiles in Iraq, which, due to its turning into a dust form because of its use in warfare, is causing unbelievable medical harm to both Iraqis and Americans.

The article starts: "The photographs are gruesome beyond description. They are newborn Iraqi babies, born without heads and limbs, sometimes they are blood red, sometimes black, sometimes covered in an unknown white film, sometimes with gaping holes in their torsos that expose their internal organs" (p. 345). The article ends: "DU (depleted uranium -s.) dust is everywhere. A minimum of 500 or 600 tons now litter Afghanistan, and several times that amount are spread across Iraq. In terms of global atmospheric pollution, we've already released the equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs...The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse. DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe or touch it; the substance also alters one's genetic code..." (p. 350).

Speaking of wreaking havoc, the harm this has done to our soldiers has been dismissed over and over again, and despite testimony before Congress, our veterans who have been exposed to this deadly agent die a silent death, with no government assistance.

Again, someone get that to Fox News for their "good news in Iraq report."

The questions don't stop there. In his piece Christian Killers? Dr. Laurence Vance states: "Christians who support or remain silent about Bush's 'war against terrorism' are terribly inconsistent. If the State were to say: 'Here Christian, put on this uniform, take this gun, go to your hometown, and kill your father,'
Christians would recoil in horror and refuse to obey the State. But if the State were to say: 'Here Christian, put on this uniform, take this gun, go to Iraq, and kill someone else's father,' I am afraid that many Christians would reply, 'When does my plane leave?'" (p. 355).

This echoes a quote that Dr. Peter Chojnowski uses in his article Is Conscientious Objection a Moral Option? "...They hold and practice the doctrine that the state, being an end in itself, can do no wrong; that the right to declare and carry on war comes implicitly from the fact of war itself; that it is not necessary to attempt to justify it by the ordinary maxims of morality - it is its own justification" (p. 371).

Indeed, Dr. Chojnowski reminds us: "What we must remember here is that it is not only man who is directed towards a specific end. Institutions, along with all socio-political structures and actions, are also directed towards a specific end as determined by their unique place in the Divine Plan" (p. 367).

Part VI: Speaking with Authority: The True Just-War Doctrine as a Light for Our Time

This part of the book, properly speaking its Appendices, is what lingers with you after you leave this work. In particular, an excerpt from Romano Amerio's monumental classic Iota Unum, and an essay by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Yet too, Fr. Franziskus Stratmann's article, written in between the World Wars, has a particularly (perhaps unintentionally) plaintive paragraph on how WWI happened:

In the late war, each State defended or pretended to defend some sacred ideal: Serbia defended herself against absorption by Austria; Russia and Montenegro defended the peoples of their stock; Austria her "Prestige" in the Balkans; Germany her fidelity to her "Nibelungen ideal (Nibelungetreue); England defended the rights of neutrals; Japan the Mongolian interest; France fought to free the annexed provinces from the oppressor; Italy to release her subjected Italian brethren; Armenia for the democratic ideal. Belgium alone fought in self-defence. What Turkey fought for is not apparent, but seemingly she was dragged unwillingly into the fray. These attempts to justify the war by proving it to be purely defensive are so far a move in the right direction in that they show, compared to previous occasions, an increased feeling of the moral responsibility which rests on all Governments in declaring war (p. 393).

Ottaviani's and Amerio's voices, both from the grave, are haunting.

From the end of Cardinal Ottaviani's Modern War is to be Absolutely Forbidden:

Moreover, should the representatives of any people (or the people themselves) ever have conclusive indications that their rulers are on the point of undertaking a war in which nothing but blood and ruin will be the lot of the nation, they may and should take just measures to overthrow that regime (p. 424, emphasis in original).

And from Amerio:

...Circumstances can change the moral evaluation that one must make of war, and can render illicit things which were licit and good in the different circumstances of times past (p. 427).

and

Talleyrand's maxim to the effect that states ought to do as much good as they can in peace and as little evil as they can in war, is overturned by modern war, which turns society into an engine of destruction (p. 431).

Flyboys

Title: Flyboys
Director: Tony Bill
Studio: MGM
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Excellence: 3 Stars
RadTrad Review Rating: MAT
Why? Violence inappropriate for a seven-year-old
Summary in a Sentence: Several young Americans make their way to France to become fighter pilots, and mature as they are immersed in the reality of warfare.



Reviewed by Eric Jones



Ordinarily, as a Traditional Catholic, I do not often, as they say, "go in" for modern movies. I am sure my readers are well-acquainted with their usual quality, and my reticence in this department needs no in-depth explanation. However, a young lady who shares my views on these things recently suggested that I see the movie "Flyboys," and after she told me what it was about, I acquiesced, and dutifully made my pilgrimage to Blockbuster. Afterwards, I can say with conviction that I am glad I did; Flyboys is, overall, a decent bit of entertainment, worth seeing, in my opinion.

The movie's plot is set in the First World War, and concerns the famous French air unit, the Lafayette Escadrille, which was composed entirely of American pilots who volunteered to fight, prior to the US entry into the war in 1917. This would seem to be a decent subject for an action movie, and indeed, the viewer is not let down in this department. The CGI graphics are very good, and the movie is a delight to the eyes.

Unfortunately, however, there were numerous historical inaccuracies, which is really too bad, given how much money is spent on a modern film -it takes away from it when many of the little details are wrong. For example, in the movie (doubtless for convenience, so the viewer will be able to effortlessly distinguish friend from foe onscreen) every single German plane is portrayed as a Fokker triplane. 99% of them are painted bright red. While the "Red Baron" made this combination famous, it was by no means typical. Furthermore, the Balkan Cross, as painted on the German planes in the film, was not actually introduced until some two years after the movie's setting; if the filmmakers had desired correctness, they should have used the Maltese Cross instead. Errors of this kind are not, sadly, linited to paint schemes. The "pilot training" which constitutes the first part of the movie is an important part of the storyline, but is woefully untrue-to-life. Virtually all its details are incorrect, some even laughable (such as pilots' purported ability imparted by training to wingwalk in flight.) When Captain Thenault told the aspiring pilots that their scarves were "to keep your neck from chafing as you search the skies for enemy aircraft," I nearly burst out laughing. (The actual purpose of the pilot's scarf was both to protect against the temperatures and to keep the face and neck free of fuel which would often blow back from the engine.) However, it is to be noted that these little issues do not significantly detract from the film and the plot. They're merely annoying to those who might ordinarily watch a movie of this kind, and we wish the filmmaker had taken the time to get them right.

What should a Catholic think of this movie? There is a romance, and that usually constitutes a warning bell, in our time. However, there are no scenes which necessitate the use of the fast-forward feature, and no scenes where such intimacy is implied, either. The steamiest Flyboys ever gets is a passionate kiss in a couple of places. This does convey a bad message, but for a 21st century Hollywood flick, I don't think we have much to complain about. At one point, two pilots find themselves in a bordello, after they crash-land nearby, but nothing bad happens. Finally, though I remember very few, if any instances of filthy language, at one point there is a very brief, rather inappropriate toast in a bar. Religion plays only an incidental part in the film, notably as the distinguishing feature of one of the pilots, who is apparently a staunch protestant. His memorable quote is "I keep my bible close," and he sings "Onward Christian Soldiers" as he shoots down Germans. We do, however, see a Catholic priest, vested in stole and biretta, blessing the planes before combat, which is a nice touch.

Near the end of the film, when a main character has been killed, his farewell letter states that he "has no religion and does not care for any service." This is, of course, too bad, and his portrayed dissolute lifestyle compliments this letter in setting a bad example. It should be noted, though, that this part of his letter was actually "borrowed" from the authentic farewell letter of Lafayette Escadrille flyer James McConnell, who, before his death, penned the short volume "Flying for France." This volume, though little-known today, is thought by some to have been very important in raising American public opinion to favor Wilson's involvement in World War One. Anyone who wishes to learn about the history behind the Lafayette Escadrille should read McConnell's book, but if one is merely looking for an enjoyable action movie, very clean by modern standards, Flyboys does not disappoint.

The Great Mr. Handel

Title: The Great Mr. Handel, 1942
Director: Norman Walker
Studio: (UK film)
MPAA Rating: Not rated
TradReviews Rating: FAM7
Why: Children younger than 7 might not be able to understand the complexity of the situation portrayed in the story, which is rather melancholy.
Excellence: 3 stars

Reviewed by ThereseRose morning

Summary in a sentence: A story detailing the trials and tribulations of a great man of music who was very disliked by the rich and influential; a dislike having nothing to do with his amount of character or manners, but just because the nobility of England at the time was greatly prejudiced, as well as being too busy entertaining and spoiling themselves while people around them starved to death to appreciate the really good things in life.

While looking for the background information on this older film, I found quite a lot of reviews saying things like "boring", "depressing", "slow" "Handel was a cheerful fellow and they ruined him", etc. What these people didn't understand about the film, was that it isn't a history of Handel's whole life, it is a small bit of his life detailing the sorrows and struggles he went through during the time in between when he was rich, famous, loved by the King, and his rise to new heights after completing his most famous work, The Messiah. In that between time, he was most unloved, made fun of, caricaturized, his music was shunned, and he was treated as if he had never been born.

What the film shows you, is that character and perseverance, as well as sticking to your ideals, is what has made all great men great ... and in the end, Handel finds too, that seeking all the glory for God and not himself, is the real goal, and the best one.

Handel was German born, and immigrated to England. By an act of parliament, he was made a British citizen, and in one witty comeback to a pompous British aristocrat, who doesn't think Handel should be so well loved by the King for his music because he's not "British", Handel tells him,

"If anything, I should be considered more British than you, for you are British because of no act of your own, but I am British by an act of Parliament."

A bit eccentric, as most artists are, he was very detail conscious, and wanted to make everything he wrote as perfect as it could be, so that people could listen to something beautiful! You can imagine the frustrations someone like that could go through when little things were off balance, and Handel would throw little tizzy fits when people didn't do things exactly like he had written them. There is a rather silly scene in the movie (the acting isn't the best/best, but it's still okay), where Handel threatens to throw his soloist out the window for disagreeing with him about how he wrote a piece of music, which pretty much sums his little eccentricities up. But even though he had this little flaw, he was beloved by all who worked with him, because he was honest, and truly did his best to be a fine gentleman. His hired musicians knew they would be paid, even though Handel had no money, because when he said he would do something, he would do it.

His depth of character gets him into trouble with the snooty upper class a lot, one of the main reasons he is so disliked. At one point, the King's foppish son loudly carries on about the attractiveness of the soloist during one of Handel's performances, talking about her as if she were an animal at auction, so Handel promptly interrupts the performance, exposing the young man's commentary, which forces of him a less than dignified retreat. All of the people who were just there because the prince was there, leave also, but Handel is happy because the people who stay are the ones who really want to hear his music, which is why he wrote it ... so that people could enjoy a little bit of heaven. This incident however trickles down throughout the rest of his career, and many of the nobility refuse to listen to anything written by him from then on, making the local music houses stop performing his works, and therefore putting Handel out of business financially.

It is in down in these dumps, close to despair, that Handel finally finds the real reason he wants to write music. At the end of a long illness, Handel turns to God to help him, and he is promptly answered with the delivery of the score to the Messiah, which hits him like a ton of bricks. The best part of this movie, is this rather long, drawn out phase, where he is locked in his office, writing, being inspired by visualizing the Biblical scenes contained in the Messiah, and you almost feel like you're him ... hopefulness is rising in your heart, you're amazed at the music that just comes to you when you reflect on the Bible passages, you're tired and weak after having been through so much, but you just can't stop writing, not even long enough for a bite of food!

There were parts that were definitely silly, the acting sometimes left much to be desired, and yes, it is rather slow at times, but I think that if you can sit back and just enjoy a film for what it is, not comparing it to things you've already seen, I think you can really get into the atmosphere the director tried to create. Handel is depicted in a most gentle manner, like a joyful and dignified gentleman. Sadness, almost despair floods life, but when suddenly a work for God is undertaken, new life and hope springs from the soul.