Chateau Lloyd

I recently finished Graham Greene's The Quiet American and was not sure what to expect.  It's odd to do a review of a book written in 1955, but I think the political and religious environment has shifted considerably from when it was written.

In any event, I found Greene's writing to be somewhat cynical, with a good element of English contempt for Americal moralizing, but nothing directed at the titular "American" was undeserved.  

It is true that a man like Alden Pyle is likely obsolete.  It is doubtful that one will find Yankee New Englander so steeped in American Protestantism and patriotism at this late date.  That archetype has crumbled, but the Ivy League is still producing ideological fanatics, although they are more often against their nation than for it.

Fowler - the jaded English reporter - is still out there, though fading from the scene.  Most journalists are airheads who are spoon-fed stories by various governments and NGOs.  Not many want to see 'the front' or want to break open the truth about whatever is happening.  Mostly they want clickbait and their own million subscriber podcast.  But I digress.

As to the core question, I think Graham told a truth as he understood it about the early phase of the Vietnam War.  Southeast Asia was in turmoil and no one had particularly clean hands.  It was all well and good to be anti-colonial, but that road ultimately led to the Killing Fields of Cambodia.  Indeed, during the 1980s there was quite a lot of discussion about the ethical tradeoffs of statecraft, from The Killing Fields to The Year of Living Dangerously.

What sets The Quiet American apart is Greene's interest in the people rather than the policies.  A recurring theme of his work is people struggling to find God, and that is very much in evidence here.

Like all of his work it is engaging and absorbing, a true page-turner.  The description is vivid and evocative, and that makes the moral debates of the time seem fresh rather than lost to the past.

Indeed, as I remarked above, Alden Pyle as a type has passed, but one need only look at the moralizing of the Ukraine War protagonists, and their completely callous attitude to the loss of human life to see that their twisted mentality lives on.

Whenever overt Christian themes are included in popular entertainment, there is always a risk that the project will veer into heresy if not blasphemy.  The key question is whether it is intentional, and how damaging it actually is.  Minor simplifications for kids' programs are fine, because the point is to give them wholesome entertainment that makes them think more about God and their faith.

I've watched a couple of seasons of The Chosen and while it was bumpy at first, I liked it.  I'm holding off on watching the rest until the series ends, which just seems prudent, however I'm fine with people who are watching it in 'real time.'

I haven't seen new animated The Greatest Story Ever Told, but it gets high marks and did well.  I see the success and popular impact of both of these films to be a victory for Christianity and a welcome change to popular entertainment and our culture.

This is why I think German Saucedo's column in First Things is way off base.  It's one thing to pick apart various elements of theology or think that production quality in a given show is poor, but his larger point seems to be that we shouldn't have Christian-themed entertainment at all, effectively ceding control of the culture to degenerate secular materialists.

Some would argue that, whatever their imperfections, these shows and movies are valuable tools of evangelization. It is said that one-third of The Chosen’s 280 million viewers are not religious. But I would argue that the good they do in introducing non-believers to the gospel is outweighed by their distortions of the gospel narrative. Reading the Gospels is not—should not be—easy or entertaining. The sobriety of the written word challenges us. For the evangelists set down no fluff, only what God wanted us to hear. [emphasis added]

This whole line of argument begs the question - how does one get children (or the larger public) interested in reading the Gospels in the first place?  Maybe by telling their story in an easy to understand format?

I've touched on this before - American culture was far healthier when big-screen epics based on the Bible were regular features.  Movies like Ben Hur and Quo Vadis helped underpin the Christian foundations of the nation.

Saucedo is presumably a Catholic, but he's making essentially the old Protestant argument that icons and religious art are a waste of money and the funds should instead be used for the poor.  Instead of an elaborate cathedral, people should just pray in a room with four bare white walls and a cross.

But what about religious artists?  What about people who want to create religious stories and share their faith?  I don't think it enters Saucedo's thought that there are people who want to make music and movies to glorify God, and that without that, they would not be fulfilled or following their vocation.

Over the weekend someone recommended this lengthy essay about mental illness in general and delusional behavior in particular.  It is a long, repetitive read, and the summary version is that an increasing number of people seem unable to deal with reality and resort to creating delusions as a way of avoiding reality.

I think there are two reasons why this kind of behavior is even possible.

The first, and probably the easiest to fix, is that we live in a secular society driven by materialism.  As the pandemic lockdown showed, most of our elites regard religion as a secondary thing rather than a first thing.  Religion to them is a form of self-help, fine so long as it doesn't challenge the secular materialist worldview.

This is why the UK feels it appropriate to ban prayers near abortion mills.  Prayer is not a human right, it's a thing you are permitted to do only if no one else objects (unless you are Muslim, of course).

Restoring religion - and in particular, Christianity - to its rightful place at the center of Western civilization has seemed like an insurmountable challenge, but we are now seeing a wide-ranging revival, in part because Christians have ceased trying to be "nice" and are returning to moral language and moral condemnation.

Surging Bible sales are another indicator that people feel the "faith of things" has failed.

To bow before God is to be humble and remain grounded.  Christianity teaches a rational and ordered worldview, and also that good people can - through no fault of their own - experience bad things.  The key is to understand why, to learn from them, and continue in the faith.  I will say that I am having the worst Lent of my life.  Between sickness, a painful medical procedure with lengthy recovery, and the normal fasting, I'm not having a good time.

On the other hand, I'm having a great time, because this is some serious Lenten suffering.  What a blessing to offer up all this misery to God!  I have taken so much for granted and as I heal, I rejoice in so many small things.

This leads us to the larger problem, which is that society is increasingly alienated from actual work, and our connection with the natural world has been severed.  The woman in the essay is a programmer, which means her labor has no direct connection to her pay.  She pushes buttons and gets (digital) money in return.

This is a far cry from tilling a garden and watching it crow, or raising livestock.  All of her relationships are built around an artificial Californian society that was built in a couple of generations without any roots or continuity.  It is no accident that Hollywood dwells so much on suburban alienation.  Few, if any, have the sense of rootedness one finds in middle America.

As the lockdowns slowly lifted, I went to northern Michigan and sat on the beach at Rogers City, watching waves come crashing into the shore via a strong north wind.  I sat there for about an hour, watching the sun set over a vast sky and darkening horizon.  The enormity of it all exposed how futile it is think that we are worth of CIA surveillance or trans-national hit teams.  In the greater scheme, we are as insignificant as one of the rocks on the shore, and as fleeting as a frothing wave.

When you are in the world, interacting with it, you become aware of how many other stories are taking place around you.  The prayer intentions at Mass sketch out other hardships, deaths and illnesses.  The baptismal announcements and weddings also point to new things emerging, seemingly spontaneously.  You didn't will them, had nothing to do with them, yet there they are.

For a time, people are able to function in the abstract, God-free environment, usually because they are preoccupied with building up their wealth and status.  They are worshipping the god of the two-car garage, and it can be quite fulfilling at first.

But after a while, the pursuit of things and status rings hollow and is no longer fulfilling.  Without any spiritual formation or connection to tangible things, the mind will start roving, seeking meaning in any way it can.

The author stresses that people can't be forced out of a delusion, but there are two answers to this.  The first is that one can't replace something with nothing - you cannot take away one vision without another to replace it.

In addition, modern American society has uniquely evolved to cater to these people through cheap transportation, easy movement, and our boundless affluence.  Whether one mooches off of wealthy relatives or exploits public assistance, it's remarkably easy to start over, and repeat the cycle without learning anything, and the essay shows this quite clearly.

The American obsession with individualism - even when it is deeply harmful - buttresses this.  We used to lock people up for their own good, but that became viewed as totalitarian.  It is now seen as better to tolerate sidewalk encampments than put people in supervised living where they do various chores to renew their understanding how work is connected to fulfilment, and labor can have a tangible, immediate result.

Society itself now labors under several delusions regarding fantastic Russian conspiracies, hidden Nazi cells, and the notion than men can actually become women.  These beliefs substitute for actual faith, and lead to still further fantastic notions that allowing one's lawn to grow wild in May will please Gaia or something.

And yes, there is a spiritual aspect to this as well, because demons love souls in torment.  The wrath and energy that comes with these delusions helps sustain them.  It is like a drug, and a great many people are addicted to it.

The upshot is that these people don't have a single thing go wrong, and many of them have multiple factors that drive them into insanity and keep them there.  Reason is useless, and in many cases I think an exorcist is more effective than a therapist.

Val Kilmer has died, and it is not particularly surprising.  The image he put forth in his documentary a few years ago was not one of a healthy man.

In many ways, his appearance in Top Gun: Maverick was something of a final sendoff, and the scene of his final farewell to Tom Cruise's character is deeply moving, in large part because the vocal limitations on Kilmer were real.

In many ways, the end of "Iceman" paralleled that of the actor who played him.  In his prime, Kilmer was outstanding, but more than anything else, his illness destroyed any attempt at him making a comeback.  The contrast between Kilmer and Cruise was remarkable, and again, added to the gravity of the moment.

As I wrote before, Kilmer professed to be a Christian, but it was not much in evidence, even in the documentary.

Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that he died in Christ and that he and his family find some measure of comfort through that.

It has taken a long time, but my DVD collection has finally reached maturity.  It is at the point where I have films from multiple genres, multiple periods and while there is still some room for expansion, I'm able to find something to watch without much effort.

Ironically, it is far more comprehensive than streaming services like Amazon, since these days they have a few classics and mostly box office failures and second-rate streaming shows.

Building any collection can be a painstaking process, and it is easy to veer into undisciplined or speculative buying.  I've avoided that for the most part, instead going with known quantities or - when I do take a risk - ensure that it's one with more upside than downside.  Storage is becoming an issue, but DVDs are still quite compact, easier to store than books or VHS tapes.  An entire season of a show takes up less space than a single VHS cassette, which is helpful for those of us who go that way.

Most modern entertainment is garbage warmed over, but there are faint signs that there is talent within Hollywood that could re-emerge if conditions permitted.  It is not that long ago that shows like Justified were on the air, and the production teams are surely still capable of turning out quality work.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying the ability to sift through an embarrassment of cinematic riches whenever I please.

Back in 2013, we still had a dish, and watched lots of the various streaming channels.  That was supposed the new Golden Age of television, thanks to programs like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Justified, and so on.  While Hollywood was busy getting woke, the streaming services and networks were able to produce long-form dramas without being bound by a 22-episode season.  What was more, it was easy to catch up on a sleeper hit, and when each season was released, one could binge-watch it in a week or so.

That time has passed, but it produced a number of shows available on DVD, and one of them we liked was The White Queen, a series based on Philippa Gregory's historical novels of the Wars of the Roses.

The concept of telling history through the eyes of women is nothing new, and goes back to the beginning of writing.  For every story of a king or warrior, there are parallel tales of the women who influenced them.  Feminists like to pretend that The Patriarchy silenced women, but most have never bothered to read the Bible or Homer or any other ancient work.

Anyhow, the story of Elizabeth Woodville lends itself to this approach and it is one of those remarkable historic events that turns everything upside down.  For those who don't know, one day King Edward IV is riding along after having won a battle  and sees a beautiful young woman waiting by the side of the road for news of her husband, who was a knight on the side opposing Edward (the Lancastrians).  She learns she is a widow, but the King offers to "comfort" her.  Remarkably she refuses his advances and insists that he marry if he wants to get it on.  So he does.

This completely upends the power structure in England, because it is bitterly divided between competing factions vying for control, and Edward was supposed to make a political marriage, not a romantic one.  Anyhow, drama ensues.

This is not a lavishly produced show, but it does a good job of conveying the period, and there's some battles and sword fights because leading characters did die in the conflict.  In fact, the Wars of the Roses were something of a sideshow for the commoners but a bloodbath for the nobility, and many royal lines were 'pruned' from the family tree.

The show has excellent performances, and follows the history reasonably well, but does veer into the all-to-familiar conventions of showing secret witchcraft influencing events and indulging in pretty graphic sex scenes, which at this point my life I find really boring.  It get it, they had sex.  Why is this is any way interesting to watch?

If one knows the history well, it will be maddening at times, but it does try to keep things reasonably close to accurate, and the various personalities are presenting in interesting ways.  The dynamics of the York brothers is well done, as is the way the various factions maneuver for control. 

I will particularly single out Amanda Hale's Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, who comes across as an absolute fanatic.  Given that her son was something like 10th in the line of succession when the story starts, I'm not sure I buy the notion that she thought he could somehow overcome Henry VI, his son Edward, the three York brothers (Edward, Richard and George), and their sons and potential sons.  It think in reality it was more of a "Well, who is left?  You're up, Henry!"

Anyway, I've watched it through a couple of times, and it still holds up well.  Folks who like Game of Thrones will particularly enjoy this, in large part because the ending makes sense.  Indeed, once you see it, you'll realize who derivative George R.R. Martin's work was.

I recently watched Tomorrow Never Dies for the first time since seeing it in the theater.  I had a blast, really enjoyed the movie, but part of that was that it seems so absurd and campy.  The 1990s were a tough era for spy movies because the ultimate showdown of the Cold War was over.  Russia lay prostrate, and who could possibly challenge the triumphant West?

The idea of a media mogul serving as an arch-villain seemed something of a stretch, but it worked, and the fact that he had a stealth catamaran (we were all about "stealth" in the 90s) and vintage-looking henchmen made for good fun.  There was also a nod to Communist China's increasing influence and importance and the naive hope that maybe China might open up more.

Pierce Brosnan is excellent, and the sequence of him driving his car from the backseat is just brilliant.  Tense, bordering on the absurd, and there are a couple of moments when he smiles to himself that almost breaks character, but doesn't because Bond would also be enjoying himself.

Jonathan Pryce's Elliott Carver was a thinly-disguised parody of Rupert Murdoch, long a conservative bugbear to the left (particularly the British left).  The notion that a private citizen should gain the ability to weaponize information against democratic government was somewhat sinister, but nothing compared to what actually happened, which is that oligarchs aligned themselves with governments to subvert democracy at the source.

Since the film came out in 1997, that's exactly what happened, with hoaxes and manipulation rapidly growing in scope and sophistication.  At this point, its pervasive, and one can only look at Carver's plot as amateurish.  Why foment a war between Communist China and Britain if you can simply make Britain into Communist China?

I think this is the only Bond movie with actual social commentary.

I'm generally accepting of most hobbies, especially collecting.  Whether postage stamps or model trains, I tend not to judge.

However, the other day I came across Adam Savage describing his prop sci-fi blaster collection and this gave me a moment of pause.  On the one hand, I am the guy who authored a lengthy series on Geek Guns, which was centered on movie prop weapons.

However, the notion behind that article was to discuss firearms rather than the qualities of fictional weapons.

Moreover, film props are - by definition - cheap, the bare minimum one can use to get by.  Molded rubber is a common material, because all it has to do is look good on the camera.  Some years ago I went to the Star Wars: The Magic of Myth prop exhibition and was amazed at how poorly made everything was.  Darth Vader's suit was kind of ratty, whip-stitched together in parts, but it didn't matter because it was so dark, the camera would never pick it up.

That's props in a nutshell - all about creating an illusion.  I can get buying an actual prop because that's a part of the movie set and its history.  Making a costume makes sense, and one would have to have a prop weapon as part of that.

But the notion of paying top dollar for an imitation of a prop seems strange to me.

Also puzzling was Savage's lack of knowledge about what he was collecting.  He mentioned one of the props from Pulp Fiction was a Star Model B pistol, and that he had to work out where to find one.  Well, they are not uncommon and go for cheap.  I know a friend who bought one not long ago for that reason.

Working firearms are of course in a completely different category in terms of function and legal status, and that also adds a bit of weirdness to the discussion as creating a prop from a functioning firearm would require its deactivation, which is odious to me, especially if it is vintage and in short supply.  Go with a foam-injected version with some gubbins!

At any rate, it is interesting to see how collector circles intersect but also diversge.

Watching Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge is something of a Valentine's Day tradition at Chateau Lloyd.  The film came out around the time we were married, is quite fun and creative, and we bought the DVD shortly after our second child was born, so there are many happy memories associated with it.

As the years have passed, however, we've watched it with a more critical eye, noticing various gaffes but also subtleties that we overlooked.

There are some overt references to faith, usually in a humorous way, such as the sendup of "Like a Virgin," however there are some deeper elements in play.

Foremost among them is the salvation message for Satine and of course Christian (what's in a name!).  On the face of it, there isn't much of a story, because Satine is a prostitute, and even though she may care for Christian, one more (final) customer should be no big deal.  But, as "Like a Virgin" illustrates, she now sees the sinfulness of what she did.  She longs to be faithful to him, and yes, part of this is about control.

But it is also a rejection of the lie that sexual promiscuity is liberating.  The "Lady Marmalade" number at the beginning of the film glamorizes prostitution, with the revised lyrics emphasizing its benefits.

Satine's preference for a monogamous relationship can also be contrasted with "Roxanne," in which the titular character is not willing to give up her trade.

The point is that even generally secular films used to have conventionally religious morality in them.  It is difficult to imagine such a film now because Hollywood is determined to push both sexual deviancy and non-monogamy.  Two decades ago, it was still possible to view homosexuality (which is briefly shown or touched upon several times in the film) as deviant and decadent.  

Is Moulin Rouge as Catholic as The Crow?  Of course not.  But in addition to the romance arc, there is also the sense of guardianship over Satine, evidenced by Chocolat repeated coming to her aid in the manner of a guardian angel.

Having chugged through the James Bond franchise over the last few weeks, I feel comfortable saying that Pierce Brosnan has a credible claim at being the best 007.

Timothy Dalton made a good tough guy, but he was almost completely lacking in charm.  Brosnan is awash in charm, and carries himself with a breezy reserve that hints at mystery, yet he can also pull of a cold rage.  The tank chase scene in Goldeneye derives much of its entertainment power in Brosnan's amused yet serious expression.  He's serious, but also knows that the whole scenario if absurd.  That kind of perspective is what makes him a credible secret agent.

That's particularly important because Bond requires the actor to not only be a good liar, but allow him to convey he knows he is lying and doesn't care.

As for the plot of Goldeneye, it is very much rooted in its time, which makes it one of the best of the series.  The bitter holdouts of the Soviet regime, Western retrenchment and even the feminization of the intelligence service makes it one of the more compelling stories.