The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean

We shall end August with another John Milius effort - this time his collaboration with legendary director John Huston (The Maltese Falcon, Treasure of the Sierra Madre). The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) is a colorful, episodic revisionist Western that has the makings of a great film but can't quite achieve take-off vleocity. Perhaps it's the director, the script, the plodding pace, the nonexistent plot full of digressions, but the movie just isn't the sum of its parts. Too bad, as it has the makings of a great Western; all it needed was better execution.

Roy Bean (Paul Newman) is a two-bit outlaw who arrives at a West Texas outpost, narrowly escaping death at the hands of some sneak thieves. Bean cuts a swath through the local gutter trash, shacks up with a pretty Mexican girl (Victoria Principal) and establishes himself as the "Law West of the Pacos" - a self-appointed judge who rules over a patch of West Texas with a huge arsenal, a lawbook, a gang of crooks-turned-lawmen, and his bizarre love for New York actress Lillie Langtry (Ava Gardner). Bean and his men effectively dispense the Judge's peculiar brand of justice and build up the town of Vinegaroon, but sleazy Eastern businessman Frank Gass (Roddy McDowell) arrives and slowly undermines Bean's authority, ultimatley booting him out. Twenty years later, Gass has turned the town into a den of depravity and corruption - and Bean, his old gang and daughter Rose (Jacqueline Bisset) strap on six guns to beat Gass at his own game.

Reading over the plot, and looking at the talent involved, one would think the success of Roy Bean is all but assured. Indeed, in parts, the film is brilliant. There are individual set pieces that soar - Bean's introductory scene, his encounter with a wandering preacher (Anthony Perkins), the summary execution of a vagrant (Neil Summers) who shoots a poster of "Miss Lillie", a showdown with psychotic outlaw Bad Bob (Stacey Keach). Milius's dialogue, as with the far-better Jeremiah Johnson, is appropriately rustic and colorful, with lots of great quotes; the art direction is fine and Maurice Jarre contributes a lively score. The movie's atmosphere is playfully irreverent, sending up many a Western cliche, and the film is certainly fun up to a point. However, despite all of its positive attributes, the movie repeatedly drops the ball.

The movie's biggest failings are that it can't decide on its tone, and the narrative is lost in a series of needless digressions. It has the look and feel of a gritty Peckinpah or Leone Western, but incorporates the cutesiness of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - and ultimately it fails as both. An episodic plot would be fine but the film doesn't pull it off; there's no real rhythym, rhyme or reason for development of scenes. The scenes with Bean's pet bear are just silly - particularly an asinine musical interlude reminiscent of Butch Cassidy. The bit with Bad Bob is amusing but arrives curiously late in the film, and nothing comes of it. The would-be mythic ending, with Bean and his old colleagues smiting crooked modern business, is a good (if obvious) idea that falters in execution. And the coda with Lillie visiting Bean's old place is just lame. The good parts of the film occur moment by moment, and never amount to a great film.

Paul Newman carries the film, giving a strong, pitch-perfect performance as Bean, the gruff, vulgar and violent yet curiously romantic man. The distinguished supporting cast is mostly reduced to cameos, some effective, some not. Victoria Principal is lovely and vibrant as Bean's love interest. Roddy McDowell seems out of place but comes off well-enough as the sleazy lawyer who undermines Bean's power; coming off less well is Jacqueline Bisset as Bean's daughter. Ava Gardner's cameo is quite a let-down after a movie's worth of build-up; Stacey Keach has fun as an albino gunslinger but he's in the movie for all of two minutes. Anthony Perkins gives a memorable one-scene performance as an incredulous preacher who stumbles across Bean. Director Huston comes off well in a small but colorful role, but Tab Hunter and Anthony Zerbe are wasted. Better are the bit actors like Roy Jenson, Steve Kanaly, Matt Clark, Bill McKinney and Ned Beatty, who make an impression despite remaining in the background for most of the film. Like Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (which it strongly resembles in its langourous pace and episodic, scattershot narrative) it enlists a top and gives them next to nothing to do.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean is a flawed, sporadically-interesting movie that never quite congeals into a coherent whole. There are great scenes and ideas that stand out on their own, but Huston and Milius can't quite make it work.

Inglourious Basterds

My first theatrical viewing (and review) as a Pitt junior is the much-hyped Quentin Tarantino opus, Inglourious Basterds. After years of being in development hell, Tarantino finally brought his long-cherished WWII project to the big screen. I was extremely leery going in, especially after reading the less-than-great screenplay, and most of my fears were realized. Inglourious Basterds is entertaining enough on a dumb surface level, but it's a mere trifle compared to Tarantino's best works, due to a schizophrenic tone, off-putting sadism, incoherent narrative and nonexistant characters, and surprisingly for Tarantino, a poorly-conceived, if not outright shoddy script.

"Once Upon a Time in Nazi-occupied France", Jewish girl Shoshanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent) sees her family slaughtered by SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), known as "the Jew Hunter", narrowly escaping death. She grows up in Paris under an assumed name, helping to run a cinema which hosts German soldiers and high officials. When she learns that Nazi bigwigs Hitler (Martin Wuttke) and Goebbels (Sylvester Groth) are planning the premier of Goebbels' latest propaganda film in her theater, she begins planning an impossibly-intricate revenge plot. Her plans intertwine with those of a gang of Jewish commandos led by sadistic American Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who have their own plans to assassinate the Fuhrer and his cohorts. Needless to say, it leads to an explosive climax.

Inglourious Basterds is a fundamentally flawed movie in many regards, most of which stems from the awful, disjointed screenplay. Tarantino seems to be making two films; an homage to old-fashioned men-on-a-mission films like The Dirty Dozen and The Guns of Navarone, and a fairly original revenge story which pseudo-cleverly takes advantage of Tarantino's considerable film-buffery. Thus, the film's tone lurches from serious to goofy to fun to gruesomely sadistic on a scene-to-scene basis. I applaud Tarantino for his ambition - the scope and scale of this movie is far beyond anything he's attempted to date - but I can't quite credit him since neither half works very well.

The film suffers in pretty much every way. The excellent opening, with Landa interrogating a French farmer (Denis Menochet) hiding Shoshanna's family (shades of Lee Van Cleef in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), works perfectly to establish mood and suspense, but other set-pieces don't fare so well, particularly the far-too-long pub scene where British special agent (Michael Fassbender) and the Basterds attempt to contact Nazi film star/double agent Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger). Tarantino's dialogue isn't even good enough to make these scenes worth all the absurd build-up; the movie lurches from long-winded set piece to set piece with little apparent drive or reason. Character development is virtually nonexistant; only Shoshanna as any real motivation and it is simplistic as possible; the Basterds are sadistic nuts who like to kill and mutilate Nazis. Colonel Landa is all over the place, going from a cultured but sadistic Nazi to a self-serving traitor with seemingly no motivation. Michael Fassbender's film critic-turned-MI5 Agent is completely superfluous. In attempting to create a film of epic complexity, Tarantino simply creates a confused, underdeveloped, unfocused muddle. To be kind, I suppose one can say the film is never quite boring, but the inconsistency of tone and story prevents the movie from developing in any meaningful fashion.

I'm not ordinarily one to complain about violence, but something really rubs me the wrong way about the film's gleeful sadism. I should have been cheering at the climax, but the sheer nastiness of it put me off. The movie's violence is too sadistic and gruesome to work as goofy entertainment but too light-hearted and silly to work on a dramatic level; indeed, in this regard it comes close to cast member Eli Roth's shock gore films, spilling blood in gruesome ways to appease the bloodthirsty groundlings. If it weren't for Tarantino's history of creating strong female characters (Jackie Brown, Kill Bill) I might raise the misogyny flag for the particularly grisly fate of Bridget, but I suppose I should keep my middle-class white male mouth shut. In a film that knew what it was doing, I suppose these complaints wouldn't exist, but again, the movie is let down by its schizophrenic, confused tone.

On the plus side, Tarantino's direction is far more ambitious and impressive than his previous works. He shows a keen visual sense which works wonderfully, with gorgeous art direction, perfect use of camera and cinematography, and a general mastery of things technical. All of these are the sign of a great director who has matured impressively over the years; too bad it seems to have been at the expense of his once-brilliant writing skills. His use of "found" music is clever and often inspired (I loved the use of Morricone's Battle of Algiers theme in particular), with only a few odd blips - most notably the bizarre use of David Bowie's Putting Out Fire (from Cat People). On a technical score, there are no complaints.

The cast is equally schizophrenic. Melanie Laurent is disappointingly one-note as Shoshanna, but I supsect the script is the culprit for giving her a weak character. Brad Pitt is beyond awful, playing some hideous caricature redneck whose only good moments are his hilariously bad attempts at Italian. Eli Roth and Mike Myers (!) are equally obnoxious and out of place, but fortunately their roles are small. Christoph Waltz has gotten early Oscar buzz for his portrayal of Colonel Landa, and with good reason; his character is all over the place but Waltz manages to make Landa a menacing villain. Michael Fassbender, Daniel Bruhl, Til Schweiger and August Diehl do fine supporting work, but Martin Wuttke and Sylvestor Groth are predictably caricatured as Hitler and Goebbels. The real surprise of the film is Diane Kruger, the strikingly beautiful but minimally talented star of National Treasure and Troy; she does a marvelous job with what's basically an extended cameo, and one wishes more had been done with this potentially fascinating character. It's nice to see Christian Berkel (Valkyrie) and Rod Taylor (The Birds) in blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos, but it would have been nicer still if they'd had anything substantial to do. Tarantino vets Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel have pointless voice-over cameos that add nothing to the film.

I guess if you don't have any expectations from the film beyond seeing lots of Nazis die in gruesome ways, Inglourious Basterds delivers. Although it has its share of virtues, Basterds isn't a film I'm likely to come back to. If Tarantino had focused on either story individually - the Dirty Dozen homage or the Jewish girl's revenge - he could well have made a great film. By combining the two story lines into a single film, he creates a bloated, unfocused, occasionally entertaining but mostly disappointing work.

£1,500 and counting!

I can confirm that St Mary Magdalen's has raised over £1,500 for the Restoration Fund! Thanks be to God! Get in! Thanks be to God also for all who volunteered to support our beloved parish, to those who donated goods and those who bought stuff.

An Agnostic, an Anglican, a Pentecostal and a Catholic Walk into a Bar...

...Barman says, "What'll you be having?" The agnostic says, "Give me a moment, I'm not quite sure." The Anglican says, "Can I have a pint of shandy? I can't take the strong stuff, I like it watered down a lot!" The Pentecostal says, "Give me a spirit! Any spirit!" The barman turns to the Catholic and asks, "And what'll you be having?" The Catholic replies, "Probably a very, very long evening."

The Windmill is the pub to be seen if you are a St Mary Magdalen parishioner since we usually go over there after Mass on Sunday and have very loud discussions on the Catholic Faith, making several people around us feel mildly uncomfortable or bewildered. I met an Anglican friend in there last night for a drink and a chat. I then went outside for a cigarette and met a Pentecostal lady and a 33-year-old man who heard the Pentecostal lady and I singing a couple of Smith's songs and who decided to join us inside...for what turned into a 'religious debate.'

Largely, the agnostic chap was the one doing the questioning and the answers were really as much as one would expect. The Anglican didn't really say very much at all, the Pentecostal lady wanted to talk about the Bible and her experiences of the Holy Spirit or more specifically, the 'power of the Holy Spirit,' eventually making it appear that the Holy Spirit is a force which quite literally possesses your physical body and does strange things to it, and then there was the Catholic, that's me, who talked about the formation of the early Church and the Holy Faith being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, how the Church was built by Our Lord on the Rock of St Peter and how even St Paul warned the Early Church against heresy and schism.

What was interesting was that the agnostic chap was very interested in the different views and was, I think, searching, like we all are, for answers. It turned out that he had experienced a very religious upbringing by parents in the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, and had experienced a very 'biblical' upbringing. His parents treated him terribly as a child, abused him and his brother in particular, horrifically, had locked him in a basement and fed him through a letterbox and he escaped at the age of 16. Social services had done little to help him and his foster parents turned out to be no more caring than his parents. Later in life he was homeless for 3 years. He is now an artist working in Shoreham and given all he went through as a child and teenager now seems to be a charming, balanced and caring individual.

We talked later at the Pentecostal lady's house about the Church, God, sexuality, marriage and quite a lot really, topics which we discussed more at length at his place, since he was kind enough to allow me to crash at his pad for the night, gave me a cup of tea in the morning and paid my rail fare back to Brighton. He was married in an Anglican church but the marriage broke down after a few years. He now has a good relationship with a long term girlfriend. Today I am feeling the effect of 4 pints of Guinness, a glass of cider and two tequila's on my fragile head.

Let me finish by saying that it is in the spirit of ecumenism that I rejoice in the fact that out of the Anglican, the Pentecostal and the Catholic, the person that the agnostic found most accessible, interesting and charitable was the Catholic. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Thanks again for putting me up, Bro. God knows I needed a shower. May God bless you, keep you and Our Lady watch over you and protect you always.

Conan the Barbarian

I finally got around to watching Conan the Barbarian (1982), another John Milius epic, but one of distinctly lesser quality than the previous Milius efforts reviewed for this blog. The movie has a certain amount of undeniable camp appeal, especially for fans of Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it's not really a good movie, however many incredulous guffaws it garners.

Loosely based on the Robert E. Howard comic strip, the film tells the story of Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger at his buffest), who witnesses his parents being killed by Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones), the fierce leader of a murderous snake cult somewhere in Asia. After growing up as a slave, Conan continues to entertain thoughts of revenge, and strikes out on a quest for righteous vengeance. Together with a Mongol warrior (Gerry Lopez), a cowardly wizard (Mako) and a beautiful Amazon warrior (Sandahl Bergman), Conan seeks to defeat Doom, avenge his father, and establish himself as ruler.

John Milius's work as a director has tended to awkwardly balance the sublime and the ridiculous, the goofy and the thoughtful, with mixed results. The Wind and the Lion, despite its flaws, is undoubtedly Milius's best work, and a truly great adventure film; Dillinger, Red Dawn and Rough Riders are all good enough films that flirt with greatness but don't quite achieve it. Here, Milius and screenwriter Oliver Stone opt for all out goofiness (with a brief but childish grasp at Nietzschean ideas), and the result is a sight to behold. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly good sight, all things considered.

The film's flaws are myriad. The movie's story, for a start, is all over the place, with all sorts of bizarre digressions that make the plot impossible to follow. The characters are broadly drawn and ridiculous, which isn't a huge flaw given the source material and subject matter. The tone is largely uneven, yet its serious moments are undermined by the overwhelming, pervasive cheesiness throughout (how seriously can you take a film about men transforming into giant snakes and Arnold punching camels in the face?). The dialogue is off-the-wall bad, making the Billy Jack movies look like screenwriting idols. The film's goofy nature is almost certainly intentional, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow. If it's intentionally campy, it's still not overly entertaining. Some may find the camp goofiness more palatable, but for me it wasn't the type of camp I could really enjoy.

Milius's direction is pretty rote: he again shows a flare for action scenes and does a decent job with his cast, but the film lacks the visual interest of his better films and seems pretty paint-by-numbers in a technical manner. The movie does have some interesting movie buff moments; the story seems a curious blend of The Searchers and Milius's own Apocalypse Now script, and the film uses many familiar Almerian locations from various Spaghetti Westerns and The Wind and the Lion, but really these are of but passing interest.

Arnold Schwarzenegger achieved instant mega-stardom in his role, and while it's not his worst performance, he manages to be absolutely ridiculous. His hulking muscles don't hide a dearth of acting talent, and Arnold's facial expressions and thick-as-pancake-batter accent provide some moments of ridiculous camp humor. To Milius's credit, though, Ahnuld is supported by a coterie of very talented supporting actors: James Earl Jones gives a strong performance as Thulsa Doom, much better than the silly material deserves, and veteran character actors Max Von Sydow (The Exorcist), Mako (The Sand Pebbles) and William Smith (Red Dawn) turn in fine performances as well.

Conan the Barbarian is an utterly silly romp, and not in the good sense. It's entertaining in its own way, I suppose, and more generous reviewers may be inclined to rate it higher; it's not exactly trying to be Citizen Kane, after all. But for me, it's not worth much as a film or as entertainment, and I can't give it really high marks, merely a quizzical headshake and a befuddled utterance of "Dude..."

Quick Note

I am abolishing my rating of each film at the end of each review. I didn't actually rate any movies until this past January and I don't know why I decided to add them, but here we are. I may not go back and change already-existing reviews but I will no longer assign arbitrary number ratings in my reviews, except for special cases. Hopefully you'll be willing to read the reviews and not just skim for a rating, and that your powers of deduction are strong enough that you can intuit a sense of the film's quality on your own. I trust that my readers are that intelligent.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

The Shape of Things

Neil LaBute's The Shape of Things (2003), an adaptation of his own play, is a wonderfully savage satire of a kind rarely seen in film. At first glance a gender-reversed telling of Pygmalion, its satire is even more scathing - and more disturbing - than Shaw's classic tome, tackling issues of truth, the value of appearance, the morality of art (or lack thereof) - and the question of personal identity itself.

Nerdy post-grad student Adam (Paul Rudd) has a chance encounter at a museum with Evelyn (Rachel Weisz), a feisty art student who plans to vandalize a censored nude statue. The two start seeing each other, and Adam's friends begin noticing a change in him - first a haircut, then a new wardrobe, then significant weight loss. He attracts the attention of Jenny (Gretchen Mol), who used to have a thing for him but is now engaged to Adam's former room mate Phil (Fred Weller), leading to romantic tension between the four friends. Adam's personality transforms as well, turning him from a likeable guy into a jerk - and eventually he learns a shocking truth about Evelyn's motives that rocks him to the core.

LaBute's play is a fascinating, nasty piece of work. He certainly has an ear for banal, everyday dialogue of intelligent people; it seems both bland and biting at the same time, every other sentence a double entendre. The question of what is or isn't art is one that remains pertinent to this day; in an age where starving dogs, piles of elephant crap and crucifixes soaked in urine are acclaimed as art works, where does one draw the line between art and cruelty? Adam's improvement is wholly ornamental; by the end of the story he has become rude, self-centered, vulgar and a different person entirely - and with his relationships broken through her actions, his life is a shambles. Evelyn may be punished, but it's nigh-impossible that Adam will ever regain what he's lost at her hands. Evelyn has a point about the aesthetic shallowness of society, and its views of beauty and desirability (represented by the improbably naive Jenny), but what good could come of her work for anyone besides herself? Is the intellectual masturbation worth the human cost?

What really sells the film, though, are the characters. Evelyn is a truly hateful, despicable bad guy - essentially, a female version of Aaron Eckhardt's equally disgusting Chad from In the Company of Men. At first she seems mildy unhinged and neurotic, but quickly - her confrontational personality, and most nastily of all, her gift for manipulation. The scene where she presents her "project" is absolutely gut-wrenching and chilling. Jenny is the one truly pleasant character of the film, used as a foil for Adam's transformation; Phil is a jerk right off the bat, but at least he makes no bones about it, unlike Evelyn. Adam, of course, is the story's protagonist, and in many ways the most disturbing character. He goes from a dorky but likeable guy to a complete ass as he transforms, losing his friends, altering his appearance and becoming increasingly shallow and mean - and only after everything collapses around him does he appreciate what's happening to him.

The real unsettling part of the film is not what Evelyn does, but how easy Adam changes - and the implications that it could easily happen to any of us. Certainly a great many people of both genders have changed themselves - be it weight loss or a haircut or dumping annoying habits - at the whims of their romantic partners, perhaps not as radically as Evelyn manipulates Adam, but surely enough. As Jenny says, few people are perfectly satisfied with their partners, and the success of a relationship often depends on a person's willingness to change or subdue their individual quirks and foibles for their prospective mate. This fact makes LaBute's work hit home - the idea that, however extreme the film's presentation, it could easily happen to pretty much anyone.

The only real problem with the story is that, as attractive as one may find Rachel Weisz, Evelyn is so obviously a neurotic at best that any sane person would be leery of falling into a relationship with her, at least not without a good amount of vetting. Certainly Adam should have had red flags going up with such a hot girl hitting on a dork like him, but then sheer physical attraction overcomes a lot. I would also argue that Evelyn's project would be unlikely to receive approval from the get-go, given the huge liability she would expose herself and the school to. These are quibbles, though, and in the context of the play they don't amount to a whole lot. After all, LaBute is making a point, and lapses in credibility can be mostly overlooked for dramatic purposes.

The cast is absolutely perfect. Paul Rudd has become a big name recently (Role Models, I Love You Man), and this early part shows a great deal of talent, mixing Adam's neuroses, nerdy awkwardness and his shifting personality. Rachel Weisz seems a bit too old for her character but she carries off the role of Evelyn flawlessly, imbuing her with barely-hidden misanthropy and callous psychosis that manifests itself as obsession with art, and she certainly has the requisite sex appeal needed for the part. Fred Weller gets the weakest role - Phil is never really more than a jerky jock - but acquits himself well. Gretchen Mol is lovely and heartbreaking as Jenny, the only character who remains likeable throughout the film.

The Shape of Things is a wonderful film that's more than a bit scary in its implications. How easily could any of us be persuaded to change our personalities? LaBute's answer is: not very.

I'm in Trouble!

Someone recently told me about this. A couple of buskers 'narrowly escaped jail' for busking the same song, 'Wonderwall' by Oasis over and over again in a not very appealing manner. Not only does this story highlight the growing police state mentality regarding the issuing of Asbos, but it has huge implications for buskers all round. I hope this isn't the start of a crackdown on buskers in the same way most cities and towns have had a crackdown on beggars. I'm going to have to diversify, since I usually play 'There is A Light That Never Goes Out' and 'Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now'...repeatedly.

'Wonderwall' is, by the way, one of the most requested songs by pissed up lads on a Friday or Saturday night in the town centre. If you play it, the men gather in a huddle with their arms around each other and sing this into the streetlit night sky at a loud volume. Then, afterwards, they each usually each give you a quid because they are feeling generous and you've made their night, even if they perhaps don't always remember it in the morning. By the way, if you listen to this song very carefully, there is a hidden message contained in the lyrics...Oasis are rubbish. Also, if you play the song on vinyl backwards, quite mysteriously and inexplicably...the song sounds better.

Story courtesy of Yahoo Music

We've all surely heard "Wonderwall" by Oasis enough times to realise that Noel Gallagher has never topped it but it might be good if he did. But how many of us can actually say they break down in tears at the sound of those oh so familiar opening chords? Matt Williams does and it's not because the track reminds him of an ex girlfriend. All he can think about is a pair of "lawless" buskers who played it constantly and made his life hell.

James Ryan and Andrew Stevens have been handed Asbos by District Judge Qureshi at Birmingham Magistrates Court and banned from entering parts of Moseley and playing musical instruments in public in the area. Narrowly escaping jail, they were also banned from begging anywhere in England and Wales. The pair only knew 'Wonderwall' and George Michael's 'Faith' and that's all they played from early evening into the small hours. However, their act became notorious for noise and over-aggressive money demands, prompting countless fights, intimidating and infuriating local residents.

"I break down every time I hear ‘Wonderwall' or the intro to ‘Faith'", explained Williams, who called police 60 times to complain after being abused by Ryan and Stevens. "They would go on until four, five or six in the morning. It was horrendous. It completely affected my life. I couldn't sleep but it had a far deeper effect where all of a sudden your home isn't a place where you could feel comfortable, safe or secure", he said. After the hearing, Ryan insisted: "The whole thing's about playing a guitar, it's a joke. Most people loved it". Local David Glover agreed, saying: "An Asbo is harsh, they should have to learn new songs." Well, two years is surely enough time to nail 'Shakermaker'.

St Bartholomew's Feast Day

The murderers of St Bartholomew must have had a real skinful to do this...

I have often thought that my Patron's martyrdom was perhaps the most ghastly in the history of the Church, that of being roasted alive on an outdoor griddle, even though it he bore it with such a sense of humour. St Bartholomew, however, takes some beating. The brave and holy Apostle and Martyr, known as Nathanial, when he meets Christ and within whom Our Lord says, "is no guile", willingly accepted his horrendous death at the hands of the early persecutors of the Church. The Gospel of St John recounts that St Bartholomew recognised Our Lord as, "the Son of God, the Holy One of Israel" after Our Lord had told him that He had seen him praying beneath a fig tree. By all human accounts, he got a 'raw deal' in terms of martyrdoms, just because it would be so horrific to see someone literally slicing your skin off. Being murdered for one's faith would never be pleasant but oh my! How on earth did he bear it?! Yet, he is now crowned by his Lord in the Glory of Heaven and intercedes for us. Just thinking about his martyrdom makes me feel incredibly squemish.

The X-Piano

Yesterday I sunned it up in Brighton and swam in our refreshing English Channel, all the way out to the furthest yellow bhoy. You get a totally different perspective on Brighton when you swim out. The town actually looks prettier the further you get away from it. Preparations for the St Mary Magdalen Car Boot Sale are well underway, having been advertised in the local press listings pages, but there were plenty of opportunities yesterday to raise more awareness of the event, but I didn't have any blinkin' flyers with me! O woe!

I was on the beach with John when we realised that Brighton Beach was packed and people were just waiting to be told all about the Car Boot Sale. We would have had them eating out of the palm of our hands. Then, realised later in the evening that the Brunswick Festival was on, and not only could I have distributed flyers there, but there were loads of small traders selling apples and soap who could have been interested in the event. It was a Sunday and we both wanted to rest, lie on the beach and soak up the sun, having had a few beers after Mass, which we duly did. But these were still excellent advertising opportunities missed! How irksome! Say a prayer that on the day, people still flock to the car park in the heart of Brighton for some serious browsing and that it doesn't piss it down with rain!



Anyway, the footage above is of Paul Harrison who I recognised at the Brunswick Festival because he saw me busking the other day in Brighton. He told me he was busker too and mumbled something about an open piano and I must say I didn't pay much attention at the time. Then I saw him at the Festival and was mesmerised by his incredible xpiano machine which he invented and designed and even built! I thought it was so great, that I asked if he'd like a space at the Car Boot Sale, but he is off to the 'Big Chill' Festival that weekend instead. He makes quite a bit of money from busking and selling his 'experimental open piano' music CDs. Anyway, lesson is, in future, if you are helping organise a local community event, always take a load of flyers with you, wherever you go, at all times!! Here is a picture of him. I know that his music is what might be labelled a bit 'new age', but you have to credit his ingenuity, imagination and talent. Cracking moustache as well.

Listen to more of his music here on his Myspace page. As for my busking, I've realised that people think you are more respectable if you can fingerpick, rather than just play chords. This week I will get my grubby paws on a 12-string...Oh, yes!

Obamawatch! Healthcare Bill & Euthanasia

The US is in the grip of healthcare hysteria. But is it 'hysteria' to interpret these pages of the bill as making some hideous 'end of life' plan, a plan to end the lives of the elderly and mandatory? Also, is it me or is the layout and wording of this 1012 page document designed to put the reader off from actually reading it? Here are the offending, and rather offensive pages. Click here to read through the entire document, a task which does seem to make the reader yearn for life to end...I have edited it so that it is actually readable. I wonder how many Congressmen and women will have actually read the thing. Lord, teach us how to die...to ourselves and to care for others.

p.424

5 SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
.....

Advance Care Planning Consultation: ...the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner...regarding advance care planning, if...the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

a) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
b) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
c) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
d) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearing houses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
e) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

p. 426

(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an
order; and the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a healthcare proxy).

The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—

p. 427

in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State; distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment; provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency
medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association,

p. 428

state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association. A practitioner described in this paragraph is a physician and a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation.

An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

p. 429

A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order. For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual,

1. an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that is signed and dated by a physician or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
2. effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual; is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and...

p. 430

...may incorporate any advance directive if executed by the individual.

The level of treatment indicated...may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

1. the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
2. the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
3. the use of antibiotics; and the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

War Poetry Emerging from Afghanistan

I'm not a great fan of protest songs, but this is not too bad, Bob Dylan doing Masters of War. It looks, however, as if those serving in Afghanistan have a 'voice of a generation' of their own, within their ranks.

A soldier serving in Afghanistan has penned a poem on Facebook which attacks the politicians who do not have to suffer what soldiers are suffering in Helmund Province.

Staff Sgt Andy McFarlane, 47, of the Adjutant General's Corps condemns the MPs who do not attend parades in Wootton Bassett...

'Politicians usually have much to say/No sign of them near here this day/They hide away and out of danger/Much easier if the hero is a stranger.'

It is hardly surprising that such poetry is emerging from brave soldiers in Helmund. Apparently, according to a friend of mine who knows some soldiers serving there, other soldiers' Facebook walls include such posts which go something along the lines of, "This war is pointless and horrendous," "It is Hell here", "Get me out!" and other posts along similar lines.

Flog it for St Mary Magdalen!

Are you a Brightonian? Are you a parishioner of St Mary Magdalen Church? Are you neither Catholic, nor interested in any way in the Church, preferring to think of it as an outdated institution that exists only to irritate you and brainwash others, but need a clear out of your stuff?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes then you, yes you, could really be of assistance to the Building Restoration Fund of St Mary Magdalen's Church, assisting in the renovation of a beautiful Grade II listed building in the heart of Brighton. If you've got a load of stuff you now consider not particularly useful, don't throw it away! Give it to us!

St Mary Magdalen Church will be hosting a Car Boot Sale on Saturday 29th August where stuff will be sold. Proceeds will go towards the Building Fund to return the Church to its former glory.

CDs, books, DVDs, jewellery, crockery...anything, really, that you don't want anymore, drop St Mary Magdalen's a line and a special envoy from St Mary Magdalen's will come and pick up your unwanted stuff and shake you firmly by the hand, while asking Heaven to shower good things upon you and all your loved ones. You could also receive a small piece of vintage 60s lino from the Church stuck on a piece of card, as a keepsake and memento. Yes, it's true! You could own a piece of a Grade II listed Church! Your donations would be much appreciated.

Alternatively, if you have a car and would like to sell your goods and make some cash for yourself on the day, setting up starts at 8am and spaces cost £15 per car/£30 per larger car or minivan. For info: stmarymagoffice@googlemail.com

Dillinger

Today I finally got around to seeing John Milius's Dillinger (1973), after months of futile attempts to see it. After seeing Public Enemies and the Godawful B-movie with Lawrence Tierney this summer, I was hoping that Milius would deliver a great take on John Dillinger, Melvin Purvis and their exciting lives, times and associates. Milius's film (his first theatrical effort) is a fairly entertaining action movie, but it's no masterpiece; it may surpass Michael Mann's recent effort in some ways, but it's got its own myriad flaws to compensate.

John Dillinger (Warren Oates) is a charismatic outlaw who becomes a folk hero to Americans during the Great Depression. With his gang of crooks (Harry Dean Stanton, Geoffrey Lewis, Richard Dreyfuss, Steve Kanaly) he sticks up an series of banks and makes a name for himself - also romancing Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips) along the way. Hot on his tail is FBI Agent Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), a tough, old-school lawman seeking vengeance for the deaths of his agents in the Kansas City Massacre - a crime committed by one of Dillinger's men, Pretty Boy Floyd (Kanaly). Purvis's men gradually decimate the public enemies, while both men seem as interested in their public image as succeeding at their jobs.

Milius's film is a strictly mythical take on the Dillinger saga. Unlike Public Enemies, which went out of its way to appear accurate (in spite of many egregious flaws), Dillinger is pure cartoon, and as such mostly succeeds. It's basically a B-movie crime flick (produced by AIP), liberally crossing elements of The Wild Bunch and Bonnie and Clyde with a hint of John Ford. The movie does a much better job of establishing the film's historical background than Mann's film, and gives a real sense of the Depression and Dillinger's popularity with the masses. The movie doesn't match Mann for the period details, costumes or historical accuracy, but it makes up for it with an authentic, gritty feel. For this, Milius is to be commended. However, the movie has its own failings distinct from Mann's big-budget extravaganza.

One of the movie's biggest flaws is its protagonist. Warren Oates does a fine job but the film doesn't give him a lot to work with. This Dillinger is a loud, violent egomaniac with few redeeming features. We do see that people love him, but unlike Johnny Depp's portrayal, we don't really see why. Further, compared to his colorful supporting cast, Oates' Dillinger is not particularly compelling. This is a mirror image of the Mann film, where Dillinger is an interesting character but his supporting cast are interchangable goons and G-Men. This might not be a problem if this were meant as an ensemble crime flick, but as the film's ostensible focus is on Dillinger it's a noteable flaw. Perhaps for this reason (and the fact that Dillinger largely disappears after Little Bohemia), the final showdown outside the Biograph Theater doesn't work; there isn't a lot of tension or suspense due to sloppy build-up.

Another major flaw is the movie's romance, which repulsively embraces the old sexist gangster moll stereotypes. Here Dillinger kidnaps Billie (twice!), practically rapes her, and then, without any further interaction, the two are hopelessly in love? I don't care who you are, that's pretty blatant misogyny, and it lowered my respect for Milius a good deal. It doesn't help that Michelle Phillips, pretty as she is, is an atrocious actress, and she and Oates have little or no chemistry. I didn't care much for Public Enemies' hackneyed soap opera romance either, but at least it's not as repugnant as Milius's version.

Still, Dillinger is a generally entertaining movie by its own modest standards. The production values are often shoddy, but Milius shows a strong directoral flair. He stages action sequences with bloody aplomb that Peckinpah would envy, with a generally good pace and a strong, well-written script. In particular, the film has one absolutely brilliant sequence - the Little Bohemia shootout, and the lengthy scenes of Dillinger's gang attempting to escape the FBI dragnet. This sequence is near-perfect - well-staged if over-the-top action, brisk, engrossing pacing, pitch-perfect acting and writing - and if Milius had been able to match the brilliance of those twenty minutes, we might well have a masterpiece on our hands. Fortunately, he would show a much firmer hand on his next picture, The Wind and the Lion, even if that film's ludicrous climax lets it down a bit.

One area where the film excells is its supporting cast. Though the movie may short-change its portagonist, it vividly portrays Dillinger's gang, not as interchangable supporting thugs and bullet fodder, but as distinct criminals with their own personalities and quirks. The portrayal of Purvis as a kickass super G-Man is at odds with the historical record, but it certainly works for the story, and Purvis emerges as the more interesting of the two protagonists. Again, this is detrimental to the portrayal of Dillinger, but on the other hand it involves the audience in the film and its characters; all of Dillinger's sidekicks get their own distinct death scenes, and the audience feels for them when they die - something Mann was unable to achieve.

The film's cast is mostly excellent, aside from Phillips. Warren Oates is a fine Dillinger although as mentioned above he's hampered by the script. Ben Johnson steals the movie with a fun performance; he's a no-nonsense, old-school tough guy and Johnson plays the role to the hilt. Harry Dean Stanton and Steve Kanaly are standouts among Dillinger's co-horts, though Richard Dreyfuss is perhaps a bit too over-the-top as Baby Face Nelson. Other roles are well-handled by dependable veteran talent: Cloris Leachman, Roy Jenson, Geoffrey Lewis, Frank McRae.

Dillinger is a good, entertaining gangster flick that occasionally comes close to greatness, but never quite reaches it. It may be slightly more entertaining than Public Enemies but is no closer to masterpiece status. Unless the Mark Harmon TV flick from the early '90s is an overlooked gem, I'd say that the definitive Dillinger movie has yet to be made.

Scorsese Planning Movie on Japanese Martyrs

Zenit reports today that...

An Academy Award-winning director is planning a movie on Japanese Christians martyred in the 17th century.

Martin Scorsese will film the movie in New Zealand and release it in 2010, according to the Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun. Names of actors linked to the project include Daniel Day-Lewis, Gael García Bernal and Benicio Del Toro.

Scorsese is known for his work on films including "The Age of Innocence," "The Departed," "Gangs of New York," "Casino" and the controversial "The Last Temptation of Christ."

The film on the Japanese martyrs is based on the book "Chinmoku" (Silence), by the Catholic Japanese author Shusaku Endo. The novel tells the story of a Portuguese missionary in Japan at the beginnings of the 17th century. "Silence" refers to the silence of God before the cross of Christ, in telling of the missionary's forced apostasy in the midst of horrendous torture.

Endo (1923-1997) was baptized at age 12. His novels reflect his effort to show Christianity reconciled with Oriental culture, as well as his vision of human weakness, sin and grace. Among his other writings are "A Life of Jesus" and "Deep River," in which he tries to present Christianity to the Asian mentality.

Last Dec. 10, almost 200 Japanese martyrs from the same era as the plot of "Silence" were canonized. Japan is today less than 1% Christian, of which only about 450,000 are Catholics.

Eugenics with a Friendly Face?

Safe and sorted...for condoms and pregnancy 'advice'

Ed West has posted an interesting piece on his Telegraph Blog. I commented that Moulescoumb (I can never spell it right) is one of Brighton's most deprived estates and, as far as I know, the only region of Brighton to have its very own free condom and sexual health/pregnancy 'advice' centre. Take a look at the 'Swish' website. You can travel through the centre and also see how the place is ran. Click for a more general overview of the work of the Council in combating teen pregnancy including how to top up your 'C-Card' (condom credit cards!), advice on 'Pregnancy Options' and other such information...if you can stop yourself from putting your head through your monitor because yours or other people's children are having this stuff rammed down their throats...

Still whatever the faults with Brighton & Hove City Council's obvious wish to see that less Moulescoumbers come into this World and their largely distasteful attitude towards sex education, hats off to the head of the department who had the courage to publish one letter from an angry mother...

Subject: My 14 year old daughter

I am absolutely furious to have discovered that my daughter has twice been issued with condoms, please could you explain how you appear to have gained parental rights as I am horrified. Thankfully, she hasn't used them but all you are doing in supplying girls of her age is making them feel older than they are. I have not agreed to you giving my daughter contraception, this is utterly wrong, Upset Parent, Brighton

Response:

I’m sorry you feel furious about this. Under 16s do have the right to access sexual health services in a confidential manner without parental consent, this includes condoms. This is the case across England, not just Brighton and Hove. Parental involvement and engagement would always be encouraged by workers when they are talking with teenagers. Your daughter would have requested to have the condoms, and workers would not refuse this. She would not have been given them without her either wanting them, or requesting them. Condoms would always be given out within a sexual health and relationships discussion, particularly within Brighton and Hove within the C-Card Scheme. This would have included discussion about knowing when the right time is to begin a sexual relationship. We very much promote the message 'to wait until you feel ready' and support young people in their skills development to resist the pressures that are all around them in society to start being sexually active. The average age nationally that young people start having sex is now 16, so we need to be realistic about this issue.

Whenever we promote condom use we always would state that you don't have to be having sex, even thinking about sex to actually have access to condoms, its about education. All the evidence that exists on sex education supports an open and honest approach and issuing condoms in no way promotes or encourages earlier sexual activity. In other European countries who have the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs its clear its because they have a much more open and honest approach to sexuality and provide contraceptive services, sex education from a young age, this is from sex education in schools, in the home environment and also from vital confidential services we offer.

Please do contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

BBC's 'Saints & Scroungers'

Nazi Propaganda depicted the sinister 'enemy within'...

It has long been asserted by many sceptics that the BBC has been fast becoming the official mouthpiece of the Government, a Government which is fast becoming less enthusiastic about truth and transparency and more enthusiastic about social control and lies. As the recession kicks in (apparently the number of unemployed claiming benefit is actually 6 million, see Sky News here) the Government is looking for scapegoats for its catastrophic management of the economy and the effects of the Global recession for which it takes absolutely no responsibility whatsoever.

'Saints and Scroungers' is a new BBC documentary, showing at 9.15am, a time, incidently, when the working population are at work and the unemployed are at home watching daytime TV. Here is a blurb from the BBC website:

'Two fraudsters so confident of their ability to get away with it appear in newspapers and even on the radio while investigators are closing in. Plus meet 62-year-old David Searle who thought his life was over when he was told he was going blind.'

Now, I don't doubt that benefit fraud is going on and that some people are 'milking the system' for all they can get. However, timing is everything! With men and women getting laid off across the country and the dole queue getting bigger, the Government would really, rather than shelling out millions to a growing population of welfare dependents, make some cuts. How do you make cuts without pissing off everyone? You draw attention to the 'enemy within'. If the Government can convince everyone that benefit fraudsters are everywhere and these conniving, money grabbing old grannies and single mothers are doing the taxpayer out of his hard-earned cash, then you receive public consent for a great deal of nastiness. 

This programme has Department of Work of Pensions writtten all over it. If you can convince the 'respectable majority' that people everywhere are driving around in lambourghinis at your expense, or taking money that does not belong to them, then you can set in motion the net-curtain twitching, "Hello, is that the DWP? Yes I've just seen my neighbour go off to work and he's cheating the system even though he's got 4 mouths to feed, so I'm shopping him!" mentality on which Nazi Germany relied in order to make the Holocaust so horrendously efficient. 

I am not over-reacting and if I am being extreme in comparing such programmes to the German propaganda against the Jews then it is only to serve as an illustration of how bad things can get when Governments are allowed to use news channels as mouthpieces in order to target a specific group of whom they are afraid...in this case, namely, the growing number of people on the dole. That figure is set to rise to 6 million, according to Sky News. 6 million, a huge number and a warning straight from history. As the impact of the recession deepens, I would expect more of these programmes at different times of the day so that resentment towards people on benefits really increases dramatically. Channel 4, for example, is about to run a programme on the exact same subject. The new programme is called 'Benefit Busters'! You couldn't make it up! And heck, what do you know, the Channel 4 programme is episode one of a series as well!

'Hayley Taylor's job is to persuade single mothers on benefits to go back to work. The company she works for, A4E, which is helping to tackle the Government's target of getting 70 per cent of lone parents into paid work by 2010, is the largest welfare reform company in the world. A4E is run by multimillionaire entrepreneur Emma Harrison, who believes her business is 'improving people's lives by getting them into work.' Until recently, the 700,000 lone parents receiving benefit didn't have to look for work until their youngest child was 16. Soon, they must either work, or be looking for work, once their youngest child is seven. At Doncaster A4E, Hayley runs a course called Elevate that aims to give lone parents the skills and confidence to enter the workplace and convince them they'll be better off doing so. Cameras follow her group of ten single mothers during their intensive six-week course to prepare them for work.'

Has someone from the DWP been having a word with the Channel 4 executive as well? Well, whoever these ignorants are, listen up. I know a single mother in London with four kids. She always wanted to work but raising four children on a minimum is totally exhausting. She always seemed to be sick and ill with worry and fatigue. I don't know how she hasn't gone under and ended up in a mental ward! If I had four screaming kids, even when half of them went to school and I had two screaming kids, who I had to look after all on my own, I don't know how I'd cope. Pretty awfully probably! Quite how it is that this shambolic Government, a Government which has wasted an unprecedented amount of money and given a great portion of the country's wealth to staggeringly reckless and incompetent banks and their executives, has the nerve, now, to target those who are the victims of its grave and supremely useless stewardship of the country, is beyond me.  

What about a new idea for a programme called 'Ministers and Money-Makers?' Episode 1: 'Is your MP on the make?' Episode 2: 'Expenses at your expense.' Heck, why not a new BBC series called, 'The BBC: How We Spend Your Hard Earned Money.' Episode 1: Brazenly Government-supporting documentaries. Episode 2: 'Paying arrogant chat show hosts 4 million quid a year'? Episode 3: 'We've got expenses too, you know!'

Lose the Pews!

Let's put the pew where it belongs! In the...err...garden! Yeah!

A new campaign has been started called 'Lose the Pews: Pews Lead to Snooze, Drools and Booze'. The pew has long been thought to have been an invention of the Devil, introduced into Catholic Churches, probably as a result of masonic infiltration of the Church, a wicked scourge of holiness among the laity, a cause of untold numbers of lapsations and general, in-Mass sloth and mindlessness!

How much more room would there be in Catholic Churches if there were no pews but for a few around the side of the Church for the elderly and infirm? Even if Church attendance is down overall, at least all the Poles would fit into your local parish Church if you removed the pews and they wouldn't have to be queuing half a mile down the block hearing Mass, the pious Poles that they are!

Let us examine, in brief, the disasterous effect of the pew upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...

1. We can say that the pew has had a negative impact on the Mass because it is not really used that much anyway...So why is it there?! At Mass we sit down during the reading from the Old Testament, the Epistle and the homily. That's about 5 minutes for the readings and 15-20 minutes for the homily. That's 25 minutes at the most in your average Mass. I think we can stand or kneel for that amount of time without suffering a heart attack and anyway, even if we do, at least we'll have died in Church, hopefully in a State of Grace! The whole point about Mass is that we are genuflecting every 5 minutes anyway, to remind ourselves of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the Tabernacle. The pews only hinder this...So, lose the pews!

2. What is the effect on the body and soul of the communicant of the pew? Comfort. Comfort?! At Mass!? The only comfort we should be receiving at Mass is the Consolation of the Holy Spirit in our hearts! And why do we not always receive such consolation? Why? It is because the pew has comforted our arses and we're sitting down, so we're drifting in our thoughts and thinking about whether we left the iron on, when we should be kneeling and thinking upon the great Mystery of the Mass! Did the Desert Fathers retreat into the wilderness, survive on cacti and pray always in the interior of their heart that they may always be in receipt of God's mercy, just so they could sit comfortably and sit on pews?! No! So lose the pews! If one of the Desert Fathers walked into a Catholic Church and saw a pew, he'd probably take them all outside, chop them all and turn them into Jesus Prayer beads and, most likely, single-handedly rescue the Building Fund by selling Jesus Prayer beads outside the Church door made from pews! One by flippin' one he do those pews! One by flippin' one!

3. Our Blessed Lord said, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no." That is 'kneel' or 'stand'. Surely sitting down is that ambiguous middle ground so despised by Our Lord!  He couldn't stand all that shilly-shallying, oh what should I do, procrastination nonsense! "Are you mice or men!?," He would ask us with burning Charity! If we are kneeling then we are paying reverence and devotion to God throughout the Mass as He wishes. If we are standing then we are listening attentively to the Holy Gospel and the priest's fantastic and riveting homily on the Holy Faith! If we are sitting then what are we doing? Neither. Probably thinking about lunch or worse,the 'Big Match' live on Sky at 12pm in the pub between Fulham and Middlesborough, or some other sport even more tedious, like who can run the fastest...or worse, Grand Prix! You and I know how sordid and downright dangerous the imagination is when left to wander aimlessly and we leave it to wander at our peril, and we do it at our peril the most when, in all places, in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we take our focus of the Mass and think only of frivolousness! So lose the pews! The Court of Heaven are above our heads like in that painting of the Funeral of Count Orgaz by El Greco! And we're sitting down!? Shame on us that we don't kneel incessantly! So, lose the pews! 

4. How much greater would our simplicity and our desire for holiness be if we knelt at times when we currently sit, knelt on hard, wooden floor that hurts our knees!? How much more devotion to the sufferings of Christ would we have if all the way through Mass we were thinking, "Oh Lord! My knees are flippin' killing me! And my legs can't sustain my body weight! I can't stop trembling! Still, I offer You this discomfort in union with the sufferings of my Saviour upon the Cross!" Oh yes, we'd soon be offering up our sufferings for the souls in Purgatory, the conversion of sinners and the liberty and exaltation of Our Holy Mother the Church. We'd be offering up everything, our knees, our arms, our hearts and most likely, thousands would be offering their lives in the Holy Priesthood or Religious Life. Oh yes! In a matter of weeks people would be saying, "Vocations crisis!? What vocations crisis?! Now we've removed the pews we've more Priests than we could possibly have imagined!"

5. Parishes could sell their pews and donate them to their Building Restoration Funds. Baptists, Pentecostals and other protestants could have our pews and pay us blinking good money for more important matters, like moving the Altar right back in the Sanctuary so that only the Traditional Latin Mass could be offered before Almighty God, to the joy of Laity, Priests and Bishops everywhere. So, lose the pews! Yeah!

A Sponsored Walk?

St Jude, Patron Saint of Hopeless Cases, models the staff look. I've got a medallion but the beard might be a difficulty...

Moses had one, Abraham had one and probably every Old Testament prophet had one. They still hadn't gone out of fashion by the time we get to the Apostles as St Jude clearly had one because the picture above was taken around the time. I can confirm that Our Blessed Lord might have had one. Then, St Francis of Assisi had one and used it to miraculously make a spring of water in an Italian town the name of which I forget. Every self-respecting Catholic, should therefore have one. The staff. An essential accessory for the Catholic. I've just recently got into sticks, otherwise known as staffs with my Polish ladyfriend. They're very useful as a support for legs and also to beat thorn bushes out of the way, as well as striking down heretics with just one swift blow.

John, another parishioner of St Mary Magdalen has suggested a parish sponsored walk for the Building Fund of St Mary Magdalen's Church, Brighton. I think it is a splendid idea. A friend and I once did one for the Sri Lanka Tsunami Appeal, endeavouring to undertake a 25 mile walk from St Mary Magdalen's to Our Lady of Lourdes in Eastbourne. We were both totally shattered afterwards and couldn't move our legs for days. By the time we got to Newhaven we were doing that thing footballers do in extra-time when penalties are about to be taken. Muscle-cramp exercises that is, just to confirm, just in case you thought we were snorting cocaine off naked glamour models' behinds in the dressing room or signing contracts for rival clubs for a bigger pay deal, while claiming undying loyalty to our current fans.

I think it is a great idea and would generate quite a bit of money for the Building Restoration Fund, as people like to donate when you punish yourself brutally with exercise. It would also give us unemployed/retired-but-still-physically-capable-parishioners that all important something useful to do. I've got two sticks and I'm all set to use them. I can get more from a nearby wood so let me know if you are a Brightonian pilgrim and are up for it. More details hopefully to follow one day soon...

The Curious Case of Armond White

All evidence to the contrary, I generally try to be open-minded towards other opinions on film. I may ridicule the idea that everything is subjective and that there's no distinction between a fan of Transformers and a fan of Citizen Kane, but I'm willing to accept reasonable debate. After all, a gentleman who dislikes There Will Be Blood and Barry Lyndon can't be too stuck up on this issue; film is an art and no two people will agree on everything. However, there are limits to which I'm willing to accept this, and a point where opinions go from acceptable to just plain dumb.

Which brings us to Armond White. The film critic for the New York Press has gained a great deal of infamy for his bizarre, contrarian opinions. Recently, none other than Roger Ebert wrote an article defending White's iconcolasm - only to retract it and admit he is a "troll". He is a figure of ridicule all over the Internet, even having a (now-defunct) blog devoted to lambasting his writings. Where White sees a brilliant, unique and controversial contrarian, most people see a race-baiting, self-aggrandizing, tasteless (and gormless) imbecile.

Lest you think Mr. White is being unfairly lambasted, let's look at a few of his reviews over the past few years:

- In his review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - universally panned by critics, but embraced by the popcorn blockbuster crowd - White says that director Michael Bay is "a real visionary" with "a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement". If by amazement one means incredulity at a film's slack-jawed, effects-driven mindlessness, then I think he has a case.

- The much-beloved and garlanded Slumdog Millionaire is, in White's estimation, "pandering to liberal sensibilities while entertaining safe, middle-class distance", "absolving the white man’s burden with game-show flash and shrillness", and calls director Danny Boyle "a poverty pimp with an Avid". (Give him this much: if nothing else, White knows how to turn a phrase.)

- The towering comedic masterpiece Little Man "zeroes in on our culture’s usual infantilization of the black male, satirizing it as a literal form of bastardization". Funny, I thought it was an awful movie with a Wayans brother's face CGI'd on a child's body. Similarly, Eddie Murphy's Norbit is "a spoof on American gentility which Murphy then integrates with explosive caricatures" and is "enough to confirm his status as the most brilliant comic actor in America", even better than the late Peter Sellers!

- There Will Be Blood is, in White's eyes, a film which "personif(ies) everything that’s wrong in American character: greed, selfishness, stinginess and unchecked ambition", claiming that "Americans are meant to identify with Plainview for the worst aspects of themselves". Fair enough, as I'm not the biggest fan of the film myself, But, he does praise Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as "is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta", so that's good.

These are just a few of the more obnoxious examples. Here's a quick chart to help you further break down Mr. White's decidedly eclectic taste.

The point is not that White simply strays from the critical consensus more often than most. There just doesn't seem much point to it; it doesn't seem his genuine opinion so much as an esoteric intellectual exercise. The late Pauline Kael, the matriarch of modern film criticism, brought snooty contrarianism to an art form; in White's hands, it seems like an erudite film student spouting off jargon to impress his professors. Or is it? Is he perhaps a master satirist, deliberately eschewing film criticism for all to see?

It's really difficult to gauge White's seriousness. His article on Little Man is critical analysis at its absolute worst. You could read a message of black society into Little Man, but you're much more likely to find it a juvenile, idiotic bodily function comedy. This is pretty close to the Jacques Rivette line of shit that Monkey Business is a masterpiece just because it's a Howard Hawks film. He seems to praise lowest common denominator trash as a challenge - either an attempt to see just how far you can possibly take film analysis, or as a massive joke on his readers. Certainly the archaic verbiage and compulsion to name-drop literary, philosophical and filmic references into every review wreaks of parodying a blog written by a wannabe film student. The results are devoid of any intellectual or critical merit - but, one must admit, extremely entertaining, in the way that Billy Jack is entertaining.

White is also preoccupied with issues of race, which I suppose is fair enough, if this obsession didn't manifest itself so obnoxiously. This article on Eddie Murphy suggests that anyone who dislikes his films - except for the despised-by-him Dreamgirls, Murphy's one post-Beverly Hills Cop performance most everyone can agree is good, but which White sees as "soul-rotting" - is a racist. That includes the universally-trashed Norbit and Meet Dave, which he claims contain insightful messages on the state of race relations in America. He wrote a similar article on marginally-funny black comic Tyler Perry, asserting roughly the same. Sometimes a spade's a spade, or a bad comic a bad comic, and race has nothing to do with it. Even more oddly, though, he spends an inordinate amount of time slamming Samuel L. Jackson, Will Smith and Spike Lee, presumably for "selling out to the Man" (track those reviews down yourself).

In this regard, White seems a parodic caricature of critics who read completely spurious "insight" and analyses into everything - the "Marxist", "Feminist", "Queer" and "Post-Modern" critics which every English, Theatre and Film student must suffer through at some point in high school and college, reading everything from Moby-Dick to a Geico commercial through the narrow prism of their personal obsession (and then writing a 25-page essay on it). (I will never forget the bottomlessy-stupid essay I once read on how Sense and Sensibility is a metaphor for female mastrubation.) I have to admit that I doubt it's intentional. If it is, though, White is a satiric genius.

Whether Armond White is serious or taking the piss out of his readers is unknowable. Either way, he's a dope who writes some of the most unintentionally hilarious reviews out there. God bless Mr. White, the Leprechaun of Film Critics; I hope to be ridiculing you for some time.

St Mary Magdalen's Featured in Catholic Herald

Malcolm Gregory: Homeless, suffering paranoid schizophrenia and begging to survive

"I know homeless people who've taken a beating. Sometimes it's from other homeless people and sometimes it's from people just on their way home. It's scandalous that poverty is seen as something only in developing nations; it's true, Africa does have problems, but there's a lot of poverty here in Britain."

The Catholic Herald report this week on St Mary Magdalen's Church, Brighton and poverty.

I had thought that this quote at the beginning of the Catholic Herald article on poverty and the Catholic Faith was a bit over the top. Then after I read it, I walked out and met a man called William who used to beg outside the Council Offices where I had worked a year ago. He had a week ago been beaten severely by two men in George Street, Hove, suffering profuse bleeding above his eye and two broken ribs. His crime? Begging. It is notable that nearly every police force in the country has special classification for homophobic or transphobic attacks but not for attacks on defenseless beggars. What should it be called? Homelessphobia? Local authorities are quick to leap to the defense of some, but not, it seems, others.

Anyway, St Mary Magdalen's Church is featured in the Catholic Herald this week. To read the article click here. Ed West came down to Brighton to interview me having heard I had been living the dream in a Fiat Panda for a month while blogging. Long before the interview I explained to him that I was no poor man, that I had commitments in Brighton and that it was more convenient to do that than keep driving back and forth from Brighton to my parents down the coast every day. I am sure Lady Poverty thinks I am a terrible flirt. God knows, I'm not brave enough to renounce the World and live as St Francis chose to live, and, more importantly perhaps, how Malcolm Gregory is forced to live.

An hour prior to the interview I asked God that I may find someone living in poverty who could share their experiences of real poverty with the Catholic Herald. Half an hour later, walking five minutes outside of the Church I found Malcolm walking out of the First Base Day Centre. He asked me for the time and I told him. I walked with him a while and asked him whether he was homeless. He answered that he was. I asked him if he wanted to be interviewed by the Herald on his experiences of homelessness and he replied that while wasn't religious, he would love to share his experiences with a journalist. So, the Lord provided me with someone experiencing the very real and quite brutal effects of poverty, so that his story may be shared with the Catholic world. Thanks be to God, otherwise it would have been an interview with someone who has no experience of real poverty.

Real poverty, I explained to Ed, during the interview, is not all about money, it is about stigma. Malcolm's situation, of being homeless, of living in a squat, of having to beg following a shortfall in his benefits, of suffering with paranoid schizophrenia, of not having money to have a shower and of therefore smelling not that nice, of owning only the clothes in which he stands, of being misunderstood by the authorities, of being beaten by yobs on a Saturday night because they need to take their frustrations out on someone, of being arrested for begging by the Police and spending a night every month in a cell for the crime of begging to survive, is not a singular story but a widespread circumstance in which many men and indeed women find themselves all across the country. Yet, their voices and their stories are seldom heard.

The stigma attached to being homeless, of being an outcast and of being considered worthless, of begging to survive and being viewed as someone who is 'intimidating' by society is what grinds men and women down to the dust. When men and women are considered no longer human by society then they lose their sense of dignity, something which God has given each of us, no matter what situation we may find ourselves. That is why it is important that men such as Malcolm are heard. It is important that society learns from the poorest, the most defenseless, the most vulnerable, the outcasts, because the very poor have something to say and something valuable to tell us about what kind of a society we are. Are we a society that really include everyone, or are we a society which views the outcast as a great threat. 

I reflected recently that St Francis of Assisi, the man who exchanged clothes with a beggar and took his place, a man who was the son of a wealthy merchant, who traded places with the beggar and started to beg for alms in order to know the poverty of spirit of his Lord and Master, would doubtless, today, be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, for having made himself intentionally homeless and for being a 'danger to himself and to others'. Yet here, in Malcolm, stood a man who, even though he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, even though he is getting food from the skips outside the Co-Op, even though he is destitute, has not been given shelter by the local authority or given residential care by social services, but is left alone to beg, to wander the streets and to be arrested for trying to survive, yet little state help comes his way.

Malcolm is doing remarkably well, given his circumstances, having given up drink, drugs and gambling, admitting he was a 'compulsive and obsessive' user of these things, for well over 6 months. Yet, these are things he has achieved without state support. Brighton local authority has done next to nothing for him.

In other words, if you want to know what 'care in the community' means in 21st century Britain, then talk to Malcolm for five minutes and you will soon find out. His level of poverty is degrading. He was thrilled to be given some money saying, "Now I can get a shower." Society's poverty is a poverty of understanding of people in his situation. My one and only disappointment with what was a very well written article is that I was quoted a great deal more than was Malcolm. Stephen, a new parishioner at St Mary Magdalen's saw the article and told me he had seen Malcolm on the Western Road very recently begging. 

As Fr Ray Blake points out in his blog, supporting the Soup Run, a lifeline to the homeless of Brighton, and supporting Voices in Exile, the charity which supports destitute asylum seekers in the south-east, which runs on a shoe-string, is a big focus of the expenditure of St Mary Magdalen's Church. At the same time, Fr Ray wants to rebuild the parish Church, which has been left to fall into ruin for a long time. Hopefully, having read of the work of St Mary Magdalen with regard to the Soup Run and Voices in Exile, Catholic Herald readers will give generously to the parish. St Mary Magdalen's Church now has a Pay Pal function on the parish magazine website, so that people can donate to the Building Restoration Fund of the Church. Click here to donate.

The Bitter Pill?

The Telegraph reports on some of the health risks associated with some contraceptive pills. I'm not sure such information has been widely available until now. There is doubtless much we are not told about a great deal of pharmaceutical products in terms of adverse side effects. I've never heard about any dangers with the pill before but I do sometimes wonder how strange it is that in an age obsessed with health and organic food, that few publicly challenge or question the fact that women are encouraged to pump their bodies with hormones, chemicals and pills that alter quite dramatically, the body's natural fertility cycle...This article suggests that if the pill were a brand of margarine, it would have been removed from the shelves long ago, yet it is sold as 'reproductive health'.

In the first study claiming to conclusively rank the health risks associated with the different types of contraceptive pill, researchers found that some raised the chances of developing clots like deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by twice as much as others. 

While all types of the oral contraceptive increase the risk of a clot, some combinations of hormones are worse than others. Researchers warn that many women are not using the safest type to minimise their chance of clots like DVT, a blood clot in the leg or the lungs. 

The study found that "second generation" pills first used in the 1970s, such as Microgynon, which contained low levels of the female sex hormone oestrogen combined with a second hormone levonorgestrel, were the safest. 

Newer "third generation" pills, which have been available since the 1980s, which contained a hormone called desogestrel, carried twice the risk of DVT than the second generation medication...[For full story click here]...