I am sometimes asked the question, “Is it a sin to break the law?”
The general answer is yes, but there is an important exception.
Civil laws are the ones enacted by the legitimate authorities of our land. As Christians, we have an obligation to follow these laws as good citizens. This is something that comes directly from the Scriptures.
Jesus said of paying taxes, “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but give to God what belongs to God.” (Mark 12:17). In Romans, Paul states, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1-2).
Peter also makes this point: “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors… Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:13-14, 17)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community.” (2242)
Human beings are called to live harmoniously in a society. If we are to live in a nation of laws, then we must bind ourselves to those laws. That is the implicit social contract of a civil society. Therefore, breaking those laws involves a breaking of the social contract on our part. So even small things like jaywalking and littering can be sinful if they break the the laws of our land.
However…
The only reason that the civil law has authority over us is if it is harmony with Natural Law.
Natural Law is the moral law written on our hearts. God gave us reason to discover what is right and what is wrong for human beings. For example, the end or purpose of the human person is to live a good life. But if you murder someone, you are preventing them their natural end. Therefore, murder is wrong. The principle of self-defense also applies here. If you kill someone who is trying to kill you, you are morally justified because that person is trying to obstruct your natural right to live.
We enact civil laws in order to live out the Natural Law.
But if the civil law contradicts the Natural Law, then we are not bound to follow it.
So the nominees were announced this past week for the 97th Academy Awards.
These awards remain the most prestigious in film. And while many of you, dear readers, are of the opinion that all awards shows are terrible and should simply be shunned, it is my perpetual hope that Hollywood will reform itself and once again nominate movies that matter.
While there were a few happy nominations, there are a few hopeful signs, but none that make me think that the redemption of Hollywood is just around the corner. Once again, the elite in the industry will gather together, kick out the homeless from the streets, and congratulate themselves.
The movies nominated for Best Picture are:
The top 10 highest grossers for 2024 are:
Inside Out 2
Deadpool & Wolverine
Wicked
Moana 2
Despicable Me 4
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
Dune: Part 2
Twisters
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire
Kung Fu Panda 4
There are 2 movies nominated in the top ten earners of the year. But once again, a lot of these movies have not been seen by the general public. AfterWicked andDune: Part 2, the next highest grossing nominee isConclave, grossing only $30 million. But even the re-release of Coraline (a movie 13-years-old) made more money at the box office. And I do not mean to say that movies with small box office returns are the only ones that should be nominated. I thought Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One was excellent and that movie flopped. But if you look at most of these nominees, the average person will not know them.
So as you can see, there are very few films for viewers at home to root for.
My own top ten of the year include:
Deadpool & Wolverine
Horizon: An American Saga Chapter One
Wicked
Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story
One Life
A Complete Unknown
Dune: Part 2
Inside Out 2
Furiosa
Transformers One
So below are my thoughts on some (not all) of this year's nominees.
It is clear from the nominations that there is a strong socio/political tone to this year's awards. But it is also clear that this year's election signals a cultural shift. The question becomes whether or not the industry will adjust to this new reality or if they will vote out of protest.
There are signs that Hollywood is moderating. You can see this in the mature content being cut from some Disney programing. Also, with so much struggle and hardship that Los Angeles has gone through, I will wonder if national politics will be on their mind or finding something that can unify.
If the Academy decides that they want to be relevant to the general audiences, I think Wicked will do very well. Although the fact that the director was not nominated speaks volumes about where they are leaning. If the Academy decides to vote as a protest to this cultural shift, then I think Emilia Perez and The Apprentice will score some wins.
I am going to be looking at the other awards, particularly the Screen Actors Guild, Director's Guild, and Producer's Guild to see who people are feeling.
BEST PICTURE
I've only seen Conclave, A Complete Unknown, Dune Part 2, and Wicked, so I can't speak much outside of those 4. Two of them were in my Top 5 for the year, so that, at least, is something.
If the Academy were smart, they would lean on Wicked, which was a big crowd-pleaser and also seemed to appeal to the artistic types in Hollywood.
BEST DIRECTOR
I only saw Mangold's movie and I think that he did an excellent job. Although I heard that The Substance as a unique visual style to it.
BEST ACTRESS
Erivo was my choice for best actress this year and I am happy to see that she received the nomination. Again, if the Academy is smart, they will default to her. I don't think anyone will be watching any of the other movies in the years to come. This year it is also of note because this is the first time a biological male has been nominated. This could lead to the eventual erasure of gender-separate categories. But as was seen in the Brit Awards, this can sometimes lead to no women getting nominated.
BEST ACTOR
I've only seen Chalamet and Fiennes, both of whom turned in excellent performances. If the Oscars turn into a political protest vote, Stan may get the win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I don't know how Grande, who gave the worst performance this year, got a nomination. Rossellini and Barbaro were very good in their roles and I'd be happy if either of them won.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
I was very happy to see Norton get a nomination for A Complete Unknown. I thought he did an excellent job portraying a decent man trying to direct the reckless Bob Dylan. I heard that Culkin is a lock, but I haven't seen the movie yet.
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Again, Wicked's costume designs were the best this year. They were unique and visually interesting. I prefer these types of original costumes to period pieces.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
I've only seen Inside Out 2, but I've heard good things about Flow and The Wild Robot
Those are just some of my initial thoughts in some of the categories.
I don’t know who thought that this movie was a good idea.
Better Man centers around real-life British pop star Robbie Williams. He is an egotistical, vulgar, nasty, jerk. And there is really nothing in the movie that makes you want to get to know him better. For this reason, Robbie Williams is portrayed in this film as a CGI chimpanzee. Doing this, the filmmakers are trying to use the borrowed innocence of this beast to cover Williams’ moral faults. But this is like (to borrow an image from St. Augustine) clean, white snow covering a pile of manure.
The other way that the movie tries to get you to sympathize with Williams is by showing him how horrible his father was. His father Peter (Steve Pemberton) was a cop who cared more for fame than his family. He idolized the great crooners like Sinatra. He abandoned his family to pursue a life in entertainment, but never really gets further than a warm-up act for small shows. But Williams spends his entire life trying to fill the void left by his father.
And my response to this: boo-frickin’-hoo.
I know that sounds harsh, but I am talking about the character who is on display in this movie, not the person of Williams in reality. But he has chosen to place himself in this dramatization for critical evaluation. And as a narrative, the movie fails to give us a compelling reason to care. His woundedness would garner sympathy if he was not intolerably horrid to every single person in his life. I mentioned how in A Complete Unknown, the character of Bob Dylan has a similar problem. But in that movie, Dylan is mysterious and interesting in a way that makes you want to know more. He makes you believe there is a lot more beneath the surface.
With Williams, there is nothing beneath the surface. The movie is narrated by Robbie and his thoughts are as deep as a dixie cup. He is a creature of pure id, lacking compassion. Yes, he has abandonment issues. But never do these issues create in him something like empathy. He is a black hole of emotional need and he never really gets better. There is a subplot where he gets his girlfriend Nicole (Raechelle Banno) pregnant and she is pressured to have an abortion. Normally, I would tap out completely here, but I appreciated the fact that the entire sequence was presented as dehumanizing and horrific. But Robbie wastes almost no time throwing it back in his girlfriend's face.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Williams does eventually goes to rehab and turns his life around, but we don’t see a change in the fundamental problem. He never learns that he doesn’t need fame or accolades as long as there is real love in his life. It is the opposite message of the one you find in the movie Yesterday. You may argue that this would not be in keeping with Robbie’s story, but that also is part of what prevents it from being a story worth telling.
Towards the end of the movie, someone tells him, “You are one of the gods now.” This line falls completely flat for two reasons. The first is that it shows that Robbie has not understood that the fame he’s seeking is ultimately empty and fleeting. His world is too small and he never grows out of it. The second reason this doesn’t work is that, honestly, I have never really heard of Robbie Williams before. You cannot tell me that this man is on the same level as Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin if he has had so little impact on culture that this movie is really the first time I’m hearing about him.
END SPOILERS
The performances are serviceable, but nothing spectacular. I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons for the CGI chimp was to cover any deficits in William’s acting skill. Director Michael Gracey does a fairly decent job with the visuals. Some of the musical numbers are interesting to watch. The dance sequence with Robbie and Nicole is quite charming.
None of this can cover for the movie’s fundamental flaws. It has beautiful sounds and is told with the fury of passion.
But it is a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I am not a big Bob Dylan fan. But A Complete Unknown does not let that be an obstacle to enjoying this movie.
The film takes a look at a slice of life of Bob Dylan (Timothee Chalamet). It begins as he hitchhiking to New York City to see that ailing Woodie Guthrie (Scoot McNairy). There he meets Pete Seger (Ed Norton) who is Guthrie's closest friend. Dylan impresses both of them with his music and Seger takes him in. Dylan's reputation grows. Along the way he becomes involved with the socially involved Sylvie (Elle Fanning). He also meets fellow folk singers like Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro). As he struggles with fame, he also struggles against the expectations of the folk music community. The deeply independent Dylan seeks to be his own person and not be defined by one genre. This leads to a final confrontation at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival.
As I wrote at the top of this review, I am not a big Dylan fan. I have a passing familiarity with his work. But this movie does an excellent job of bringing in the uninitiated. The failure of the movie The Bikeriders was that it was about motorcycle culture, but it did nothing to help the audience see the appeal of it. This is different than a movie like The Devil Wears Prada. I have no interest in the fashion industry, but that movie made the whole culture fascinating. A Complete Unknown helps someone like me appreciate not only Dylan, but folk music in general.
Throughout the movie, I found myself being drawn in more and more to Dylan's songs. I was also surprised that I knew more of his work than I realized. I have to give credit to director James Mangold for the way he recorded the music. The actors recorded all the songs live as they were filming. It gave it a pure, unvarnished feel that seemed authentic to the folk tradition.
Chalamet holds the entire movie together with his particularly challenging way. The script depicts Dylan the way many musical biopics treat their subjects: an artistic genius who pushes people away with their self-centered behavior. I don't know what it is about famous artists that makes them think that their talent entitles them to treat others like crap. "I'm so mysterious and deep that you can't possibly understand what I'm going through, so I will treat you like the peasant you are." Dylan is no exception. He is callous, dismissive, and casually cruel. For him, people are means to ends. He never quiet sees people as intrinsically valuable and thus he always seems perpetually lonely.
The script also makes this a challenge for Chalamet because we don't get a strong sense of Dylan's internal life. In Mangold's other musical biopic from 20 years ago, Walk the Line, the story is told almost completely from Johnny Cash's perspective. In A Complete Unknown, while we are with Dylan for most of the movie, we are always on the outside looking in. We never really know what Dylan is feeling or thinking. For that reason, the depiction of Dylan should be completely repugnant. But Chalamet infuses him with an incredible sense of charisma. We understand why others around him would find him intriguing.
At the same time, Chalamet keeps hinting at deep feelings just below the surface. This makes you want to know more so you can break through that wall. The closest we get is a brief scene where out of nowhere Dylan says to Sylvie, "When people ask me where the songs come from they're not asking me where the songs come from. They're asking why it didn't come to them." This one moment reveals just enough of his isolation and pain that it makes you want to stay with him. Chalamet maintains that delicate balance while continually drawing us in.
These moments of insight don't absolve Dylan, but they aren't meant to either. Mangold's Dylan Is a puzzle that appeals and repels. You see this especially with Baez. She is someone that is adored by men who kiss her feet. But Dylan says of her at an event "She's pretty. She sings pretty. Maybe a little too pretty." And with that insult, she is drawn to him. Dylan's boldness and talent make you want to win his approval so you too can be in the club of cool.
All of the performances are generally good. Norton is great as Seager. It would have been easy to portray him as Salieri to Dylan's Mozart. Instead, Seager comes across as a sincere, decent, and caring musician who wants to make the world a better place with song. He wants to nurture Dylan and bring him to a place beyond ego and placing others first. As Dylan's fame and rebellion pull him away, Norton shows us Seager's frustration and pain in a way that is much more relatable than Dylan's. Barbaro plays Baez as outwardly confident, but inwardly insecure, which Dylan constantly exploits. We also see this in Fanning's performance. Dylan wants her affections but is not willing to be vulnerable. Fanning shows us the frustrations of loving someone who will not love you back.
Mangold does a good job of transporting you to the early 1960's, where political unrest is bubbling under the surface and the pleasantness of the 1950's is about to be disrupted. He uses Dylan to personify this upheaval. He makes it look like an appealing, yet unsettling time. He places the musical numbers in a context where they can have their strongest emotional and narrative effect. I found it fascinating that he used the song "That's Not Me" in almost the exact same narrative way in this movie as he did in Walk the Line.
This movie is meant to give you an experience of Dylan and his music. It neither condones nor condemns him. And even though I understand Dylan's life, music, and world a bit more, as to who he is inside... he remains unknown.
In the second chapter of Genesis, we hear about how God created the woman out of the man. One of the most important points to grasp from this story is how men and women are made to be equal in dignity. To be sure, God did not make men and women to be exactly the same. But it is clear from the reading that one was not made to have less value than the other.
We can see in the story that Adam is lonely: he needs a “helper.” The word used here for “helper” does not mean an inferior servant, but is the same word used to describe how God is our “helper.” But how can Adam be lonely if he has God? It is because there is no one like him on his level. God creates the beasts and Adam names them as a sign of his authority over them. But none of them are suitable partners for him. God is above him and the beasts are below him. Adam needs someone who is at his level.
So God makes the woman out of Adam’s side. It is important to note that she is not made out of a separate lump of earth as Adam was. This is to show that there is to be a unity, a connectedness, between the man and woman. When Adam sees her, he says she is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” (Genesis 2:23) These are words that correspond to the covenant bond between the man and the woman in marriage. He says that she is “woman.” The Hebrew word for this is isshah, which is so strikingly close to ish (which is the Hebrew word for “man”) that it shows that men and women are made of the same stuff and have the same value.
The marriage language found at the end of the passage also points to this unity and equality. It states, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) In the ancient world, Near East cultures often viewed women as subordinate to men. But in this verse, it is the man, and not the woman, who leaves or “forsakes” his parents. If the woman was purely subordinate to man, then it would make sense that the woman would forsake her family and cling to her husband. But in this marriage verse, it describes the man forsaking his old family and clinging to his wife, his equal partner, to start a new family.
It is not until woman, his equal helper, that he can know who he really is because he derives much of his identity by his relationship to her. And the woman, in her creation from Adam, finds her identity and completeness by her relationship to the man.
The reference to sexuality in this passage also points to this unity of man and woman. It is interesting to note that even though there is a reference to the sexuality of the two, procreation is not mentioned. The concept of having children has not been introduced. But man sees in the woman a person to whom he can be united. And in that unity, there is a completeness.
As many of you probably did not know, the Golden Globes were a week ago. Historically, the Globes were most notable for being a precursor to the Oscars. Most people sees this and all awards as irrelevant, but part of me still enjoys seeing award shows. So here are my thoughts on the night:
THE GOOD
1. The Host
I was very sceptical that Nikki Glazer would do a good job. I've seen some of her comedy and it usually is not to my taste. But to my pleasant surprise, I thought she was very funny. She poked fun at the guests in the way that you should at the glamourous and powerful. It was a bit of a roast, but it never felt mean-spirited.
My favorite joke of the night was how she pointed out that Mario Lopez got more shout outs than God.
2. Colin Farrell
Not only did he deserve to win the award for his work on The Penguin, but his acceptance speech was humble and grateful. I especially like how he thanked craft services.
3. Demi Moore.
I have not seen The Substance, so I cannot attest to her performance in the movie. But I found her speech to be touching. Everyone likes a good comeback story and I think that she has a strong one. I remember a number of years ago when people thought of her primarily as Ashton Kutcher's wife. I am happy for her perseverance and the recognition of that hard work.
THE BAD
1. Very little for the Normies
Most of the movies and TV shows that won awards are ones that most people have never seen: Emilia Perez, The Brutalist, The Substance, A Real Pain, A Different Man, I'm Still Here, Flow, Hacks, True Detective: Night Country, The Bear, Baby Reindeer, and Shogun.
I love movies and TV, but of all the things listed above, the only I would be interested in seeing is Shogun. Almost no one can keep up with all of the television shows being released. But movies are different. It used to be that award shows could boost the profile of a film and generate interest. I know that happened to me when A Beautiful Mind got nominated. I didn't really have any interest in it, but I knew that it was a contender. So I saw it and I was delighted by its quality.
But now, most the movies that are nominated seem like pretentious dreck. The Golden Globes tried to give something to the normies by giving Wicked an award for Box Office Achievement, but this feels like a participation trophy.
2. No Lifetime Achievement
This may be a case where you can't please the audience. I always complain that the award show goes on to long. But this year they did not show Viola Davis or Ted Danson receiving their awards. This felt like an oversight, especially considering the fact that Danson gave one of his best performances this year in A Man on the Inside. But if they put the awards back in, I'm sure I would complain about the length of the show. Perhaps there is a happy medium where they can do the award another night, but show highlights on the main evening.
3. Presenter Jokes
The gags and jokes of the presenters went on way too long. Not only were generally not funny, but they sucked more and more time from the show's runtime. This is the place where they really could cut a lot.
This was one of the most moving documentaries I have seen.
Full disclosure: this movie may have hit me emotionally because of two very personal reasons:
The first is that I have emotional connection to Christopher Reeve. When I was a boy, one of my first memories was watching him fly as Superman. He embodied to me everything that I would come to idealize in the heroic figure. He became to template against which all future heroes on screen would be judged and he loomed large in my imagination.
The second reason is that about ten years ago I broke my back and I had to learn to walk again. Watching Reeve struggle on screen made me have flashbacks to all the tumultuous feelings I had during that time.
Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story is a documentary examining the life of the Superman actor who endured a tragic spinal chord injury that left him paralyzed for the rest of his life. The movie centers around this event, but it jumps back and forth in time to Reeves early life, career, and his time playing the iconic Man of Steel. It then spent the last half of the movie documenting Reeve's heroic struggle to continue on.
One of the wise things that this documentary did was that it did not fall into the trap of being an hagiographic account of Reeve's life. While it never portrays him as some kind villain, the movie makes sure to point out the flaws in his character. We can see the pain in his adult children's faces when they talk about how Reeve moved on quickly from their mother to marry Dana Reeve. None of this is presented as judgment or condemnation. Instead, it gives us a very nuanced and human look at this man who appeared larger than life.
The movie jumps across time from before the accident to after. It creates an odd sense of dread and anticipation as we approach the moment of his injury.
What follows is a touching story of love, hope, and resilience. Reeve has placed such an emphasize on the physicality of his life, whether it was in acting or sports. At one point he suggested to his wife that they let him go. She then said the words Reeve said saved his life: "You're still you and I love you."
There was something so pure and beautiful in that statement. Most of us, especially men, define our worth by our actions. I remember when I broke my back, I felt like a failure as a man because my wife had to take care of me. Of course, like Dana Reeve, my wife reminded me that my value to her was not based on what I could do. It was based on who I am.
Watching this documentary, you can see the very sad and harsh new realities that Reeves had to endure. But as the troubles mounted, my respect for him grew. You could see how he was loved and admired, especially by his friend Robin Williams. The movie is not a fairy tale. For every step forward, there were steps back both physically and emotionally.
My biggest critique of the movie is that it sometimes veered into the political. It is true that Reeves was a political activist, so this is absolutely appropriate to follow. But whenever it entered this arena, the movie felt a little less like a narrative and more like a political ad. They also wade a bit into other controversial areas like Reeve and his view of religion.
In the end, Christopher and Dana Reeve were just two ordinary, flawed people who encountered a horrible tragedy. What they discovered, and what they showed the world, was that sometimes choosing to live can be the most heroic thing of all.
