We have now come through the long lonely days of Lent to celebrate new life in Easter. So now what?
Lent is the spiritual boot camp where we are training our souls towards greater holiness. We concentrate on the sacrificial love of God and meditate on his Passion on the cross. Catholics have many devotions to the suffering of Our Lord. Sometimes we get accused of being morbidly obsessed with guilt and suffering. And while it is fundamentally necessary to enter into the cross, the story does not stop there.
The cross must end with Resurrection.
This is difficult for many of us. None of us have experienced the full Resurrection. But all of us have suffered in this world. The cross feels more tangible to us than the Glorified Body awaiting us. As Fr. Benedict Groeschel once said, “I don’t know what it’s like to rise from the dead. But I’ve been to Calvary several times in my life already.”
It takes no faith to believe that we will suffer in this world. The faith comes in believing that the suffering end. But unlike Buddhists who believe that the most we can hope for is simply an end to our pain, we Christians are promised a whole new life.
When Christ rose from the dead, it was not merely a resuscitation. Death is the separation of the body and the soul. A resuscitation is when the soul is reunited with the mortal body. We see this all the time on medical TV shows where they do CPR. And it is also what occurred with Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and the widow’s son. Jesus raised those last three people from the dead and their souls were reunited with their bodies. But those were not Resurrections, they were resuscitations.
What is the difference?
In a resuscitation, the reunion of body and soul is temporary because eventually the mortal body will get old, sick, and die. Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and the widow’s son all eventually succumbed to death.
Sometimes the way we say things is as important as what we say. And it is so important in the Christian tradition that we tend not to say "Christ rose from the dead." Instead we say, "Christ is risen."
The Resurrection is not an event of the distant past, found in dusty books and old stories. It is an event that is happening right now. Christ is risen body and soul, and Christ can be resurrected in our lives, even though we are dead in spirit, he can give us new life. Even if we've fallen away, even if we continue stumble in sin, even if we have cut ourselves off from His grace, though we are dead, we can become alive again.
I know that I still have to get my Deadpool review up, but seeing how divided critics and audiences are on this movie, I thought this would be more timely.
As I sat in the theater as the movie began, I turned to my wife and said, "I've waited my whole life to see this movie." As a lifelong comic book geek, I have always longed to see the great characters of the DC Universe share the big screen together.
And this movie did not disappoint.
After the opening credit sequence, Batman v. Superman picks up during the final battle in Man of Steel. But what director Zach Snyder skillfully does is keep the camera at street level as Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) races through the chaos to his friends at the Metropolis' branch of Wayne Financial. This scene is tense and harrowing. Even though I saw it in the previews, the shot of Bruce running straight into the dust clouds still give me that visceral flashback to all the footage from 9/11. And by keeping the camera at street level, Snyder visually sets up the contrast of perspectives between our main heroes: Superman (Henry Cavill) is isolated from humanity because he is so far above and Batman is filled with fear and rage by all the damage felt below.
The events of Man of Steel loom like a large shadow over the entire film. Congress has even called hearings regarding what to do about Superman. Added to the mix is Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) who is filled with impotent rage at the feeling that his genius may not be a match for Superman's power. He is central to the events that draw Batman and Superman into conflict, as well as luring in the involvement of the mysterious Diana Prince (Gal Godot) whose true identity has been revealed by all the trailers. I do not want to speak too much more about the plot for fear of giving away some real twists and surprises. Perhaps people smarter than me could see a lot of the twists coming. I, however, could not and I reveled in moments of shock and surprise that I rarely feel in big budget movies.
As I mentioned above, there are a lot of critics panning this film. I usually don't read other people's reviews before writing my own, but I was so curious as to why there was so much venom or apathy towards a movie that filled me so much geek joy. Some of the criticisms are a matter of taste and so are unarguable. But others I think miss the point of the Batman v. Superman. Regardless, let us start with the movie's deficits.
1. Chopped scenes. They have already announced that the director's cut of the movie will be 30 minutes longer and R-Rated. In the early scenes especially, you get the sense that what you see on the screen was a part of a larger sequence but had to be pared down for time. Good editing shouldn't leave you with this feeling. The more I see this in movies, the more I appreciate The Lord of the Rings series that trimmed hours and hours of footage without making it feel abbreviated
2. Too mature. As a kid I would have loved to have seen this movie. But as an adult I would not let a little kid see it. While a movie like The Avengers has a few slightly mature moments and baudy jokes, it is for the most part kid-friendly. Batman v. Superman is not. The dark tone is not the issue, though many critics have cited this as a problem. For me, it was the depiction of sexuality. It is not a huge part of the film, but it was bothersome. There is one scene in particular where Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is in a bathtub having a conversation with Clark. There is no actual nudity, but there may as well be. The scene hints at such as high level of sensuality and flirts with nudity so much to the point that I would imagine a child seeing this movie would leave thinking that they had seen a naked Lois. I would also hate to have to explain to a child why Superman is getting into a bathtub with Lois when they are not married (this pre-marital sexuality is also my major critique of Superman II)
3. Batman kills. One of the best things that Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy got correct is that Batman does not kill. Even the Frank Miller comic The Dark Knight Returns Series, on which much of Batman v. Superman is based, emphasizes that Batman will not kill anyone, even the Joker. But the Batman in this latest movie is a killer. He usually leaves his prey alive, but he will deploy the machine guns on his Bat-vehicles to mow down the bad guys. A killer Batman is my least favorite part of the Tim Burton Batman films and I was upset that they brought this back for the latest incarnation.
But beyond these, I think that the movie is fantastic
Even the issue of maturity is more of a choice than a problem. If you take little kids out of the equation, then it is much less problematic.
So what is so great about this film?
1. Best Cinematic Batman. I know I may get some hate for this, but Ben Affleck's Batman is the best representation of the comic book Batman I have ever seen on the big screen. This is not a knock against Michael Keaton or Christian Bale. But Affleck's Batman is a grizzled, war-scared veteran of the war on crime; he is a hulking wall of muscle that seethes with righteous rage, and he projects a sharp intelligence. The killing part is still very problematic, but otherwise it is like the Batman from the comic books came to life on the screen.
2. Visual Spectacle. Man of Steel was very much an atypical Snyder film, with its hard lighting and non-stationary camera work in physical locations rather than green screen. In Batman v. Superman, the director melts the Man of Steel aesthetic with sometime closer to what we've seen of him in 300 and Watchmen. Surprisingly both styles blend very well. I love the fact that Snyder forces his actors to put on real muscle bulk. Even in the midst of fighting CGI monsters you always have a concrete sense of the heroes' strength. The action sequences were high-octane, visually rich moments. Some have complained about the darkness (visual, not tonal) of the movie. There is some truth to this because much of the film takes place at night, but it is nowhere near as murky as parts of previous superhero fare like Hulk and Superman Returns.
3. Scale. Batman v. Superman is without a doubt a transitional movie, which is why its subtitle is Dawn of Justice. It bridges Man of Steel to the Justice League movies. Many people have pointed this out as a flaw. I don't see it that way. I'm reminded of Obi-wan's words to Luke, "You've taken your first step into a larger world." Perhaps it is my affinity for comic book storytelling that makes this so much palatable to me than to others. For example, a typical Geoff Johns-written comic story would have an epic story arc that would feature one or two scenes that would plant the seeds for the next epic story arc. The same is true of Batman v. Superman. Some may see these scenes as unnecessary diversions. I see them as intriguing windows into the future.
4. Religion. As a Catholic, you have no idea how delighted it makes me to see the most basic exercise of belief in a big summer blockbuster. Towards the beginning as a man believes he is about to die, he prays to God to have mercy on his soul. Later when a terrible decision is made, one listener makes the sign of the cross and prays. Perhaps I am only a spiritually starving man cheering at cinematic breadcrumbs. But between these and what we saw in Man of Steel, I cannot believe that this positive portrayal of faith is an accident. Lex Luthor is one of the best movie representations of the modern anti-theist. Superman stands in here for the concrete example of a Higher Power. Friedrich Nietzsche said that there could not be any gods because if there were he could not stand to not be a god himself. Luthor embodies that philosophy perfectly. He is that mix of Nietzsche and Frankenstein that hates a world made in God's image and wants to remake it in his own. And whoever wrote the script must have read CS Lewis, because Luthor perfectly summarize the only argument that claims to disprove God: The Problem of Pain. And while Luthor casts his anti-theism on Superman it is important to note that Superman does not see himself as a Christ figure. Some have criticized this film's Superman as being too angsty. But it fits perfectly with the portrayal of a man who is hailed by the masses as a savior when he knows too well his own flaws.
5. Emotion. (MILD SPOILER THIS PARAGRAPH) It should come as no shock that since Batman and Superman are heroes, their fight comes to a not-all-together-tragic end. What stops the fight is an emotional revelation that is so basic, so simple, that I can understand why some might feel it to be corny. But this key emotional tether is so primal that I completely bought into its resolution. CS Lewis said that friendship arises when two people realize that they see the same truth. That is what I felt when I watched the end of their fight. The relationships all around were very potent and added so much nice texture to the story.
6. Performances. I already mentioned Affleck, but the rest of the cast is great. Adams shows the contradictory fear and thrill of a mortal in love with a god. Cavill's Superman is weighed down with the responsibility of every success and failure of his mission. Jeremy Irons as Alfred is such a wonderfully touching turn, wrapped in humorous cynicism. Godot, though she has little screen time, has great screen presence. There are many who hate Eisenberg's portrayal of Luther and I do understand why. It is whiney and fidgety and awkward. Based on the trailers, I was prepared to hate it too. But I think I understand what he was going for: he is the demasculanized nerd who thinks he knows better. He is the internet activist "anti-bully" bully. Like so many who were bullied by the stronger, Lex hates the strong because they are strong. My observation of social media outrage was very much in keeping with Eisenberg's performance. How often do we see people online attack with insane bile rather than offer something positive?
7. Darkness to light. (MILD SPOILERS THIS PARAGRAPH) There are many who have said that the film is too dark. I read an excellent review, with which I disagree, that compared the optimism of Aunt May's hero speech in Spider-Man 2 with the cynicism of Batman v. Superman. It is true that this movie is full of angst, self-doubt, and cynicism. Batman's mindset in much of the movie is that we have to kill Superman before he threatens all of humanity. Superman's mindset is that he doesn't know if he can keep helping if his actions can potentially hurt others and the world turns on him. But that is not where the movie ends. I cannot go into much detail here for fear of spoilers. Yet I can say that the whole point of the cynicism is to create a dramatic conflict that leads to trust. That trust is hard-won, but because of that it feels earned and not forced. This movie is very dark, but opens to the light. That is why it is called Dawn of Justice.
My sense from the online community is that I am very much in the minority with my effusive praise for this film. But I cannot help it. Despite the flaws mentioned above, the movie cast a spell on me and I was enchanted for the entire time.
I loved this movie and I cannot wait to see it again.
5 out of 5 stars.
*Mature = the content may be objectionable to some, but it should only be viewed by someone mature enough to properly process the content **Acceptable = the content may have a few morally questionable items, but it does not have enough immorality to make it mature or objectionable. It does not necessarily support good morality
The Christ Child Asleep on a Cross by William Blake
I'm sure it has happened before, but I cannot recall a time when the feast of the Annunciation (March 25th) coincided with Good Friday. It will not happen again until the year 2157. And yet how appropriate that the two holy days should be linked.
The Annunciation is when the Angel Gabriel came to the Virgin Mary and announced that she was chosen to give birth to the Son of God. This is the turning point of all history: not just human history, but the history of the entire universe. Because until that moment, Creation did not contain something within itself that it would after Mary's words: the Creator.
Yes, God is present in a special way in all things He creates, in the same way that the author of a story is present in the characters and places about which he writes. But the Incarnation is the moment the author entered the story. It was the beginning of our salvation.
And how appropriate that it should now fall on Good Friday. I would imagine that when we think of the Baby Jesus, we do not immediately think of the Passion. But if you read Matthew and Luke's Gospel, all the signs are there. Fr. Raymond Brown wrote a very informative little book called An Adult Christ at Christmas, in which he lays out all of the foreshadowings of the Passion found at the Nativity.
Herod, the Jewish leader, wanted to kill him, just like the Sanhedrin. The Magi bring signs of kingship to Him in the form of gifts and there is a literal sign of kingship on His cross. He is born in Bethlehem, which means "House of Bread" and is immediately placed in a manger, which is a feeding trough for the animals. At the Last Supper, Christ took the bread of His Body and gave it to feed the world.
So the connections to the beginning and the end are all there. This is no wonder since He is the Alpha and the Omega. We go from the beginning of the Silent Night to "It is finished."
But let us return even earlier, to the exact moment of Christ's conception and see the connections to His Passion.
The angel comes to Mary and brings her good news. In the Gospel of Luke, an angel comes to comfort Jesus during His agony in the Garden. I always like to imagine that this angel was also Gabriel, who was there to usher in the beginning of His life and prepare Him for His death.
Gabriel tells Mary that her child will be called "holy, the Son of God." (Lk 1:35) It is only after the centurion witnesses Christ's patient endurance of all the torture and hate thrown at Him that he says, "Truly this was the Son of God." (Mk 15:39)
And of course there is the most striking similarity in the responses of Mary and Jesus to the will of the Father. When told that she is chosen to be the Mother of God, Mary says, "Behold, I am the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." (Lk 1:38) And when the time comes for Christ to make His ultimate decision to stay or run away, He says to His Father, "Not my will, but Your will be done." (Mk 14:36)
There is also much to get from the contrasts between the two events. The angel says to Mary, "you have found favor with God." (Lk 1:30) And on the cross Christ cries out "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34) And that moment of Incarnation is when God the Son is forever bound in a special way to one of His creatures, the Virgin Mary. And yet at the cross, when He had nothing left to give, He even gave her away as well.
But for me, what a day like today reminds me is that both the Incarnation and the Passion are part of the singular event of Salvation. Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary so that he could be laid in the tomb of Joseph. Someone once said of Jesus, "All men are born to live. One man was born to die."
What today reminds me is that our Catholic faith is not one that is primarily about human beings reaching up past earthly things to only the spiritual. Plato's philosophy was aimed in this direction. He looked at the material world as a distraction from the spiritual things: the Forms. Even the soul is trapped in the prison of the body, according to him. So the goal of life is to move away from the perceptible, material things and think mainly of the spiritual, universal, abstract things.
But God does the opposite. Our Catholic faith is primarily about God coming down form the heavens and becoming a part of the material world He created. He does not disdain or dismiss the material world: He redeems it. Common things like water can now cleanse the soul. Ordinary bread and wine can be transformed into so much more.
We are human beings, not angels. This means that we are bodily creatures and very often we respond to the concrete more than to the abstract. It is difficult to risk your life for "humanity," but we could more easily do it for the person we love the most. And the unlimited, infinite God became limited and concrete today so that we could understand God and ourselves better.
Pope Benedict XVI has, to my mind, the most profound understanding of why Christ had to die on the cross. The Holy Father made clear that it was not that God the Father demanded blood and pain from His Son. If that was the case, we would be worshipping an evil blood-god who revels in torture. So when asked why, then, did Jesus have to die on the cross, Pope Benedict says, "Because that is the only way we would ever truly know who God is."
God is love.
And while this is true, that statement is abstract. What does it mean? God had to show us.
Love is the cross. Love is giving everything away, receiving nothing in return. His love goes all the way. It holds nothing back. He has nothing left to give. We can never doubt how much God loves us because He did not withhold from us His only Beloved Son. I can look at the cross and I can see love with my own eyes, incarnated in front of me.
And when I see who God really is and that He is love, I can also see what I am called to be. I was given this body, this life, so that I could give it away like Christ. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." (Mk 10:45) Today reminds me that "I have been crucified with Christ and yet I live. And the life that I live now is not my own but Christ lives in me. Inasmuch as I live in the flesh, I live in the faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given Himself up for me." (Gal 2:19-2)
And of course I fail at this often. But just as Christ fell on the way to the cross and got up again and again, so must I.
I was incarnated in the womb of my mother and I also have a destiny to pick up my cross every day.
So do you.
We only have one life on this Earth. Today reminds us that Jesus had that same one shot at an earthly life.
Imagine you knew that you only had 33 years on this Earth before you died. How would that affect you? I think that many of us would think something akin to "I only have 33 years. How much can I get out of life?"
Jesus Christ only had 33 years from the moment of the Annunciation to Good Friday. And He knew it. And yet when you read the Gospels, you see a man who looked at that narrow window of life and said:
15 words or less film review (full review to follow soon) Loved, loved, loved this movie. Best film translation of the DCU (though not for kids). 5 out of 5 stars
Did you ever wonder why Jesus instructed us to ask for “daily” bread? Why not ask for a lifetime supply of bread? Couldn’t God do that? Couldn’t God by His infinite power simply provide for all of our material needs?
And material needs we have. Because we are creatures who exist in bodies, these bodies are in constant need: food, water, shelter, fire, etc. We are in a constant state of neediness.
Why would a God, whose bounty is infinite, leave us in such a state that we are constantly worried about our material well-being? Why doesn’t he make us more comfortable in this world?
I think the answer is in the question.
Prosperity in this world is perilous to the soul. Christ never said that it was a sin to have wealth, but he always warned of its dangers. Yes, you can be rich and be a saint. But there seems to be a higher degree of difficulty in achieving holiness when you have prosperity.
