Did the Vatican fund this production? - Calvary (2014) Discussion

[–] Zangara 9 years ago

I think the outrage of the killer is shown in the movie to be completely justified. I also find it hard to believe that audiences would not sympathise with him during the confrontation on the beach and in the final scene.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

I think the outrage of the killer is shown in the movie to be completely justified. I also find it hard to believe that audiences would not sympathise with him during the confrontation on the beach and in the final scene.

So if a woman is raped by a repairman at her house, randomly murdering another, random repairman who had nothing to do with that or any other crime is completely justified. Yeah, makes perfect sense...

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Edward, the comparison doesn't wash! Sure, repairmen do rape women, and it's horrid when it happens, BUT we don't hold repairmen to an exceptionally high moral standards, as priests purport to have.

The point here was not to kill a *random* priest, but a GOOD one. An INNOCENT one, just as the killer had been an innocent and had that destroyed. He was *acting out* what he had endured.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

The point here was not to kill a *random* priest, but a GOOD one. An INNOCENT one, just as the killer had been an innocent and had that destroyed. He was *acting out* what he had endured.

My point still stands. If a woman is raped by a plumber at her home, murdering another plumber who is an innocent and good man isn't a sane or defensible response. And I similarly question the sanity of anyone who believes that Jack's actions in the film are justifiable.

reply

[–] everlone_2000 9 years ago

My point still stands.

No it doesn't, because you're conflating different concepts that don't mean the same thing. The poster suggested that the outrage of the victim is shown to be completely justified, which it is. Even the Priest who stands to lose his life wold agree with that. The man's outrage is not the same as his actions. It is possible to feel his outrage is justified, but that his actions are not. In fact this is the stance that the main character takes - he competely understands that the man is justifiably outraged, but he still says "You don't have to go through with this".

I also disagree that the the victim "in no way comes across as sympathetic". I would argue that from the very first scene, with the graphic and apalling description of what he endured, that the victim is sympathetic. And I think that carries through to the final scene - you completely understand where he's coming from when the priest admits that he cried over the dog, but not the reports of sexual abuse in the church.

Truthfully, I think the viewer is invited to follow much the same path as Father James: Horror and sympathy at what Jack has endured; an understanding that the pain must be unimaginable to the point where any attempt to reach out to this person would be patronising; a sadness that Jack has been driven to this point. And, finally, I think the viewer ends up in much the same place as Jack - despite all that you don't want him to commit the crime not just because Father James will be dead, but because Jack will have further ruioned his own life. You're never invited to be angry at Jack. You just feel sad for him, because he is portrayed with sympathy and understanding, his outrage is justified, and the motives for his crime are comprehensible and relatable.

reply

[–] cjala 9 years ago

Still defending premeditated murder in cold *beep* blood, idiot.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

Let's face it: this is a huge "blame the victim" scenario.

Where is Jack blamed for being molested by a priest, or whitewash the actions of the priest who molested him?

So we end up being asked to mourn the loss of one of "God's chosen" more than we're left understanding the wildly justified outrage of his killer.

If Jack had murdered the priest who had molested him, or even Church officials who covered it up, it would be "wildly justified outrage." Killing somebody who had nothing to do with the events is the work of a deranged mind.

The priest is all decent and appealing: a great, thoughtful, caring bear of a man who's lived the secular life to the hilt and is now devoting himself to something he deems sacred.

He also worked with another priest who was a callous cynic who cared nothing at all about either theology or the members of his parish. You'd think that the Vatican wouldn't want to show that this side of the Church exists as well.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Dear Edward,

By "Blame the Victim" I mean that Jack is shown to be a callous murderer, instead of sympathetically depicted as someone driven deranged by a monolithic, self-serving, and cavalier institution.

His outrage is justified and we're only shown that it's displaced onto an innocent priest, which is Jack's intention: having had his own innocence destroyed.

Of course they had to show the rotten apples in the Church or it would have come across as naive propaganda. Ireland is up to its waders in evidence of institutionalized child abuse. The Bad Boyz also supplied contrast to the Good Man.

reply

[–] Thelsttm 9 years ago

By "Blame the Victim" I mean that Jack is shown to be a callous murderer

I didn't find him to be callous at all. He's a unfortunate wreck of a man, damaged by abuse at the hands of a person and institution he had trusted. His purpose was to make people as outraged as he felt they should be by his and others' predicament.

Perhaps you're the type who thinks the world a trite, simple thing and are outraged that everyone doesn't hate the Catholic Church as much as you do?

His outrage is justified and we're only shown that it's displaced onto an innocent priest, which is Jack's intention: having had his own innocence destroyed.

Hardly an innocent. He is even confronted at the end about the reality that while he cried over his dog, he never shed a tear for the myriad victims of abuse.

Of course they had to show the rotten apples in the Church or it would have come across as naive propaganda.

Sweet Enola Gay, who are you, Roland Emmerich? Not all art has to be political or social commentary.

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

The fact is we are shown Jack as a killer, and in jail for that, with more time given to that representation of him than is any exposition about his suffering. At the end of the day, HE remains as the one to be forgiven, for Chrissake!

Of COURSE this priest is innocent ~ That's precisely why he was chosen.

Disclosure: when doing my internship as a Therapist, I worked in Residential Therapeutic homes for Priests and Nuns, and I saw up close and personal all the machinations employed to "pass the trash" (the Church's phrase) and rotate pedophile priests away from accountability and into greener pastures for their wanton appetites. In response I blew the whistle on Boston's Cardinal (above the) Law, who is now sitting pretty in Vatican City: so much for decency on the part of that self-serving institution when faced with the sins of its Fathers.

Have never watched any of Emmerich's flicks, blockbusters not being to my taste. But yes, I believe that having the opportunity to address something of the magnitude of that unique Circle of Hell that is sexual abuse of children on the part of the religious, your *art* should not be merely self-indulgent. Maybe you afford yourself the luxury of ignoring the victims of this heinous plague, but that is something I could never do.

In fact, my knowledge of how avidly these victims seek healing had me concerned that this story, which serves up the true lamb as villain and the priest as sacrificial lamb, would only increase the despair of many.

reply

[–] Thelsttm 9 years ago

The fact is we are shown Jack as a killer, and in jail for that, with more time given to that representation of him than is any exposition about his suffering. At the end of the day, HE remains as the one to be forgiven, for Chrissake!

Yes, you'll find that people who are victims of abuse in some cases do become irrationally violent towards others. Being the victim of abuse doesn't excuse his behavior. It provides context through which we can understand why he acted the way he did. And often, innocent people are the ones lashed out against. As Andrew Vachss (look him up), once noted, "We make our own monsters."

As per "representation," the film's focus is on the priest, not the victim[s] of abuse. You want to see that in a movie? Go make one. But aesthetically speaking, Walker Percy once noted that any work that focuses on a topic that visceral (in his example, he was referring to Styron's Sophie's Choice and the Holocaust) and emotionally appalling, everything in the story you're trying to tell is consumed by that, and the characters, story, etc. are pushed to the background. In contrast, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five deals with the bombing of Dresden, but in keeping the story of Billy Pilgrim in the foreground with the bombing itself a peripheral event, it strengthens the impact when he hears the birds chirping.

I have no idea if that was McDonagh's point, but I think the film more powerful because of it.

You appear to want to a movie about bureaucracy, and the powerful covering up their own wrongdoings. That wasn't what this picture was about.

Disclosure: I don't believe everything anyone writes on the Internet. But you're absolutely right that the powerful, whether it be politics, finance, the military, religion, will have a CYA attitude towards scandal.

In fact, my knowledge of how avidly these victims seek healing had me concerned that this story, which serves up the true lamb as villain and the priest as sacrificial lamb, would only increase the despair of many.

I think pretty much...everyone is aware that the killer wasn't the only victim. Again, what you want is a movie about the scandal as a whole. This isn't it. Never claimed to be. As Harlan Ellison once said, "You don't like what I wrote? Write your own !@#$ story! Don't tell me how to write mine."

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

You keep presuming what I think, what I want, etc. and you're off.

As for your suggestion that I write my own screenplay, I am doing just that.

You seem to be insisting that, if I don't just love this film and everything about it, I have no right to express my opinion. Which is that this story serves the Church more than it does victims of the Church.

You might consider a wee study of SNAP ~ "Look it up."

reply

[–] Thelsttm 9 years ago

You have every right to express my opinion. Just as I have a right to express mine. How old are you? I notice a lot of younger people have that kneejerk reaction to any criticism aimed at them. They assume that the right to express their opinion means no one can disagree with them.

And again, why do you assume the film has to "serve" anyone or anything? If you want to send messages, e-mail is a lot cheaper.

Who are a little wise the best fools be.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

LOL! Did you really mean to write, "You have every right to express my opinion. Just as I have a right to express mine"?

Re; your quip about e-mail:
Stories aren't trivial, they are essential to all of Creation. Even the Universe is living out its story. The topic of this movie is one that deeply, rawly, and intimately effects the lives of many living people today, some of whom are so damaged and flooded by toxic emotional stress on a daily basis that they are barely hanging onto life.

How old am I? 63.

reply

[–] otter68 9 years ago

TWO different characters talk about being raped by priest, a priests curses and shoots up a pub, and you consider THAT pro-Vatican?

Don't hate on contrarians

reply

[–] akkratte 9 years ago

I figured it out!

DeepCinema is actually trying to re-create the film, but in a subtle, non-violent way.

Both DeepCinema and Jack have very real complaints, but both of them lash out in unreasonable ways. DeepCinema seeks to bury the entire Catholic Church, painting all its members as sick, demented people, even those who are completely innocent, which is most of its members. Jack, in retaliation for a sin committed by one member, lashes out at a innocent priest (at least as far as abuse goes).

They both fail to see reality. On the beach, the priest tells his killer he doesn't have to go through with it. The killer says "Yes I do." which is false. In this thread, DeepCinema wants to see all members of the Church as bad. Since this film portrays one priest in a positive way, DeepCinema must bring it down. So they insist that the film ignores Jack's problem and agony. Of course, this is very much false. The scene at the beach very much makes you feel compassion for him. To say otherwise is being emotionally dishonest. You'd have to jump a lot of mental hurdles to make the conclusion that we are not supposed to empathize with Jack.

Furthermore, DeepCinema makes an ages old mistake when they imply that one must either love the Church or love the sinner. Jack is a murderer. Of course we're not supposed to support what he does. But just because we don't approve of him murdering someone does not mean that we can't feel pain for him. Apparently DeepCinema doesn't want anyone to mourn for a priest who genuinely cares about people just because he's a priest.

Have people in the Church done horrible things? Yes. Both Jack and DeepCinema are correct. Does this make everyone in the Church bad? No. Both Jack and DeepCinema fail to realize this. So they both will tear down the good to punish the bad. Of course, in both cases, this doesn't make sense. By tearing down the good, they only succeed in tearing down the good, which leaves things empty, as we see in the end of this film with all the villagers missing someone who really cared about them.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

While I appreciate the time you took to compose this essay, akkratte, you've made some sweeping statements about my perceptions which are off the mark. I can see why you would come to those, but my viewpoint is broader, deeper.

I don't have time to respond fully right now but thank you for your thoughtfulness and for proffering that option of recreating the film.

Yes, I think the Church is a mess and in crisis, and as far as I'm concerned it can either re-write its agenda or go the way of the dinosaurs.

I see the best of this film as showing a great, messy unravelling of an institution that's monolithic, self-serving, callous and patriarchal. Wasn't the original CALVARY an abruptly destructive lightning bolt to all the dreams of Jesus' followers? And then his resurrection took the sacred play to an entirely new and unexpected level.

This film could have taken a quantum leap too, a much needed one, but it went retro...

reply

[–] Zangara 9 years ago

The director made the film he wanted to make, not the film you wanted him to make.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

No kidding.
That's his right.
And my responses here are also entirely valid.
That's what movie discussion boards are all about. If the law was that we just had to accept the director's perspective and deny our own, or only come aboard here to sing his praises, what kind of oppression would that be? Sheesh!

reply

[–] otter68 9 years ago

still fail to see how a film with TWO characters who claim they were raped by priests, a whole congregation of hypocrites, and a priest who gets drunk, drops F bombs, and shoots up a pub is considered "pro-vatican"

Don't hate on contrarians

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Okay ~ The Church is held to NO accountability. Zero. Zilch. Canon Law is all about evading common justice. Did you know that the Vatican was granted its sovereignty by Mussolini? Telling, that!

The main character is a GOOD MAN, if sadly benighted on the whole sex scandal. The rape victim becomes a murdererl
"See, those so-called victims are crazed and our good men imperiled!" Fr. James sacrifices himself, strides through town in High Noon style and offers himself up as the Lamb of God. Tragic! We loved him, we'll miss him. What's not explored is what measure of loss we have in Jack's life, his potential having been aborted, truncated, soul-killed, blighted when young.

reply

[–] otter68 9 years ago

this is NOT a movie about the church. It's a movie about a priest.

Don't hate on contrarians

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Are you seriously trying to split that (pubic) hair???

That's like saying, "this is NOT a movie about Nazism. It's a movie about an S.S. officer."

reply

[–] otter68 9 years ago

American Sniper is about Chris Kyle, not the Iraq War.
Dirty Harry is about a cop, not the San Francisco Police Department.
Apollo 13 is not about NASA; it's about the Apollo 13 Astronauts.

Yes, you can separate the priest from the Vatican.

Don't hate on contrarians

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

No, you can't, because the Vatican has the priest by a short chain. The Roman Catholic Church operates in a very strictly determined hierarchy with laws of obedience in place. By signing on as one of their pawns, or knights or bishops you pay homage up the line to el papa in Rome.

reply

[–] otter68 9 years ago

you wanted them to make a mini-series, not a movie. If you were going to make a movie about Vatican hierarchy and how it relates to one priest in a small town, you'd have to focus on that, not the one priest. There were only 3 priests in the movie. The two parish priests and the bishop, and the bishop was a minor character.

The movie is about ONE priest dealing with a crisis. I'm not sure why you can't divorce that from the Vatican.

Don't hate on contrarians

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

One priest can never be severed from the Vatican hierarchy. In fact, the head honchos have made new laws re: what religious can reveal about abuse, all in favor of protecting their reputation.

I certainly can see one priest having an epiphany re: the Church, and that being a genuine inspiration for the villagers.

My wish was that Fr. James would be more radical, like Jesus in relation to the Pharisees, and blow open the whole corrupt, rigged game via his innate goodness and sexual integrity (see my post on Mary Magdalene for more on that, if you would).

reply

[–] akkratte 9 years ago

Really reaching there with your history.

The Papal States, which included Vatican City obviously, existed from the mid 700s to 1870, when they were invaded and annexed by Italy. The Vatican for years tried to get out of Italy's control, in fact several times declared that Italy had no power over them. Yes, in 1929 Mussolini signed the treaty that gave them their independence, in response to nearly 50 years of struggling with the Vatican, who wouldn't accept their fascist laws.

So yes, you just claimed that Mussolini granted the Vatican its sovereignty. That's like saying Stalin created Poland. Its just plain silly to say that a country that had been in existence for 1000 years before they were invaded and taken over by a foreign power was granted their sovereignty by the country that invaded them in the first place! Mussolini may have signed a sheet of paper, but the Vatican had their independence for hundreds of years.

Italy had all sorts of problems when the Vatican was under their control. They really had no choice but to let Vatican City go. Other countries were very unhappy with the Italian government for their choice. The popes went so far as to refuse to leave the Vatican because they would not allow themselves to be protected by Italian officials in public.

Stop with the mental hurdles already.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

""if there is a totalitarian regime – in fact and by right – it is the regime of the church, because man belongs totally to the church"." ~ pope Pius XI

~ They're more kindred than you assert.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

People with political, ideological, or religious obsessions see the world in black and white, with no shades of grey in between.

If you unconditionally hate the Catholic Church, any remotely favorable portrayal of the Church or the priest is perceived as "Vatican Propaganda", even if the priest is shown to be a flawed man surrounded by even more flawed people and institutions. This "Deep Cinema" character is a case in point - probably a shrieking feminist with many axes to grind.

Conversely, a religious fanatic would watch this movie and see it as a great atheist conspiracy against the Church because it shows the venal and flawed side of the Church and the clergy.

Ironically, the religious fanatic and the person who hates the Church share the same ignorance and pig-headedness. Invariably, trying to argue, much less reason, with either is like talking to a brick wall.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Where are you with your defense of the Church?

Do you know any victims of priestly pedophilia?

Do you endorse its patriarchal sexism?

Can you manage a discussion without resorting to ad hominem attack?

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

patriarchal sexism?

As soon as I hear someone wailing about "patriarchy," I know that I'm dealing with a fanatical feminist automaton. Next thing you know, I'll be lectured about how we live in a "rape culture" and get another bucketfull of favored buzzwords and ideological catch-phrases.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Are you saying that the RCC is neither patriarchal not sexist? PLEASE! Get real: It's intractably BOTH.

I suppose you think a woman who judges the Taliban as such is also *fanatical.*

Do you say that blacks who oppose segregation are *uppity*?

I've heard a *prince* of the church say that they'd ordain a jackass before they'd ordain a woman.

And you just have to research some of its *saints* to find some of the most misogynistic statements on record.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

You keep saying I "hate" the Church....??? Lol! Too much energy required for that, which I'd never waste on the Old BoyZ Club ~ like shoveling shyte against the tide.

This from an essay I've read on the evil banality of staying loyal to outdated, corrupt religious institutions:

"There is a madness here that does not sleep, and it only becomes twice as mad when it's done in the name of love and compassion. Do not bring me "more of the same" dressed up in goodness and light. Bring me something new, or something very old. If we repeat the mistakes of the past, while dressing them up in new forms, we are not just failures, but fools."

CALVARY could have brought us "something new" but failed; anything less endorses the corrupt institution.

reply

[–] MacacoBanditi 9 years ago

Spot on.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Thank you! I came to this movie with great expectations and was left sorely disappointed.

It didn't help, as many here have noted, that so many of the folks in the village were off-putting by dint of their nasty natures.

reply

[–] Viewer456 9 years ago

Recently watched the film. First I should just say that while I enjoyed it, I also really like your alternate vision for the film re the Mary Magdalene post. I think that would be an amazing film and could help unclog our toxic attitudes towards sex while showing how real compassion comes from our shared humanity (sorry if that sounded a bit wishy-washy).

IMO this would also require an offer of not just sex but companionship and a more sympathetic rewrite of Veronica.

On this topic, I think that part of the point of the film is that the Priest cannot make that leap of understanding precisely because of the values the Church asks him to uphold. I think this reflects poorly on the Church as well as dictatorial institutions as a whole. Director quote:

I don’t see this film as being particularly anti-religious; it’s more anti-authority I think.

This anti-authoritarian streak runs through the directors work(also see The Guard).

Calvary makes the point that even someone who, as you say is a:

great, thoughtful, caring bear of a man

can be steered away from empathy by the institution he serves:

I guess I was detached from it

SPOILERS:

As for your point about the killer I must admit I didn't get the same feeling. I had nothing but sympathy for this person's outrage, if not their actions (the difference between the two has been eruditely explained by another commentator). I felt the beach scene humanised his pain and when combined with the other information the film gives us at the start I think It would be a pretty hard-hearted person who couldn't empathise with him. I know not everyone will be affected the same way but the scene certainly reached me.

I know what you're saying in terms of the way the film is loaded so that we mourn the loss of the priest. But for me it is not that we mourn his death so much as his thinking behind it. That his form of integrity is bound to the values of the church and so he sees his death as the only way to maintain that integrity, rather than say, actually doing some whistleblowing on the abuse front. Again this reflects poorly on the institution as a whole. These things are there beneath the surface, but the film trusts the audience to do the work.

So was it funded by the Vatican? I know that's probably a rhetorical question but the honest answer is no: http://filmbase.ie/ifb-funded-film-calvary-picked-up-by-fox-searchligh t-for-us-release/#.VP5F-I7z68A

If one is looking to effect change then a morally black and white approach (as used in the perfectly ok The Magdalene Sisters film)is often ineffectual because it mostly preaches to the converted, no pun intended. But allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions is not a tacit endorsement of the Church. The very fact that the film features a 'good priest' might well get people watching it who may otherwise have been unreceptive to viewing it. It seems like an earnest attempt at telling an important story in a distinct manner. You have to take into account authorial intent. The reasons the characters appear as they do is a result of authorial intent. Quote from the director:

Yeah, it deals with a lot of different subjects but it’s done by meeting one sort of idiosyncratic, strange character after another like in a Sturges screwball comedy. That was my approach. I start with character first and whatever the subtext will come out, it will always be there if you create a great work of art. People will see things that you may not have intended. If it’s dense and it’s rich, those things will come up all the time.

See, this is why i don't think you can view it as an endorsement of the Church, or as an exercise in victim blaming.

There are mentions of the light slap on the wrist priests receive for their crimes, such as being sent abroad to a mission where they can

Do what they want.

The behavior of the priests hasn't been presented as saintly. Some drink, some are dimwitted and most damming of all the bishop is shown as being completely uncaring towards the victim of abuse and engaging in victim blaming himself. You can't just write all that off as an attempt to throw people off the scent.

Your opinion is both valid and valuable to discourse, it certainly got me thinking. The reason I replied was that I was quite startled by your view, given how the film touched me. I know Calvary wasn't the movie you were expecting.

But perhaps if you stop viewing it through that lens and accept it as the movie it actually is, you can see the value in it, as well as the flaws.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Thank YOU!

Shall have to get back to you more comprehensively another day.

Beautifully & thoughtfully composed. Are you a writer?

reply

[–] Viewer456 9 years ago

No worries, you're very kind :) I've done the odd bit of (unpaid) film and game criticism but I think that one day I would like to try creating something myself. So I wouldn't say I've earned the right to be called a writer just yet.

I'm a fan of longform film criticism (Like FILM HULK SMASH who, despite the talk like the Hulk gimmick, does some of the best, most human and compassionate writing on film I've ever seen) so I'm glad you took my comment in the spirit of understanding it was intended. I can put people off with the length of my replies sometimes.

I've only seen the film once(same day as my original comment)so I do feel like I need to watch it a again to sort out how I feel about it. But your posts definitely helped get me thinking about Calvary in a new light. Even if I didn't wholly agree with them I could see that they were well articulated and they felt sincere.

For me, that is what good discussion around movies is all about!

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

O, I came on to respond more fully and now am looking into FILM HULK MASH reviews, which I'd never heard of, and so must thank you again!

If you syndicated film reviews, what tact would you take?

reply

[–] Viewer456 9 years ago

You're most welcome :) He's pretty great, isn't he? His NEVER HATE A MOVIE article had a big impact on me.

I guess I would go longform and look to champion the things I like, in the same way that I do with my friends (I tend to be the one that recommends overlooked gems and smaller releases that may have passed them by). I love the feeling of introducing someone to something new!

Although I can speak technical film language passably I'm not a native and so I'd probably focus on the things that interest me most; story and character. What I like about HULK is that while many people writing about film try to be arch and flip, HULK is always earnest and heartfelt. And yet he still manages to be funny and engaging. That's the sort of tone I'd go for.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

"overlooked gems and smaller releases" is a GREAT field to plow! Get syndicated!

reply

[–] Viewer456 9 years ago

Thanks, I will certainly try! I'm sorry if I side-tracked you a bit from any points you wanted to make in response to my initial comment? Myself, I can lose whole afternoons reading film articles/reviews etc. I just thought I'd recommend HULK because:

a) It helps give context to my initial comment in showing where I'm coming from In my approach to film discussion and (more importantly)

b) He's ace :)

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

O, YOU didn't side-track me in a bad way ~ rather invited me down a wild path!

reply

[–] dragmio 9 years ago

Go dance around the fire with other witches, but don't hold your breath. The old Catholic church isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Poor neopagan, quaziliberal, feminazi you.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

What a litany of name-calling! And are you happy with the entrenched dinosaur?

reply

[–] dragmio 9 years ago

You could have done better.
Anyway and FYI, paganism, anarchy and matriarchy are all older than Christianity. In fact Christianity halped put a stop on some of those. So, I understand the hate, but don't dream about being on the side of progress, because you're not.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

patronizing opening line.

dark, hidden face.

assumption that I need to be informed by you on those well-known historical entities.

You think a sexist, patriarchal institution is progressive?

My Soul is ever and ever more restored to its Indigenous Source, which is Life-giving and sustaining, even as the efficacy of the Church withers and dies, as shown in this movie.

reply

[–] dragmio 9 years ago

So if it's already dying, why kick it collectivelly in it's throes?
The Church should have been attacked 500 hundred years ago while you could have actually burned for it. Doing it today is beyond lame. And the ones doing it would have been cheering at heretics being burned at stake 500 hundred years ago, you can bet. They just want to make sure they throw their stone at the scapegoat so they can go home feeling at peace with themselves. And would have thrown it at anyone, including you and me. Such people, and most people are like that, deserve nothing but tyranny.

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

The ones doing it now would have been sought out to be burned at the stake way back when.

And the Church is still powerfully damaging enough that it deserves kicking, even in its dying throes.

reply

[–] dragmio 9 years ago

So, you are naive after all. Oh well...

reply

[–] DeepCinema 9 years ago

Not in the least. I've been up close and personal with the inner machinations of the beast and instrumental in outing them.

Goodbye, Troll, you're not worth engaging.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sherineyousery 9 years ago

Why must every movie or song or a work of art be fueled by an organization or a policy ? Sometimes if you look a little harder, you'll see real life and human nature in movies, at their best. Many victims of sexual, or "most" to be more correct, never forgive or forget the awful experiences they had especially when the offender is out there, even very well respected and held in high regard. Some may feel terrible anger and commit such an act. They may kill the abuser. I think that does happen in real life, and revenge is part of human nature.

reply

[–] bigbluecheese 8 years ago

Late response!

I was reluctant to watch this originally because I thought it would be another Catholic bashing film (which is like shooting fish in a barrel) but it blew me away.

I don't think it was pro Vatican though, it was 'pro' the Priest because he was a good person but I don't think that Jack was a bad person, he was so damaged that he was beyond repair (up to that point anyway)

I was wondering if you (DeepCinema) still felt so negative about the RCC now we have Pope Francis? He seems quite the reformer to me, I'm very hopeful

Goodnight, good luck and may your God go with you

reply