Fox X-Men Retrospective Reviews: X-Men (2000)

With X-Men: Dark Phoenix, presumably the final chapter in the Fox X-Men franchise, coming out later this year I've decided to look back on the series. To begin we have the movie that started it all...

     While some credit the earlier Blade or the later Spider-Man with igniting the ever ballooning superhero movie craze, and indeed, both films contributed to the formation of the genre, the film that really got the ball rolling was X-Men. Certainly, there had been financially successful comic book films before this but while Superman was very much a tribute to the classic era of comics and Batman was more of a pastiche of the pop culture image of Batman, X-Men was the first really "mature" modern superhero film. Along with Spider-Man, X-Men established the play book that the Marvel cinematic universe would later follow, staying true to the spirit of the comics while forging ahead with its own stories and its own interpretation of the characters.

     Looking back on the film today it's remarkably restrained, especially in light of more recent giant tentpole movies like Avengers: Endgame. Compared to a Captain Marvel (or even a more human character like Iron Man) the X-Men's powers are downright quaint and the conflict has far lower stakes then say, Aquaman. It also has some surprisingly dark scenes. In particular the scene where Wolverine accidentally stabs Rogue after waking up from a nightmare, nearly killing the one person he's made a connection with. Senator Kelly's death, too, is quite shocking. As far as I know, this is the first film to portray superpowers as being as much a curse as a gift, though I'm just about sick of that particular trope at this point.

     The writers do have some ambivalence about the property's comic book origins. This is particularly apparent in groaner lines like, "yellow spandex" or "you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lighting? The same thing that happens to everything else." Despite the more grounded approach these movies take, they can't seem to help but draw attention to the more heightened elements of the world. This is something the series would never quite come to terms with (even the recent Deadpool movies suffers from it in a certain sense).

     With that said, the writers do a great job establishing the core relationships, between Wolverine and Rogue, and Xavier and Magneto, and the conflict of ideas between the X-Men and the brotherhood. Rogue and Logan are the two "outsider" characters that help the audience to learn about the world. Both of them are relatable and likable. They also have a strong relationship and good on-screen chemistry. Rogue is not the femme fatale/spitfire she is in the comics but I'm OK with their take on her (more of a mix between Kitty Pride and Jubilee) because her power set strengthens the contrast and complementary nature between her and Logan. She is young and scared, he is old and jaded. She has only just discovered her power and he has forgotten who he was before he had them. Her power is to drain the powers (or life force) from others, while his are to heal.

     Magneto is a great, reliable villain, and remains one of the best comic-book movie villains to this day. This is large-in-part due to the relationship between he and Xavier. The two continue to respect (even love) each other despite their difference of opinion. Both of their points of view are understandable and make sense for their characters. Magneto's experience in the concentration camps made him distrustful of humanity while Xavier, with his mental powers and sensitive understanding for human psychology, has hope for peaceful coexistence. Even the humans, represented by Senator Kelly, are given their day in court so-to-speak. The actions of mutants like Magneto and his brotherhood make his desire for Mutant registration understandable if not exactly justified.

     Unfortunately, not all the characters are as well fleshed out. Jean Grey basically exists to be a love interest for Logan. Similarly Cyclops, who, as the team leader, should really get some character depth, is just a romantic rival for him. Storm gets even less to do though she does have one good moment with Senator Kelly. The brotherhood (Mystique, Sabretooth and Toad) are similarly shallow. Rogue's prospective boyfriend, Iceman, only makes an impression at all because Mystique disguises herself as him .

     Though not all of the characters get a chance to shine, the casting is really great all around. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen are inspired choices as Xavier and Magneto. Similarly, Hugh Jackman, though I've always been bothered by his height, is really great as Wolverine and, after all these years, it is hard to imagine anyone else playing him. Anna Paquin is also well cast as the relatable audience surrogate that is this film's version of Rogue. Famke Janssen is a great Jean Grey (though she won't get to shine until the second film). James Marsden is wasted as Cyclops (though ironically this is about the most he gets to do in this series). Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and Ray Park are clearly having a blast as Mystique and Toad. Tyler Mane is an imposing (if practically silent) presence as Sabretooth. Shawn Ashmore isn't in it enough to really put much of a stamp on Iceman but would prove himself later on. Finally, Bruce Davison brings his usual slimey qualities to Senator Kelly.

     The action is well done, even if the CGI and the wire-work is a bit lacking at times and (his despicable sexual conduct notwithstanding) Brian Singer does a good job, in general, behind the camera. There's a lot of dynamic camera movement and the film has a distinct visual style. There's more of a distinct authorial stamp here then in most of the more recent Marvel fare.

     X-Men is not a perfect film but nonetheless, it holds up quite well all these years later. It's hard to imagine what the current movie landscape would be (for better or worse) without it.

Score: 8/10

Western Wednesdays: Hell's Hinges (1916)

     Hell's Hinges was released on March 5th, 1916. Directed by Charles Swickard, Clifford Smith and William S. Hart and written by C. Gardner Sullivan (All Quiet on the Western Front) it tells the story of Blaze Tracy (Hart), gunfighter who is won over and reformed by the sister (Clara Williams) of Reverend Bob Henley (Jack Standing), the towns newly arrived minister. Blaze becomes caught up in the conflict between the peaceful, church going folks and Silk Miller, the saloon owner (Alfred Hollingsworth).

     Like so many other westerns, it highlights the conflict between civilization, represented by the minister and the good, churchgoing townsfolk, and the wilderness, represented by the unruly cowboys and gunmen and the loose women who inhabit Silk Miller's saloon. Less typical is the way the conflict ends, with Blaze setting the town on fire in retaliation for the destruction of Henley’s church. Also of note is the tragic depiction of Reverend Henley, who is seduced by Miller's lifestyle and burns down his own church in a drunken stupor. Hell’s Hinges is an uncharacteristically dark film for its time.

     More typical of westerns, we see our hero being civilized by our heroine. The inter-titles describing Tracy's reaction on first seeing Faith Henley, "One who is evil, looking for the first time upon that which is good" could sum up the central conflict in many a western made since. Tracy and Faith's relationship drive the film, as he becomes the Church's protector (much to Miller's consternation) and later it's avenger.

     Hart's direction (Swickard, though the credited director, was mostly just following his lead) is really masterful, especially in the dramatic mob scenes that make up the film's climax. Striking images of the church, and later the town itself, burning, linger long after the credits roll. Hart had a real flair for the dramatic. He was also an accomplished rider and does some impressive stunt-work here, riding his horse down a steep embankment as Blaze rushes into town to rescue Clara.

     Hell's Hinges may not be a terribly nuanced western but it does what (perhaps) silent films do best: it breaks the genre down to its most primal elements to tell a stirring tale, one with timeless resonance.

Score: 8/10

Lent Reviews Year 6 Week 6: Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

     Jesus of Nazareth originally aired during the Lent and Easter season of 1977. It is directed by Franco Zeffirelli and written by Zeffirelli, Anthony Burgess, and Suso Cecchi d'Amico (Bicycle Thieves, The Leopard, The Taming of the Shrew). It stars Robert Powell as Jesus.

     Jesus of Nazareth was an extremely ambitious undertaking. The middle part of a loose trilogy, which began with Moses the Lawgiver in 1973 and ended with A.D. (chronicling the Acts of the Apostles) in 1985 (all of which were co-written by Burgess), it seeks to present a fairly comprehensive adaptation of the four gospels. Never before had this much running time been devoted to the a film about Jesus' life. Like all Jesus films, the real challenge for the writers is to construct a traditionally structured story from the rather episodic Gospel accounts. Because this is a miniseries, broken up into 4 episodes, they had an advantage. Consequently, Zeffirelli, along with Burgess and d'Amico, do an admirable job weaving all the disparate threads together into a relatively cohesive narrative. The first episode focuses on the Nativity story from Luke's Gospel. Episode two focuses on the preaching and execution of John the Baptist (Michael York) and the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Episode three continues the story of Jesus ministry and the tensions between Him and the Sanhedrin. Finally, the last episode, drawing primarily from John's Gospel, focuses on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, His betrayal and death, and (all too briefly) His Resurrection.

     Zefirelli is a great director and imbues many of the gospel episodes with a real cinematic flair. For instance, the scene where Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal's son is simply amazing. A revelatory re-imaging of the calling of Peter (James Farentino) and Matthew (Keith Washington), here Peter resents Matthew for collecting taxes for the Romans and creating an undue burden for his family. When Jesus goes to Matthew's house for supper, he is shocked that this man, who he has recognized as a prophet would, "eat with tax collectors and sinners." Undaunted, Jesus invites Peter to come with him. Jesus then relates the story of the prodigal son, as Peter listens from the doorway, and it becomes clear that in this scenario, Peter is the elder son, resentful that his sinful younger brother is being treated with mercy. He and Matthew then tearfully reconcile.

     The portrayal of the Annunciation, witnessed by her Mary's mother Saint Anne (Regina Bianchi), is beautifully subtle. The angel is not seen or heard, we only hear Mary's (played by Olivia Hussey) response to it, as she kneels before a window with moonlight shining through. Zeffirelli's framing hear is immaculate. Brilliant too is the scene where John (John Duttine), following Jesus instruction to proclaim the kingdom of God, goes to visit the Blessed Mother, greeting her with the words, "Blessed are you among women" to which she replies, "Anyone who obeys our Father in Heaven is His mother, His sister, His brother." This line is often used by some protestants to attack Mariology so having her say it, thus leading John to the Father through her, strikes me as a particularly Catholic choice.

     This is something of an anomaly as many other choices in the film (for instance Mary has birth pains when Jesus is born) are more conciliatory toward Protestants and people of other Judeo/Christian faiths. It was the intention of the filmmakers to make the story 'acceptable to all denominations and there is special care placed on the film's portrayal of Jews. The Sanhedrin are more sympathetic then usual, and Pilate is shown to be just as culpable for Christ's death as they. Both Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus are given prominent roles and are shown trying to defend Jesus at his trial. Zeffirelli was clearly influenced by Vatican II's Nostra aetate (the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions) and its condemnation of antisemitism and recognition that Christians and Jews share a common heritage. Because of this, Jesus' own Jewish heritage is stressed again and again. We even see his Bar Mitzvah, despite the fact that this ceremony was introduced over a thousand years after Jesus died!

     With all that said, the series does come up short in some places. Though Herod's (Christopher Plummer) interest in Jesus is established (in a scene from the synoptic Gospels where he wonders if perhaps it is John the Baptist raised from the dead) his meeting with Jesus before the crucifixion is not portrayed, making the passion narrative feel a bit incomplete as a result.

     The presence of Ian Holm's fictional pharisee, Zerah, is a bit intrusive at times. His propose in the story is to manipulate Judas into betraying Jesus. They take this a little too far and make Judas into more of an innocent dupe then the conniving Zealot he is usually portrayed as. He is also shown to wield a certain degree of influence with Pilate. That a former zealot like Judas would trust a man who was respected by the Romans seems to me a bit dubious. Finally he is continually shown during the passion scenes, walking alone in the temple as Jesus carries his cross. I found this distracting and ultimately pointless.

     By downplaying the especial guilt of Judas and the Sanhedrin, the film emphasizes the fact that we are all culpable for Jesus' death. As Peter tells the other apostles after the resurrection, "I denied him because I was a coward! We are all cowards! We accused Judas of being a traitor, but we all betrayed him! We all abandoned him." Nevertheless, changing Judas' motivations so drastically problematic, especially in light of his suicide so soon afterward.

     In some ways Jesus of Nazareth is The Godfather saga of Jesus movies, similar in it's subdued, realistic approach and in it's universal appeal and acceptance into the popular culture (if not so much in its near perfect execution). Robert Powell, cast in part due to his resemblance to Warner Sallman's Head of Christ, has become an iconic and popular image of Christ in his own right. The same can be said, though to a lesser extent, for Olivia Hussey's Virgin Mary. Also like The Godfather, Jesus of Nazareth has become a staple of TV broadcasts, particularly around the Easter Season.

     All of the cast, indeed, embody their characters as well or better then in any other adaptation of the Gospels. James Farentino's Simon Peter is a grizzled, self-doubting man, struggling to reconcile his zeal for Christ with his all too human timidity. Ian McShane's Judas Iscariot, despite some of the writing issues, still manages to convey the traitor's conniving and failure to surrender his own vision for Christs. Micheal York's Baptist is every bit the powerful orator that Heston (The Greatest Story Ever Told) and Ryan (King of Kings) were. Christopher Plummer is a suitably besotted yet deeply conflicted and guilt ridden Herod Antipas. Rod Stieger is at once world-weary, comprehending, and merciless as Pilate. Olivia Hussey is easily my favorite on-screen Mary with the possible exception of Maia Morgenstern (The Passion of the Christ). Humble, compassionate and on fire with love for her Son her performance inspires that Marian devotion that is so dear to us Catholics.

     While Robert Powell is, generally, a more reverential and remote Jesus he still has plenty of relatable human moments and his subdued delivery of Christ's parables and teaching is incredibly effective. As per Zeffireli's instructions, Powell rarely blinks during film, echoing both H.B. Warner (The King of Kings) and Max von Sydow (The Greatest Story Ever Told). This accentuates the actor's already penetrating eyes. For the scenes dealing with the passion, Powell fasted on a diet of only cheese for twelve days prior to shooting. Portraying the child Jesus Lorenzo Monet is a good match for Powell, though his (obviously dubbed) voice is a bit distracting.

     Jesus of Nazareth, despite its flaws, remains one of the best (and easily the most iconic) portrayals of the life of Christ on film. Highly recommended!

Score: 9/10

P.S. I am sorry that this is fashionably late (as is pretty much par for the course on this blog) but this was a daunting review! Happy Easter everyone!

Musical Mondays: Les Mis on Stage!

A few years ago I reviewed Tom Hooper's movie adaptation of the successful stage musical Les Miserables, a film that sparked in me a love for Victor Hugo's book. As I've finally had a chance to see the musical live on stage at the Stranahan Theater in Toledo last Saturday I wanted to share my thoughts...

     What stuck out to me the most, and what you can't appreciate on bootleg recordings (yes I watch those) of the play is the the blocking of the actors, the set design and the lighting. The production is simply amazing and in many ways, it has further emphasized what was lacking in the film version: a sense of visual storytelling. Often times the way a scene is blocked on stage is suggestive of a painting and is aided by the magnificent set design, where the people of Paris seem dwarfed by the cities buildings. The lighting is positively cinematic and helps to reinforce thematic and character beats. In the scene where Jean Valjean faces Javert before revealing his identity the lighting puts there shadows in opposition then, after Javert exits the scene, Valjean's shadow is split in three, representing the characters internal conflict over whether he should turn himself in.

      Being seated near the back of the theater I could not fully appreciate the performances. Still vocally and, from what I can tell otherwise, the performers all did a great job, especially Nick Cartell and Josh Davis as Valjean and Javert. Mary Kate More, too, impresses as Fantine. Paige Smallwood is absolutely fantastic as Éponine, probably the best portrayal of the character I've yet seen. J Anthony Crane and Allison Guinn are both having a blast as the Thénardiers, even if the latter goes a little too over-the-top at times. The young children playing Cosette (Cate Elefante) and Petite Gavroche (Parker Dzuba) acquit themselves admirably. Jillian Butler too puts in a strong performance as the older Cosette. The only real weak spot was Joshua Grosso as Marius, who does a fine job portraying a young man head-over-heals in love with a girl he's just met (no easy task to be sure) but comes off a little forced as the young revolutionary hothead. Fortunately, Matt Shingledecker more then makes up for his lack of revolutionary fervor with his Enjolras.

     The story remains a powerful one, even in the truncated form the musical leaves it in. Valjean's redemption and his latter decision to turn himself in, Fantine's sorrow, and Javert's despair are all really affective. The latter scene, in particular, is one I've really come to appreciate over the years (Crowe's stolid performance did not put the character into focus in my first encounter with the story). Javert is, by the end of the story, Valjean's opposite. Both characters have their worldview challenged because of a life-changing encounter with a more saintly person.

     When the bishop covers up Jean Valjean's crimes and even gives him the rest of his silver (turning the other cheek in a sense) Valjean's pessimistic worldview is challenged and he ultimately pursues a more saintly life. Javert, when his life is spared by the man who he's hunted for so many years has his own black-and-white worldview shattered. If Valjean, in Javert's eyes an irredeemable criminal, has saved his life then Javert in a sense, owes him a debt. Unable to choose between this sense of honor and his duty to the law, Javert despairs and kills himself. Unlike Valjean he refuses to change his outlook. Through this Hugo makes plain for me the nature of evil and the possibility of eternal damnation.

     The biggest problem with the musical remains the third act, where the story loses its focus and Valjean's internal struggles take a back seat to the revolutionary conflict. It's simply too condensed to really convey the depth of character or explore the various parallels between the characters that exist in the novel. There's also a little too much time spent with the Thénardiers, whose main function is to provide comic relief.

     Still, it is the contradictions in the story (as is the case in many great stories) that define. Hugo was both a devout Catholic and an ardent revolutionist. Thus you have characters like the Bishop, who is an old fashioned saintly clergy, but you also have Hugo's extended rant about cloistered religious life. The French revolution is portrayed as a positive force, but Hugo is ambivalent about the persecution of the church that the revolutionaries pursued. Similarly, Hugo has a bit of a love/hate relationship with Napoleon who, on one hand, he sees as a defender of democracy but, on the other, as a shameless dictator.

     The play only touches on these contradictions. The only thing were really left with is the contrast between Valjean and Marius' French revolutionary compatriots. Like the book, the play is clearly in sympathy with these men but we are left with the sense that is small acts of kindness and mercy (as Valjean performs throughout the film) that really make a difference in the end.

     It amazes me how popular this story, with all its explicitly Catholic milieu and thematic power, continues to be. Yet the fact remains that just over a week ago, in a packed theater, I watched a musical that opens when a aged Catholic cleric buys a poor man's soul for God and that ends with the words, "to love another person is to see the face of God."

Lent Reviews Year 6 Week 5: Miracle of St. Therese (1952)

     Miracle of St. Thérèse (also known as Trial at the Vatican) is a French film released on August 29th, 1952. It is directed by André Haguet and written by Haguet and André Legrand. It chronicles the life of Thérèse Martin (played by France Descaut), better known as St. Thérèse the Little Flower or Thérèse of Lisieux.

     As far as I can determine, this film has never been released on home video with the original French language track. The version I saw was dubbed in English. At first this was a little off-putting, as it tends to make the dialogue sound stilted and unnatural but, after a while, I became so absorbed in the film that it didn't really matter. I've had a personal devotion to St. Thérèse ever since I read her autobiography, "The Story of a Soul", and this film paints a moving portrait of her and a reverent, though austere, image of religious life.

     Her life is portrayed, chiefly, through a series of vignettes. We see the death of her mother at a young age, which along with the departure of her sister Pauline (her "little mother" played by Suzanne Flon) for Carmel, greatly distresses young Thérèse. She is taken ill and attacked by a devil but is saved through the intersession of the Blessed Mother, who appears to Thérèse in a vision. As she enters adolescence she decides to follow Pauline (now Sister Agnes of Jesus) and her sister Marie, into Carmel. Her father (Jean Debucourt), though sad to lose his beloved daughter, supports this decision but Thérèse faces opposition from the superiors of the order who feel that she is too young. She travels to Rome with her father to appeal to the pope and is ultimately allowed to become a Carmelite.

     In Carmel, Thérèse is treated harshly by the mother superior, Marie de Gonzague (Valentine Tessier), who feels that she is too proud. Therese tells the other sisters that she wishes to be a saint, quoting Matthew 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." But Mother Gonzaga feels this is presumptuous saying, "Our Lord asks more of saints." We see Thérèse take her vows, and say goodbye to her father for the last time. She also struggles when she learns of her father's illness. She herself begins to suffer from bodily illness after her sister Pauline is elected as prioress but she tries to hide this from the other sisters and suffers silently.

     The climax of the film (if it can be said to have one), is Thérèse's dark night of the soul, where she begins to question "if there is a heaven." Through this she discovers her little way. In a brilliant scene she struggles to find her true calling one night in her cell. She recalls passages from scripture that seem to offer to comfort and she chastises herself for her pride, "You compare yourself to God? What have you done but refuse the life he gave you?" Finally, she remembers the words of St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, "but be zealous for the better gifts and I show unto you a more excellent way the way of charity." From this she determines her vocation, "my vocation is love!"

     After portraying her becoming a spiritual sister to missionary Father Adolphe Roulland (thus fulfilling her wish to be a missionary in Indochina) and beginning to write her childhood memories (which would eventually be published as "The Story of a Soul") the film shows Thérèse's death long suffering and death from Tuberculosis. Returning to the Vatican, we learn that Thérèse was canonized as a saint on May 17th, 1925 by Pope Pius XI and was named the second patron of France after Joan of Arc (to whom Thérèse had a childhood devotion). Though this episodic narrative is not the most streamlined approach, it works for this story.

     Outside of the crucial scene where Thérèse discovers her vocation of love the film has many memorable scenes. Her entry into Carmel, as her father watches from behind the bars, is particularly stirring. Director André Haguet gives the film a real sense of austerity. The score by Maurice-Paul Guillot is, perhaps a bit bombastic at times, but it mostly works and the use of Bach's Mass in B minor at the beginning and end of the film is quite effective. Despite the limitations of the dubbing, I was still impressed by the performances, particularly France Descaut as The Little Flower. She is really captures the saints simplicity, frankness and deep humility and cheerfulness in the face of suffering.

     Though it is frustrating that a better transfer is not available, The Miracle of St. Thérèse remains a triumph. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Maurice Cloche's Monsieur Vincent (probably the best example of a French saint biopic), it is nonetheless a great movie in its own right.
Score: 9/10

Lent Reviews Year 6 Week 4: Cavalry (2014)

     Cavalry was released on April 11th, 2014. Written and directed by John Michael McDonagh it stars Brendan Gleeson as Father James, a Catholic Priest who is threatened by one of his parishioners during a confession. The man, who was raped by a priest as a young boy, plans to kill Father James the following Sunday in order to make a statement about the clergy sex abuse scandal in Ireland. He specifically targets James because he is a good priest, and people will take notice if he is killed. He gives him one week to get his affairs in order during which the priest tries to minister to the struggling, sinful members of his flock.

     I was too young to really be effected by the clergy sexual abuse scandal when it initially exploded in 2002. It was not until the release of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report last August that the crisis really hit home for me. A few years ago I would have had little interest in watching a film like Calvary but now I felt, somehow, that it was something I ought to do in order to come to terms with this issue.

     If I was looking for catharsis this was the wrong place to look. The film offers no answers; No solution to this crisis and no laying of blame. But then, how could it really be expected to? How can we heal and move forward, institutionally? I don't think anyone has any concrete answers. What this film offers, particularly in its end scene, is more of a question: is reconciliation possible? Can good priests, like Father James, atone, in some sense, for the sins of their corrupt brethren? The answer you come away may say as much about you as it does about the film.

     The film is, essentially, a Passion Play. Father James must go through his agony and face ridicule and rejection from those around him in the week leading up to his looming confrontation with death. He struggles to help the people of his town, many of whom have gone astray, suffering from broken marriages, sexual frustration, and religious and moral indifference. He also struggles to decide how he should react to his would-be assailant, a man he (but not the audience) knows the identity of. In the face of escalating violence (the church is burned down and his dog is killed) he must make a choice between self-defense (either through the use of a revolver he borrowed from the local police chief or by reporting the man to the authorities), flight (at one point he contemplates taking an extended leave of absence) or a confrontation that may result in his death but is the best hope of redemption for his would-be assailant. His ultimate choice is an admirable one though the audience may question whether it is the prudential one.

     John Micheal McDonagh's script crackles with wit and irony. Under his pen Father James is a pragmatic and world-weary but still hopeful and faithful priest. He does the best he can in some very difficult circumstances. The supporting characters, with a few notable exceptions aside, are exaggeratedly cynical and jaded. Although the film is, mostly, grounded in reality, there is an element of melodrama in the not-quite-nihilistic world it paints. For anyone familiar with the work of McDonagh's younger (and more famous) brother Martin, this should not come as a surprise. If McDonagh doesn't quite have his brother's talent for sharp dialogue he makes up for it with the relatable, humanistic qualities he imbues his characters with.

     Brendan Gleeson does a superb job in the lead role. He imbues Father James with a sense of authority. Though rebuked and scorned throughout the film he always seems in command and, when called for, is an incredibly compassionate and caring shepard for his flock and a loving father for his daughter (he became a priest after the early death of his wife). Kelly Reilly also does a fine job as his depressed daughter Fiona, who serves as one of his few sources of comfort. The rest of the cast all do a fine job as well, particularly Chris O'Dowd and Dylan Moran.

     While not exactly pious viewing, I would still recommend Cavalry for mature (and discerning) Catholic viewers. It handles a deeply challenging theme with care and paints a picture of a truly good and faithful priest in a corrupt and faithless world. For that alone, McDonagh deserves credit.

Score: 9/10

Lent Reviews Year 6 Week 3: Mother Teresa (2003) (International Cut)

     Way back in 2014 I reviewed the Mother Teresa movie from 2003. I had somewhat mixed feelings about it then. I wrote that the dialogue was stilted, the pacing erratic and that Mother Teresa doesn't have much of an internal struggle. I also noted that there was an international cut that added nearly an hour of new material and expressed interest in watching it with the hope that the new scenes would address some of my issues with the film. I am happy to report that this is the case.

     While the dialogue remains somewhat stilted, probably in part because of the English dubbing for most of the supporting cast, this version definitely improves on the pacing. The story plays out as a series of conflicts for Mother Teresa to overcome. First, she must obtain permission to leave the monastery and go out to the streets of Calcutta to serve the poorest of the poor. Then she must start her new order, the Sisters of Charity. Finally, she must found a hopice for those suffering from leprosy which she calls the Shanti Nagar (the City of Peace).

     In all three of these conflicts Mother Teresa comes up against a human antagonist who does not understand her unique calling. First it's her superior Mother Cenacle (Laura Morante) and then the British journalist Kline (Neil Stuke). As far as I can tell both characters are fictitious and meant to represent the opposition Mother Teresa faced from both from inside and outside the church. Kline, it seems to me, is probably inspired, at least in part, by Christopher Hitchens, who was an extremely harsh critic of the saint during her life and made the documentary Hell's Angel to "expose" what he saw as her nefarious proselytizing agenda.

     The main addition to this cut is the inclusion of material showing her childhood in Albania, revealed in flashback. This provides us with a better glimpse in her psyche as we see her Catholic upbringing, the sacrificial example of her parents, and her initial call to religious life.

     I've have yet to address my biggest complaint about the film in my original review: that it lacks internal conflict for the main character. I don't really feel this way any more about either this release or the U.S. cut of the film. The central conflict throughout is between Mother's deep faith and trust in Christ and the more worldly minded views of those around her, especially Father Serrano (Sebastiano Somma), the priest sent from Rome to evaluate her application for founding the Sisters of Charity who then becomes her follower and advocate.

     Throughout the film, Serrano tries to persuade Mother Teresa to organize her charitable foundations more efficiently, hiring lawyers and financial advisers to help run things. She resists this idea, preferring to trust completely in God rather then the ways of the world. Her confessor, Celeste van Exem (Michael Mendl) advises her that while it would be sinful to fully embrace the ways of the world, rejecting it completely would also be sinful.

     This idea extends to her conflicts with Mother Cenacle and with Kline. Cenacle feels that Mother is being prideful and refusing to conform to the norms of Religious life while Kline sees her as, at best, a naive and ineffectual worker for social justice and at worst a self-serving fraud. What they all fail to understand is the saints deep trust and faith in the Lord and His ability to make all things work for those who love him. What makes Mother Teresa's example even more heroic is the fact that, after her initial encounter with Christ on the way to Darjeeling, she entered a period of spiritual dryness (a dark night of the soul as John of the Cross would say) which lasted for the rest of her life. As the film touches on (all to briefly) she brought the life of Christ to others despite not feeling his love or his presence herself.

     Fabrizio Costa's workmanlike direction falls a little flat at times, though there are some nice tracking shots and the flashbacks to Teresa's childhood are actually done quite tastefully. The score, by Guy Farley, is simple but effective. The performances are solid all around and Olivia Hussey is absolutely magnificent as the titular saint.

     While not a great film, Mother Teresa is, ultimately, an inspiring look at the life of this, the most beloved saint of the 20th century. The international cut improves on the more commonly viewed U.S. version, helping the pacing and adding welcome background about the saint's childhood.

Score: 8/10