I have to admit that I generally did not enjoy War and Peace. However, one positive aspect of Tolstoy's work here stands out: a respect for everyday things, and the importance of everyday things, which is clearly fundamental in War and Peace. Indeed, that which is "ordinary" is foundational for history in Tolstoy's understanding. Descriptions of ordinary life among ordinary people appear alongside the actions of generals and emperors. Accounts of dances, hunting and even seemingly pointless conversations are given as much attention as (or even more attention than) battles and the movements of armies. Moreover, Tolstoy clearly sees these aspects of life at the family level as authentic history, and as the foundations for the unified reality of Russia.

The family (including the traditional structure of the family) is central for a society which respects how things really are. Various portrayals of marriages and families run throughout the book, culminating in the deep and detailed examination of the families of Pierre and Natasha, and Nicholas and Mary, in the First Epilogue. In that epilogue Tolstoy makes explicit what it seems was already implicit throughout this work in his understanding of marriage and family: that marriage is meaningless without reference to the community of the family. To select a negative instance from earlier in the work, for example, there is something wrong with the marriage of Pierre and Helene, as Pierre senses in the beginning, and the key manifestation of the problem is that the marriage is not to bear fruit in the natural community of a family (nor for that matter does the marriage even begin with any serious sense of community, of common life, between Pierre and Helene). The community of the family grounds a sense of Russia as a community unified in a deep way, regardless of divisions which may exist, such as those between classes, the division between urban and rural, and so forth.  Read more »

What I am going to do here is not a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but just a reflection on some points about the series, and primarily on the character of Severus Snape.

First of all, I am not trying to enter the debate on the morality of the Harry Potter books here. Suffice it to say that while I would certainly have serious reservations about the appropriateness of parts of the later books for children, I do not agree with the fundamental criticisms of the entire series as a whole as promoting the occult and immorality. It seems to me that magic in the realm of fantasy and myth need not be occult, and is not in this series. (To my mind, the most serious ethical problem in the series is at the end of Book 6, which I will talk about in a moment.) The Harry Potter series obviously is a matter of controversy and disagreement, and I skip over such concerns here only because I simply would never get to what I really want to talk about now if I started addressing them. [I am inserting a note here later to point out that I wrote these comments prior to the extremely bothersome authorial remarks made by Rowling about the character of Dumbledore. While these remarks do not change the books themselves, and I do not believe Rowling's claims about her intentions are reflected in the stories as written, widespread public knowledge of her comments certainly makes the reading of these books by children additionally problematic, at least for the near future.]

Spoiler alert: Ok, although I'm not explicitly discussing the plot here, there will be some major plot spoilers coming up. If you haven't read the book, and don't want to know what happens, please don't read any further.  Read more »

In his novel Don Quixote Miguel Cervantes obviously is not content with identifying the real world exclusively with the realm of ordinary experience. The rejection of any role for higher ideals in the world would seem inevitably to reduce to an attitude of selfish materialism, which is clearly not the attitude of Cervantes. The very affection with which he writes of the character Don Quixote indicates that he too wants to find a place in the real world for higher ideals, and while parodying works about knight-errantry, he seems to see value in some of the ideals glorified in the tradition of knight-errantry. Such ideals can, and indeed must, be seen in the real world, but it is also clear from this novel that some qualifications need to be placed on that. Don Quixote himself, while embracing higher ideals, clearly is not the exemplar for people to imitate in living out such ideals.

Don Quixote truly sees something that many people around him are missing. He is right to look for something beyond the mundane. However, in a certain sense Don Quixote makes the same mistake many others do, but acts on that mistake in the opposite direction. Others see life as mundane, and accept it as such, while Don Quixote sees life as mundane, but rejects it as such. Rather than accepting the world as he commonly experiences it as containing higher meaning within itself, in many cases he seems to transform reality in his mind to fit his idea of a world in which he can transcend the mundane. This is what makes him insane, to whatever extent he is insane, and results in problems such as the injuries he does to presumably innocent people: attacking sheep and monks probably is not the right way to pursue high ideals! In going beyond the mundane to recognize and appreciate a higher level of reality, one must see the romance, excitement, love and opportunities for heroic virtue precisely in the real experiences of everyday life. Everyday life itself is not mundane.  Read more »

The issue of courtship is obviously an important one in Pride and Prejudice, even in discussion among the characters themselves. In particular, Charlotte and Elizabeth at one point discuss the ways in which (and the extent to which) men and women can and should come to know each other before marriage, specifically in the context of the relationship between Jane and Bingley. Charlotte seems to believe that it is probably not generally possible, and if possible may not even be desirable for a man and woman to know each other well before marriage. For her, it seems marriage hardly involves any choice at all. Her decision to marry Mr. Collins indicates that for her there is no serious choice to be made between marrying and not marrying because, from her perspective at least, almost anything would be preferable to remaining unmarried. This may, of course, be seen more as a negative judgment about other societal realities than any commentary on the institution of marriage itself. At the same time, in Charlotte's view the choice to marry or not marry a specific person is also robbed of much of its meaning, for "happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other, or ever so similar before-hand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life." This seems to be not merely a judgment about society, but a real statement about marriage. Elizabeth dismisses it as "not sound," and assumes that Charlotte agrees, but again Charlotte’s later explanation of her acceptance of Mr. Collins seems to imply that this really is her view: "I am not romantic you know ...  Read more »

It is surprising to me that the last book by Pope John Paul II published before his death has not received more attention. Not that it has been ignored, by any means, but it has not been quite as widely discussed, or received with the acclaim I would have expected, particularly after his death, given that it was published so shortly before his death. Perhaps that is partially because of the nature of this book, which is so different in style and to a degree perhaps in some of its topics from his other works. There is a casual, free-flowing, perhaps one could even say disorganized feel to this book, because it is based on a real life discussion, in which the Pope conversationally answered a series of questions. Among other things, John Paul discusses questions of history, philosophy, culture, and national identity, particularly his own Polish identity. Memory and Identity is a thoughtful work with fascinating insights, and unquestionably a book that should be read by anyone who wishes to have a fuller understanding of the world view of John Paul II.

The book begins with a consideration of the mystery of evil, particularly the origins of the great evils of the twentieth century. It is interesting, though certainly not unexpected, that in looking for the origins of these evils John Paul II quickly looks to the history of philosophy. Throughout this book the reader will find him explaining historical developments by referring to philosophical changes. This is a healthy reminder for moderns, who are often so accustomed to material utilitarian ways of thinking that they dismiss philosophers and others who seemingly only think and never do anything. Unfortunately, too many moderns do not realize that while they are waiting for the thinkers to do something, the thinkers are already shaping the thoughts and actions of generations to come, for better or worse.  Read more »

Cinderella Man is a great boxing movie, because it is far more than a boxing movie. All boxing movies are inevitably compared to the Rocky movies, but Rocky was really a very limited movie. In truth, although Cinderella Man will never enjoy the success Rocky had, Cinderella Man is a far better movie in every way. It is also a movie that can be appreciated by people who have little interest or sympathy with the sport of boxing, because at its deepest level it is not about boxing. It is a story of love and family and sacrifice and hope. The story we see on the screen is the story of a famous (though now widely forgotten) boxer from the Depression era. However, the most important aspects of the story are not intrinsically linked to boxing. Cinderella Man in a way is primarily a small and private family story, that could be about any number of countless men and women during the Depression or throughout history who lived similar lives and did similar things, but were never made famous by the public world of boxing.  Read more »

Probably like many other people, I never saw The Pianist when it was in theatres. I see most movies when they come out on video because it is a little difficult to watch one in a theatre where I am, but honestly I never even heard much about The Pianist for quite a while. I knew that it had been nominated for and won some awards and so forth, but I really did not know anything about it beyond the fact that it had something to do with a Jewish man trying to survive under the Germans during World War II. I decided that I should take a look at it on video and ... Wow. It is rare enough just to find a movie on such an important topic, with such a dramatic story and such a firm moral compass. When the movie is also well-made and beautifully acted, it is an event not to be missed.

The Pianist is based on the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman, a great pianist and a Jew who was living with his family in Warsaw when the Germans invaded Poland at the beginning of World War II. The story is all the more inspiring in that it is not the story of a hero in the normal sense. This is not to say that the main character does not behave heroically, but he is an ordinary figure in the sense that he is just trying to survive in the hellish circumstances in which he finds himself. I think the fact that the character is ordinary in that sense makes him more accessible to the audience, as he attempts to stay alive while his people and his city are destroyed around him  Read more »

I take it all back. Every word of it. All the mean things I said and thought about Star Wars creator George Lucas after the immaturity of Phantom Menace and the inanity of Attack of the Clones. In Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, at long last, Star Wars is really back.

I did not see any of the movies in the original Star Wars trilogy until I saw them at various points in my mid-to-late teens, almost 20 years after the first movie came out in theatres, and I was a fan from that point on. (If you are one of those people who thinks Star Wars is just silly, I will save you some suspense now and tell you that this review is unlikely to be of interest to you.) When Episode I: The Phantom Menace first came out, I went to a late night showing on the first day, a showing that seemed to be filled with professionals in their late twenties and thirties rather obviously looking to reconnect with an experience from their youth. I remember sitting in that theatre and hearing that familiar music as the famous opening crawl began to a burst of applause. Finally, I was going to see a new Star Wars movie in a theatre. I was thrilled. Then the movie started.  Read more »

Movies about Jesus in the past have been a mixed bag. Some have not been faithful to the letter or the spirit of the Gospels, but even those that were faithful often had other significant flaws. Some just did not look very professional and lacked an air of realism, possibly because of budget limitations. Others failed to communicate effectively the importance and drama of the events involved. Virtually all of them were unable to fill the part of Jesus adequately, ultimately using actors who, however much talent they may have had for other roles, simply were not believable in the role of Jesus.

The Passion of the Christ does not have these problems. Mel Gibson spent approximately $25 million making this movie, and it has the realistic look of a major Hollywood production. Many of the actors are relative unknowns, with the exceptions of Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, but the acting is good throughout. From the foggy gloom of the garden of Gethsemane to the reflection of morning sun inside the opening tomb, the scenes painted in this movie are very nearly perfect. Cinematography, makeup, costumes, and all the things that go into making a film visually impressive were done spectacularly well here. Indeed, the whole movie is very artistic, and as many have noted it seems to borrow heavily from the spirit of some of the Renaissance painters.

The acting overall is good, but Jim Caviezel in the role of Jesus is simply incredible. Some may object that his face was barely visible through all the blood for much of the movie, but that misses the point that the part of Jesus is still always the most difficult part for an actor to play successfully. It is difficult just to step on camera in the character of Jesus and not instantly seem inadequate, if not laughable. Caviezel manages this and more.  Read more »

Open Range starts a little unevenly in my opinion. After the first five minutes or so I was more or less wishing that someone would punch Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) and Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and knock them out of their saddles. Initially, it seems as if they will only open their mouths to dispense some nugget of timeless cowboy wisdom. I don't mind that they don't talk much at first, or that the movie has a slow pace. Both of these choices were appropriate to the characters and the story. However, after the first five minutes I didn't particularly like three of the four characters who had appeared on screen, and I think the movie intends the viewer to like all four from the beginning. However, things definitely improved as the movie progressed.

In case anyone doesn't already know, this is not a fast-moving action thriller. It is a slow, often quiet and somewhat reflective Western. There is no serious on-screen action until the end. Open Range does not derive its quality primarily from doing anything new and creative in the Western genre, which would be next to impossible at this point anyway given how many Westerns have been made. Instead, Open Range does a lot of things that have been done in one way or another by other Westerns, but just does them better than most of those other Westerns. Costner plays a strong silent cowboy, and does it just about perfectly. Costner is sometimes criticized for not being a particularly expressive actor, but he is capable of investing meaning and depth in a character who is not very expressive. Robert Duvall also does well as the older cowboy Boss Spearman.  Read more »

I was much too young to appreciate world events at the time of the Miracle on Ice game. When Team USA beat Team USSR 4-3 in the 1980 Olympic hockey semifinals, I had no idea that the event had even happened. Years later, though, I remember seeing a tape of the game. Even after knowing the result, that game was as magical as any event in sports.

The historical circumstances obviously added to the significance beyond sports of the American victory. Although I was far too young to know what was happening in 1980, from what I have read, and from my own memory what it was like to live in a world with the Soviet Union, I can appreciate some of the historical factors involved. The beginning of 1980 was not a very good time for American pride. The 1970s had been a disaster in many ways, beginning with the continuing war and failure in Vietnam, and continuing through the Watergate scandal and the economic crisis of the late 1970s. The Iran hostage crisis was ongoing. Cold War fears of the Soviet Union were as alive as ever. It really was a time when it was impossible even to pretend that things were going well. In that context the 1980 American Olympic hockey team became a national story, not just a sports story.  Read more »