The YO Mail Movie Issue
An Orthodox Look
at Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The third installment of the Harry Potter series picks up at
Harry Potter's third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry. Now thirteen years old, Harry, Ron and Hermione continue
to fight for truth and justice. With the escape of Sirius Black
from Azkaban Prison, Harry must remain on his guard, believing
that Black is coming to kill him in order to finish the job
he had started thirteen years earlier. Harry learns that his
initial judgment of Sirius Black is incorrect and spends the
rest of the movie trying to exonerate an innocent man and finding
the guilty one.
This movie spends less time and money creating special effects,
but the ones that are created are strong and impressive. Rather,
the movie focuses on creating a story, which although fictitious
and fantastical, is a strong commentary on both the bonds of
friendship and teenage lives.
On the Upside:
- Although absolutely terrified of the dementors, Harry battles
his fear of them by confronting them head on, rather than
running away. His fear of the dementors is countered only
by good thoughts and memories, which provide enough power
to fight the dementors and eventually beat them.
- The role of friendship is very important in this Harry Potter
movie, as it is in all the others. Jesus Christ said, “Greater
love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends”
(John 15:13). In The Prisoner of Azkaban, friends are constantly
putting themselves on the line for each other. In one instance,
Hermione puts her life on the line when she whistles to distract
the werewolf. At another time, Harry risks his life when he
attempts to rescue Sirius Black from the dementors.
- Although Professor Lupin attacked Harry and his friends
while in the form of a werewolf, Harry was forgiving, understanding
that Lupin’s condition could not be controlled. He forgave
Professor Lupin and was upset when Professor Lupin resigned
because of his condition.
On the Downside:
- Unlike the first two Harry Potter movies, in this movie,
Harry and his friends have begun to develop bad and rebellious
attitudes. Harry casts a spell on his nasty aunt and forces
her to float away, exclaiming that, “she got what she
deserved”. Additionally, throughout the movie, Harry
allows his attitude to get to him, causing him to react emotionally.
Hermione also develops an attitude, showing disrespect toward
her teachers and other students.
- Sirius Black tells Harry that he is his godfather. Such
a designation in a movie in which God does not exist creates
a mockery of the role of a godparent. The Orthodox understanding
of godparent is a person who is responsible for the spiritual
growth of a person as they grow in their life in Christ. The
term godparent in Harry Potter does not have any such meaning,
nor any indication at all that God is even present in the
definition.
An Orthodox Look at Shrek 2
In this sequel to the original animated Shrek, Shrek and Fiona
return from their honeymoon to find themselves invited to the
kingdom of Far Far Away to meet Fiona’s parents, King
Harold and Queen Lillian. The movie then revolves around the
story of trying to find acceptance and love and fighting the
“bad guys”. All in all, the movie is exactly that
which it spoofs: a classic fairy tale with a twist.
On the Upside:
- Much like the first movie, the main theme here is inner
beauty. Shrek and Fiona are both ogres, with Fiona remaining
so after receiving a kiss from her true love. When given the
opportunity to become “beautiful” people, Fiona’s
decision is for both herself and Shrek to return to being
ogres, for in that state, they are truly beautiful and happy.
- Friendship is key in this story. When Shrek’s friends
realize that he is in trouble in the Kingdom of Far Far Away,
they run to his aid, even risking their own lives in the process.
Even Puss In Boots, who originally tried to kill Shrek and
Donkey, became a true ally for his new friends, and was willing
to lay down his life for them.
- Shrek 2 underscores the ideal that preserving marriage
is more important than dissolving it to satisfy some self-seeking
and misled family members. Shrek was, in Fiona’s parents’
minds, not the best husband for their daughter because of
his appearance, but Fiona knew in her heart that Shrek was
her true love, and Fiona was willing to disagree with her
parents and stay true to her marriage commitment.
On the Downside:
- Shrek 2 explores the concept of how far a spouse should
go in a marriage to demonstrate love. For Shrek that includes
the willingness to sacrifice the relationship itself in order
to make his bride happy. Although this seems like a noble
act, fighting for a marriage is more noble and honorable than
simply walking away.
- Shrek is disrespectful of his in-laws before even meeting
them, by believing that they will judge him based on his appearance.
Although they do judge him for it, Shrek sets himself up to
believe that he is going to receive the disrespect. Because
of his pre-judgment of the in-laws, the meeting with King
Harold and Queen Lillian is a disaster from the start as Shrek
does not even give King Harold a chance.
- Shrek focuses only on his outer appearance and does not
stop to realize his inner beauty, although he realizes that
inner beauty in Fiona. He is willing to rely on magic and
potions to change his appearance, as well as that of Donkey
and Fiona, in order to make Fiona happy. What he didn’t
realize is that the inner beauty and personality of Shrek
is what makes Fiona happy, not the outer appearance.
An Orthodox Look at "Big Fish"
Are we the stories we tell? Will Bloom (played by Billy Crudup)
resents his father, Edward (played by both Albert Finney, as
the older Edward, and Ewan McGregor, as the younger Edward),
for always telling tall tales. He wishes his father would instead
reveal his true self. Edward insists that Will is not listening
- that by listening to his stories, he will come to know everything
about his life. As we learn more about Edward through Will's
narration of his life, we, with Will, come to realize he truly
does live in and through the tales he tells.
On the upside:
- Big Fish emphasizes the need for family and community. Will's
mother and wife try to reunite the estranged father and son,
and rekindle the bond between them. Although Edward spent
much of his time adventuring on the road, he remained faithful
to his wife and son, doing whatever he needed to provide the
best for them.
- Edward truly loves helping others. He worked tirelessly
to restore the village he discovered during one of his adventures;
he asked for nothing in return.
- Edward brings a touch of magic and mystery to our lives.
He lives in a world where anything can happen. Life is mysterious
. If we lose that sense of mystery and wonder, we lose what
makes us truly alive.
On the Downside:
- Religion does not seem to play any role in the lives of
the Bloom family. God is never mentioned. Life may have a
mystical quality, but no one in the movie seeks the kingdom
of Heaven.
- Big Fish, despite the charm of its characters, does portray
"unusual" people as freaks and monsters. The movie
makes no reference to the fact that everyone, whether they
are tall or short, beautiful or not so beautiful, is equally
loved and cherished by God.
- While we will always remember our loved ones, cherished
memories are not the same as immortality. Immortality, true
and eternal life, is only found through participation in the
life of Christ and His Holy Church.
An Orthodox Look at "Mona Lisa Smile"
Set at Wellesley College, in Wellesley, Massachusetts, in the
1950's, Mona Lisa Smile examines the lives of Katherine Watson,
a bohemian art professor from California, and her students,
many of who were raised to become "Wellesley Girls".
The story revolves around Katherine, who recently left California
to fulfill her dream of teaching at the all girls liberal college
in Massachusetts, and her lessons to the girls, not only about
art, but about life and their place, as women, in this world.
On the upside:
- Katherine raises the awareness of the girls to other opportunities
for them, outside of the realm of marriage and children. She
presents a 1950's slide show of women who received an education
but chose to be married instead. Katherine tries to make the
point that women can be well educated, use that education
for careers, and be married.
- Katherine challenges her students to think for themselves,
rather than relying on the opinions of others.
- Katherine takes an interest in her students as individuals,
helping Joan apply to law school and supporting the young
women with their choices.
On the downside:
- Betty, a student who marries during the movie, has a condescending
and bad attitude towards mostly everyone. She calls Giselle
a prostitute, and tells Connie that her boyfriend is seeing
another girl, knowing that what she is saying is a lie.
- After her wedding to a Harvard student, Betty expects special
treatment from the professors and other students. When Katherine
does not give her special treatment and expects Betty to keep
up with the school work, Betty threatens Katherine.
- Because Katherine herself is not married and decided to
pursue her education instead of marriage, she pushes the girls
along the same path. Marriage is a sacrament of the church
and is a beautiful expression of love. At the same time, marriage
should not be entered into lightly or feel forced. Betty,
wanting nothing more than to be married, enters into a marriage
with a man who quickly begins an affair with another woman,
and Betty is forced to learn that her dream was not necessarily
reality.
An Orthodox Look at "Bowling for
Columbine"
"Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore's documentary
focusing on violence in our society, as reflected upon by students
from St. Mary's Youth Group (FOCA Jr.) in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Produced by Michael Moore, "Bowling for Columbine"
was an eye-opening experience. Expecting it to be centered on
the horrific issue of gun violence, I was surprised to find
that Moore came at this documentary in a different way. He shed
a new light on the fearful heart and soul of America. Incorporating
a small bit of humor, Moore presented the viewers with personal
interviews and horrifying statistics about America's history
of violence and corruption. Although I consider this documentary
a "must-see" movie, you can't take it too seriously.
Projecting his movie in a very opinionated way, Moore showed
the government only as a despicable institution. It just gave
the viewers one side of the story.
- Sara Tomczyk Grade 11
The movie made me think about my country and my government.
The movie was very one-sided and opinionated. The music was
very mood changing and dramatized events. I was introduced to
several bombings and shootings initiated by the U.S. that I
never knew about before. It was an interesting movie, especially
for my age group. It broadened my mind to other's opinions,
yet the people he chose to interview didn't seem to be "fully
with it".
- Sammy Jurichko Grade 11
Bowling for Columbine is a good movie to watch, although the
host, Michael Moore, shows a very skewed point of view. As I
was watching, I realized that people really do have many different
views, compared to the "two typical" ones always on
debate about any situation in the media. There really is no
real cause for such high homicide numbers in America, but Moore
goes around seeing if someone could give him an feasible possibility.
Overall I think this is a good movie if you don't take what
is said to heart, or live by it.
- John Curry Grade 12
"Bowling for Columbine" addresses several social
issues including violence, gun control, minorities, and the
"culture of fear" of America. Although providing thought
provoking material to consider, the movie is blatantly one-sided
in its portrayal of the social situation of America. As an Orthodox
Christian, I found it hard to hear the criticisms of my country,
which provided so many other Europeans of the faith an opportunity
to live a life they would never been able to have back in their
homeland. Moor shows disdain for the institutions of America
which, flawed as they may be, created a climate whereby a penniless
immigrant could create something truly wonderful and pious.
- Rowan Morbey Grade 11
After watching "Bowling for Columbine," I have many
thoughts. I think Michael Moore brought up many questions but
gave no answers. Also, he seemed to have a slanted view against
America. He did however, bring up many good points. I feel everyone
should watch it. This does not mean I feel everyone should agree
with it. At times I felt Michael Moore pushed his views a little
too much and blamed people who didn't deserve to be blamed.
- Erik Morse Grade 10
I think that more people should see this movie so they can
learn about why people have to use violence to help them with
their problems. I liked how they pointed out that people blamed
the president and Marilyn Manson for peoples' actions.
- Kimmy Jurichko Grade 7
An Orthodox Look at Tolkien
Since not all people who heard about "The Lord of the
Rings" have found the time to read it, let us recap in
brief the contents of the work. This book describes one of the
historic episodes of a fantastic "pre-historic world"
inhabited by all variety of creatures - elves, wizards, humans,
dwarves, hobbits, orcs, etc. The Dark Lord, Sauron, is seeking
to cast the world into chaos and violence, destroying things
that are good and beautiful. He is waging a war, and for the
final victory he needs to get the magic ring kept by the hobbit
Frodo. Frodo's aim is to prevent having the ring fall into the
hands of Sauron or anyone else (himself included) since the
new owner would also fall under the power of evil and become
another Dark Lord. Eventually, the very den of Sauron must be
penetrated and the ring thrown into the mouth of mountains,
where it was once forged, so that it will be destroyed forever.
The world cannot be saved without the participation of the
world itself. All creatures are involved in the battle but its
result depends on the success or non-success of Frodo's operation.
He gets to the secret mountain together with his fellow-traveler,
Sam, but cannot endure the temptation any longer. Finally, by
happy coincidence, the ring gets into the mouth of the mountain.
"The Lord of the Rings" turned out to be a considerable
cultural event of the second half of the 20th century, both
for its artistic value and its influence on the minds of youthful
readers. As it has been read and enjoyed by generations, it
has not escaped the notice of Orthodox readers. When the book
appeared, disputes about its religious meaning arose. Opinions
were different, even opposite, and with the release of the screenplay
for the trilogy, these disputes came anew.
What is "The Lord of the Rings"? "Hidden Christian
Homily" (Maria Kamenkovich, Trojan Horse) or tales "soaked
with well hidden paganism and occultism" (Roman Jolud,
Talks around Tolkien)? These two extreme views can each be supported
by the text, but neither of them can be accepted without serious
reservations. On one hand, it would be very strange if Tolkien,
who considered himself a Christian, spent years meticulously
creating this work only to have nothing Christian contained
within its pages. On the other hand, readers should not expect
purely dogmatic views to come from a secular western writer
of the 20th century. In reality, the work is a mixture of the
two views, neither homily, nor pagan occultism.
The first problem is that the book portrays evil much more
vividly than it does good. Evil in the book looks and is a much
more significant power. It is almost all-mighty, it cannot be
escaped from, and there is no shelter from it. They say that
Tolkien's friend, C.S. Lewis, having finished reading half of
"The Lord of the Rings," threw it off with the words,
"You can't write so long about evil!" (However, we
heard another version, according to which Tolkien himself, having
read half of "The Screwtape Letters" by Lewis, threw
it off with the same words).
The next problem is that all of Tolkien's creatures (elves,
dwarves, humans, hobbits etc.) look rather senseless. Though
they all dream of a peaceful life, ultimately they all heroically
struggle and die. There is sense in that they would struggle
to achieve a life of peace, but the peaceful life of which they
dream looks as wan and senseless as an old faded picture stuck
onto the wall. Creating his world "before Christ",
Tolkien created the world "without Christ," and for
a Christian it is rather onerous to plunge oneself into this
world.
The Ring is the allegory of evil and sin. One can defeat it
in part by rejecting it personally. The main idea of the trilogy
is undoubtedly Christian. Evil can never be used for good. If
you use it, you fall under its power and only multiply the overall
evil in the world.
In the end, Frodo could not overcome the desire to possess
the ring and succumbed to its power, and likewise the power
of evil. Humans have no force to reject sin themselves. And
good wins, as if thanks to a lucky chance. But for a person
belonging to the Christian culture (for whom Tolkien wrote his
books) it is self-understood that there is no fate, but only
God's Providence. For those who do not understand it is said
in the book with the words of Gandalf: "It was prepared
for him." But by whom?
Answering this question we should return to the very first
lines of the book - its title. Who is the Lord of the Rings?
Who is the whole work dedicated to? It is evident that it is
not Frodo, nor anybody of the Wise, nor even Sauron - because
none of them ever possessed all magic rings. Further reflections
give us the only answer: the Master, or, more exactly, the Lord.
He possesses everything, being possessed by nothing.
The next Christian thought in the book, is the attitude towards
the enemies. Orcs, invisible to all, are elves who used to be
the most wonderful of all creatures in Tolkien's world, but
mutilated by evil. Sowing horror everywhere, the orcs used to
be the best samples of the human gender worthy of becoming ring-bearers,
but they did not overcome the temptation of evil and were captured
by the Dark Lord' power. The fallen, Saruman the Elder, was
one of the Wisest. Tolkien teaches us to how to view the enemy
with compassion. In the trilogy, the idea that the final victory
of good over evil was possible because of the act of mercy done
by Bilbo towards his enemy is outlined several times.
The enemy may bring repentance and change. The most striking
example in the book is Gollum, the same happens to Grima but
even more deeply it is expressed in the last talk with Saruman,
when Frodo, preventing his friend from killing the fallen wizard
says, "No, Sam! Anyhow we should not kill him. The more
so as he lies in the black evil. Once he was great, he's one
of those against whom we have no right to lift up the hand.
He fell now, but it's not for us to judge him: who knows, maybe
he will be great again."
One of the great merits of Tolkien's work is that he used the
artistic language understandable to contemporaries to explain
one of the most difficult to understand commandments of Christ
- love towards our enemies. Not only did Tolkien explain this
commandment, but he also disclosed its grandeur and wisdom.
|
