The Mummy (2017)

What’s this all about?

So recently this movie came out. Now a lot of people in America seem to have something against this movie, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I do feel, much like some of my friends I’ve spoken to, that there seems to be a biased against it merely because it doesn’t call back to the action fun of Bendan Fraser’s Mummy movies, nor to the dark, stoic excellence that was the Mummy as played by Boris Karloff. This isn’t fair. And while I’m not saying everyone has to like this movie, I still think it deserves to get more of a chance than it has been given. So. Here is my review of 2017’s The Mummy.

A Quick Summary

The Mummy follows a military man named Nick who also happens to be a grave robber who likes to steal treasure from ancient burial sites and sell them on the black market. In this movie, he stumbles upon the burial site of Princess Amunet, an Egyptian princess who was damned when she sold her soul to the God of Death, Set, in exchange for eternal power on Earth. When Princess Amunet is transported to England, she crashes the plane in order to regain Set’s dagger and unleash him onto the world through the body of her “Chosen One,” Nick. Dr. Jekyll brings Nick into Perdigim after capturing Princess Amunet, who has mostly regenerated her body through stealing life from other bodies (her minions start to look and walk like zombies, which is odd, a fresh take on mummy regeneration, and somewhat campy). The rest of the movie basically just follows the main story arc of Nick and Amunet, with a bit of Jekyll and Nick’s love interest, Jenny, thrown in throughout. In the end, [SPOILERS] Nick does exactly what Amunet wanted and stabs himself with Set’s dagger, accepting the God of Death into the world. He uses his new abilities to defeat Amunet and return her to the crinkled old mummy she once was. At the end of the movie, Nick/Set is roaming the world on some unknown quest.

Some Reasons to Hate the Movie

1. The comic relief. As unfortunate as it is, every new cinematic universe starting out has to compete with those who came before. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the giant in that field is Marvel, and Marvel’s tried-and-true formula always makes a point to make a joke or a jab whenever things start to get deep – because obviously the audience can’t take a bit of darkness or reality in a movie. This movie tried to follow the Marvel formula without making it obvious, and it completely failed. I don’t just mean that it wasn’t funny enough, or that it wasn’t often enough. What I mean is that every attempt at humor was ill-timed, poorly executed, and honestly more annoying than anything else. The comic relief character was Nick’s best friend, played by Jake Johnson. While I love the actor in New Girls, I don’t think his role in the film was appropriate. He was only used as a tool, had no real character development, and left people cringing more often than laughing with the terrible timing. Can I say it’s Johnson’s fault? No. It might be – or maybe it was the six different script writers each trying to tell their own story, more focused on making their own mark than on making a good script. But whatever it was, I honestly think the movie would’ve been so much better without the failed attempt at comic relief.
2. Dr. Jekyll and all his chit-chat. I cannot express how much I hated Dr. Jekyll in this movie. Much like the comic relief character, I would rather his character not even exist in this film. Why, you might ask? He’s played by Russel Crowe! How can he possibly be such a terrible part of the movie? Well, it’s not about Russel Crowe. Russel Crowe is fine. He plays the intellectual doctor well. He plays the crazed maniac well, and honestly, even his shifts in accent and speech patters were spot on for a quality portrayal of a dual-personality! That is… if he’d HAD a personality. All he ever was in this movie was EXPOSITION, EXPOSITION, EXPOSITION. Not once did I see him being a character. Even when he had his first opportunity, the glorious moment of just maybe showing how intricate his character really is, what does he do? Tell his backstory. In third person. There is one rule in the world of good storytelling that when broken, can easily destroy a good idea – that’s the “show, don’t tell” rule. The whole point of visual storytelling is that there’s so much less you have to tell, because the person watching is typically smart enough to see the story you’re trying to tell. But they failed at even that. Instead of showing the reality, they had Jekyll tell his history. Or at the very least they could’ve done a flashback while having the guts to let Jekyll say it was him. That would be like me writing this review saying, “while watching this film, the writer of this blog post was displeased. She did not feel the delivery of some characters was appropriate, and it gave her much distaste for the story.” It would be annoying, right? Why wouldn’t I just tell you like any reasonable person – using the personal “I”? Maybe they thought it was artsy or clever, but when sandwiched by nothing but exposition in the same role, it failed to do even that.
3. A lackluster female lead. I know what you’re thinking. “You’re just judging it because Wonder Woman came out the week before, and that’s a crazy-awesome female-led film.” That’s true, but that’s really not it at all. Jenny was cute. She was kinda feisty, and did her best to be independent and strong-willed. All of these are great things! Unfortunately, it was all cookie-cutter. She was cute in all the typical ways, she was feisty right when it was predictable, and even her strong-willed persona seemed to do nothing to get you to love the character as anyone exceptional or memorable. While she wasn’t as terrible for the overall movie as, say, the comic relief or Dr. Jekyll, she definitely didn’t feel like a stand-out, memorable character.

But There Were Some Moments of Perfection…

1. They weren’t scared to go dark. This movie, as many people know, is meant to be the launching platform for a monster cinematic universe they’re calling the Dark Universe. These movies aren’t meant to be anti-hero stories, and they aren’t meant to be safe. Unless you’re the kind of person who typically roots for the villains – I’m talking to all you Jason Voorhees or Joker fans who seem to prefer the violent or twisted evil characters over the heroes we’re meant to root for. The Universal Monsters classically speaking are meant to be terrifying. And for all the flack this movie has gotten about the bad parts, the one thing I think it truly succeeded in was making Princess Amunet’s story a truly chilling one. No, she wasn’t the intimidating figure that Boris Karloff was, but not many movies can get away with the depiction of true evil like this one did. When Princess Amunet, sole heir to her father’s throne, sees that her stepmother gave birth to a son who would steal her power and inherit her throne, she sold her soul to Set, the God of Death. The scene where this happened was masterfully shot and visually delivered many tropes of evil without seeming cliche or old. Crows, blood, and even the fact that she was naked, are all visuals and standards surrounding selling one’s soul to the devil. But the true evil came when she killed her family. Killing her step mother made sense, and killing her father out of rage even moreso. [MATURE CONTENT: GRAPHIC] And while it is expected that she would kill the baby, that was the only death they showed which reiterated the evil in a visual cue – they literally splattered the blood of an infant on her face as she murdered him. That scene was pure, horror gold. I don’t care what the other critics say: that was true to the original spirit of the Universal Monsters.
2. Tom Cruise as Nick. I know what you’re thinking. I have got to be kidding you, right? Surprisingly, no. Now I realize that there are people who are “Tom Cruise Crazy.” I am not one of those people. But I’m also not the kind of person to throw an entire person’s career into a bucket just because there’s some public psyche that the actor is crazy. But Tom Cruise’s character was the only one in the whole movie who did everything the script writers wanted for the rest of the movie…all in one character. And he did it well! The comic relief character failed, but when Nick (Tom Cruise) was asked how he survived, he downed shots and had the reaction any normal person would – utter disbelief and gratitude at being alive…while also taking shots and drinking beer. Ahh, good ol’ American fashion. And that scene was funny. I went to see the movie in theaters twice, and both times everyone laughed because that reaction was so honest. It was great! And yes, this was kind of a Tom Cruise movie. Yes, it had cheesy adventure parts that felt like Mission Impossible, but is that necessarily so bad? When you’re trying to make a dark movie, it’s nice to get a main character that is relate-able, but is also just a bit too cool to be your neighbor. He’s funny, charming, adventurous, and just enough of a jerk for you to feel for him when he gets himself into shenanigans. He’s not perfect, but he’s also not the perfectly-imperfect-Mary-Sue. He is redeemable. And he was the perfect counter to Sofia Boutella’s Princess Amunet because he wasn’t such a contrast he was blinding – the like failure that his friend was. Say what you will about Tom Cruise – and maybe the movie would’ve been just as good with another actor – but Nick’s character in the movie worked. If the movie was just Amunet and Nick (with side characters as necessary), this movie could’ve been perfect.
3. When they showed instead of told, it was glorious. The biggest downfall of this film was in its exposition, as I mentioned above with regard to Dr. Jekyll. If they had removed his exposition, I don’t think there would’ve been much lost from the movie, either. But the best part, one of the greatest parts, is the flashbacks of Sofia Boutella’s Princess Amunet. The power of her stance, the full commitment to the role as seen in her face – tells the story in a way well beyond what any of the words could tell. If you haven’t seen the movie, then perhaps you won’t understand, but if you have, just imagine the backstory part of  the movie in the silent black-and-white movie era with dramatic music overtop. You’d still understand the movie. And despite all my hate for the comparisons, I think those scenes easily do honor to Boris Karloff’s amazing work.

Final Thoughts

The movie is broken. I imagine watching this movie is much like trying to read a script through a broken mirror. Some parts will be clear and easy to get, but there is so much shattered, missing, or reversed that it’s hard to enjoy the good parts as much as they could be. Is this movie perfect? No. But is it really deserving of a 15% by the critics on Rotten Tomatoes? So maybe it fell prey to the pressure Marvel has set to build a full universe quickly. Perhaps it committed the same sins that people say Batman Vs. Superman did in rushing to a collab monster movie and introducing everyone rather than the one the title promised. But it’s not the worst movie of the summer, and even though it’s too late to give this movie a second chance, I think there are enough redeemable qualities for audiences (and ideally critics) to give the Dark Universe a second chance. Let’s just hope they don’t disappoint fans on the second go-round!

Note: This blog is typically for Christian reviews, but I wanted to focus more on the film-making and storytelling aspect in this particular review. Thanks for reading! If you would like a Christian analysis, comment below!

Blog Image Sources:

• Featured: http://universalmonstersuniverse.com/2016/08/11/what-does-brendan-fraser-think-of-2017s-the-mummy/
• Comic Relief: http://www.instyle.com/news/jake-johnson-hot-the-mummy
• Amunet screaming: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/214202526007898530/
• Boris Karloff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy_(1932_film)

To Answer Some Questions

So I was recently watching this video (here is part 1) by New Catholic Generation when I came across a comment that had all kinds of questions. These are some of my favorite questions to discuss with truth-seekers, and I find that they can be answered in loving ways that allow for genuine conversation that can be respectful for both sides. I want to note that I am answering these questions differentiating Catholic beliefs from non-Catholic beliefs, which is why I occasionally use language like “under the Catholic assumption.” Hope everyone enjoys and some of you find this useful!

*NOTE: I am not a Catholic Theologian, but I am basing these answers on discussions with knowledgeable, theologically sound sources. For any discrepancies between what I say here and what you have learned, please talk to your local priest and seek a genuine understanding yourself 🙂

“Why is [God] inherently good?”

The general Catholic belief on this is that God Himself is love. Love in the most self-less, giving sense that has no room for badness to exist. So in that way, I guess you could say that He’s inherently good because there is no room for anything bad in Him. God isn’t like the Greek gods – basically just mightier and more glorified humans. He is perfection. He is good. To get a touch philosophical, Aristotle believed that the ultimate goal of life is the eternal contemplation of goodness and beauty, which I think anyone can agree sounds nice at the very least. To mix in the Catholic belief that God is Goodness, that’s saying that the ultimate goal of life is the eternal contemplation of God (what Catholics call the Beatific Vision). He is Goodness. He is Beauty. He is Love. He is Truth. Asking why the Catholic belief of God must be inherently good is like asking “why does sugar have to be sweet?” Goodness is as inseparable from God as your own mind is from you. It’s part of His Nature.

“How can you be sure of what He wants you to do?”

Best answer sounds like a cop-out, but…prayer! Just like you only know as a child what your parents want you to do by communicating with them, God wants us to know what to do by communicating with Him and aligning His will with ours. If you have a good relationship with your parents, sometimes you don’t even have to ask to know how they would respond to a situation. Likewise, the closer we are to God, the more we align our will with His, the easier it is to know what He wants for us. It, of course, sounds easier than it is, which is why even faithful Catholics sin (which is defined as any action that brings us further away from God).

“Why does it matter that someone believes in Him?”

Well that’s like asking a parent why it matters to them that their child loves and respects them? I know there are some parents who don’t care, and that’s very unfortunate for the child, but any decent parent wants the love and respect of their child. That is not to say parents want to be equals with their four year olds, which is why God and parents sometimes have to discipline us – for our own spiritual and physical good. God created Man in His image and likeness. Following the Catholic assumption that we are the children of God, then it makes perfect sense why it’s important to love and respect (aka, believe in) Him.

“If this God is rational and merciful, then why would He choose to punish people who don’t notice evidence of His existence?”

For starters, He doesn’t punish people who don’t notice the evidence. It’s the people who see the evidence, find the truth, and choose to not believe. It’s denying His love. But honestly, the catch is in you’re not asking the right question. Or if it is technically the right question, it’s not the one that aligns with the answer you’re looking for. God doesn’t choose to punish anyone. We get to choose to do things that are against God (sin). While the stereotyped Christian belief is that if you don’t believe in God you go to hell, that is not the Catholic view. The Catholic view is that anyone can enter heaven by choosing God. For someone who has never heard of God, that would be the same as choosing goodness, love, and truth. If we abide by the moral law inscribed in our hearts by God, pursue Truth and Love, and follow the Natural Law (Man’s participation in Eternal Law), we can make it to heaven. Long story short, we choose where we end up based on how we live our lives. Are we good people? Do we love others? Are we kind and charitable and sincere? If yes, we are following God’s intention for our lives even if we don’t know it.

Now if that’s so, then why evangelize? Why try and convert people? Well that’s because the Church has collected teachings from Jesus and the Holy Spirit that act as a kind of road map to heaven. Getting to heaven is hard, and Catholics do not claim to know who ends up there (except confirmed Saints). But if we can provide a map, why would we not, out of genuine love, want to share that route with our neighbors? There are way too many nuances to explain here, but to answer the question: He doesn’t punish people, people choose to act against what is best for them and pull themselves away from God, thereby resulting in what we often misappropriate as “God’s punishment.” Also, there comes a point where, out of love, justice must overcome mercy (in the instances of unapologetic sinners).

This isn’t directly a part of your question, but I want to go a little deeper and specify:

“If this God is rational and merciful, then why would He choose to punish objectively good people?”

This is a big question that sometimes is the reason people walk away from their faith. The answer is free will. Not necessarily the good person who is faithful and follows God’s plan for his or her life – the people around him or her who choose to sin. This is why sin is such a big deal in the Christian faith. We often think that sinning hurts nothing but us and our relationship with God. But it doesn’t. The sin of addiction lead to hurting loved ones. The sin of lust through pornography affects the way we see the people around us. It allows us to dehumanize them. It allows us to look at them in a selfish way that they don’t deserve. So why does the good faithful person who follows God get punished? Not because God punished them, but because God loves us enough to let us choose. He allows the man to choose to appreciate the woman walking by him, or to allow his lust to lead to something that hurts her. She is not punished by God, she is hurt by the evil of another. Why doesn’t God stop the rapist, you might ask? Because free will must mean that we can choose evil. If He stops the evil, then the man didn’t choose goodness, he was merely kept from bad. He could potentially live a good life entirely because every evil he desired was stopped by God. But that isn’t love. That isn’t the man choosing good. That’s the man not having the choice for bad. Free will sucks in a lot of situations. But it’s only in being able to choose evil that choosing good matters.

“Why does He care so much that people know He exists, but He refuses to actually prove his existence?”

Basic answer? He did. Jesus and God are, with the Holy Spirit, three persons in one God (the Holy Trinity). It’s a super complex mystery of the Church, and a lot of us are still trying to wrap our minds around the Trinity, which is why we rely on Faith.

Now the hard part about your question is that people often forget to incorporate free will. The idea of free will isn’t that the moment people doubt, God comes down and shows us in undeniable ways that He exists. He sent Jesus, His only Son, to Earth for that reason. Miracles that cannot be explained happen for that reason. The whole point of giving us free will is that we get to choose to believe in Him. It’s important to also note that believing in Him and loving Him should be interchangeable (which they often aren’t). You wouldn’t want to know your beloved only loves you only after you prove your worthiness. Love should be given to you as the choice of the person loving you without expectation of a proof or reward. Otherwise, is it really love? I would argue it isn’t. You’ll always wonder if they really love you, or only love you because you made it impossible for not loving you to be an option. It’s the same with God. He gave us everything we need to come to the decision ourselves to love Him or not. Can He just come down and prove it? Sure. But then how sincere will our choice to love Him be? He trusts that we will come back to Him. And we have to trust that He has provided us with all we need to get there, even if it isn’t easy. And that can be a lifetime pursuit. I would argue that even someone who never believes in God, but spends their lives seeking the answer to Pontius Pilot’s question, “What is Truth?” will get into heaven come judgment day. They’d definitely have a better chance than someone who professed faith in God their whole loves but never really let it change them.

Why a Female Catholic Priest is a Joke and an Insult to True Catholicism

Hey readers! Sorry for the long break between posts, but you know how the holidays go. Anyway, for today’s post I am doing something a bit different. Rather than a commentary on a song, I am writing a reaction to an article I read a couple nights ago. Because it is a reaction piece, there won’t be as much of a professional tone involved, and I will be including personal touches. Below is the link leading to the article I will be referring to. Please read it before continuing!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article5392290.html

All right, now that you’ve read the article, please join me in laughing in disbelief. The absurdity of this article both disgusted and entertained me in so many ways that I had to stop myself from laughing at the foolishness of those involved.

The very first quote in the article coming from the self-proclaimed “female priest” was that she did not accept the ruling of the Church and that she and those like her were  “leading the Church to a new model.” I don’t know about you, but that sounds exactly like Pride to me. As subjects of Mother Church, we are called to follow her and all her rulings as set forth by God through the Holy Spirit. What I read here in the words of Georgia Walker is the exact opposite of that call.

Now I’m no theologian, as I’m sure many people are aware, but I have taken a few courses about related topics that assure me what she did has multiple problems with it. See, as Catholics we have a right to disagree with things said by the Church and its rulers, but we have no right to actively live against it or to proclaim it as wrong and purposefully lead others against it. For example, if the pope says something and I don’t agree with his teaching, I am allowed to think he is wrong. However, if I go out and tell all my Catholic friends he is wrong and to do the opposite of what he said, then I’m not just going against the pope, but against the Church.

Not a good idea if I want to call myself a Catholic, don’t you think? There are, however, certain absolutes within Church teaching: one of those truths is that women cannot and will not be priests. Others are things such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her lifelong virginity, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. While these may not be in the same ball game, they are truths that the Catholic Church teaches cannot and will not be changed. So by Walker saying that she “does not accept” the rulings of the Church stating she will be excommunicated for breaking Church cannon, she is simply being a bad Catholic.

Moving on to her aforementioned quote, “we are leading the church to a new world,” I was insulted. Who does she think she is that she believes she’s smarter than all of the Church’s leaders for the past 2,000 years? What does she know that hundreds of Church theologians don’t? Please, if she can give the Church some miraculous breakthrough on the error of its ways, then do it. But if she had that knowledge and information, I would’ve heard of her well before an article posted on Facebook  calling her Kansas City’s first female priest. She would be world famous, not on some random article I happened upon after midnight while passing the time to combat a late sleep schedule. Another thing I couldn’t help but notice was that the service wasn’t held in a Catholic church.

“The good news is that God cannot be put in a box and that God is calling women to serve the people of God in inclusive, empowered, egalitarian communities today,” said Bishop Bridget Mary Meehan of the organization.

You are correct, Meehan. God cannot be put into a box. Considering Christ is the one who built the Church, I don’t think it’s a box He’s being put into. If God wanted His Church to change something so set in stone within itself, He wouldn’t just squeeze hit eyes closed tight, cross His fingers and hope really really hard that enough people will defy Church teaching that it’ll ‘get a clue.’ It would come through legitimate channels that the Church would have no choice but to give deep consideration to. And I’m sorry, but some women in Kansas breaking cannon law even after being warned it would lead to their excommunication are not those channels. By any means…

Once again, I concede that Meehan was correct. Women  are called to serve God’s people – and yes, even in the inclusive, empowering, and egalitarian ways she mentioned. However, that does not mean what she hopes it means. Her desire for inclusion, however, does not come from a sincere lack of inclusiveness for the role of women within the Church, but from looking for inclusion in a place it was never meant to be. Saying that women are not included enough because they cannot be priests is like saying virgin people are excluded because they don’t have children. It’s simply not something that is possible. It’s nothing against the people, it’s simply that that role is not meant for that person. You wouldn’t give the role of Romeo to a woman, so why would you give the role of priest to one?

To some, this may sound sexist. I’ll start by stating that I myself am a woman, and as cool as it would be to play Romeo, I would never sincerely accept the role out of sheer respect for the character. Romeo was a man. I am not. Ergo, I should not and cannot ethically play a man’s role. Claiming it’s discriminatory and sexist that women cannot be priests is absurd, but it’s more absurd to say that because of this, the Church is being exclusive. What I understand by all this angst isn’t that the Church is being unfair, but that the women are not satisfied with what they think their role is as opposed to learning what their role actually is.

Meehan wants women to be empowered within the Church. WE ARE. Now I realize a large portion of the Catholic church doesn’t live like they should. That’s why there’s so much despair and anger within it. I’m going to get a little personal here to make a point.

I am graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville. When I first transferred there from Florida State University, I was the kind of girl who was all about strong female figures. When I first intented to my household, Daughters of Jerusalem (DOJ), I went through formation that made me realize just how angsty I was about women in the Church. Growing up I knew had I been born a boy I would’ve been a priest, but I never cared much for being a nun because to me nuns were boring. And to be honest, I didn’t see any reason to really view Mary or many female Saints as great, although I respected them just like I was supposed to.

Then, when talking to my Big in household for formation, we started reading an encyclical written by Pope St. John Paul the Great, Mulieris Dignitatem. It’s all about the dignity and vocation of women. Now, if the Church is outdated and sexist against women, why would there be documents dedicated to the awesomeness of women? He talked about how women have beauty and power like no other creation. He emphasized women as the crown of creation! He detailed every single role women have in the Church that men cannot do. As I’m sure you noticed, I included the link above so I don’t have to repeat what he said. Now I don’t know about you, but after reading that, I sure felt a bit more empowered as a woman. Not only that, but it helped me realize something.

The problem isn’t that women aren’t included and empowered, it’s that women want to be men. That’s when I realized how sad it is. Women want to be equal to men, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean women should be men. Priests are men, end of story – so women priests are women claiming to be just as manly as men. But they’re not, and it’s so sad to watch them try to be, especially when they are devout Catholics only desiring to bring people to Christ. But they are misguided. A female priest is going to bring  a false reality. Within the real Catholic church they simply do not exist! – the cannot exist. Someone preaching female priesthood as truth is just as accurately Catholic as someone claiming the Catholic Church is okay with contraception. It isn’t and it never will be.

But perhaps simply saying that something is wrong isn’t enough for some people to understand – especially those wondering why the Church isn’t changing to meet the progression of society. I’m going to bring out a tried and true analogy to really emphasize this.

The priest represents Christ. Now, to Catholics this shouldn’t come as a surprise, since during every Sacrament performed, the priest is there in persona Christi. Already you can see the trouble with having a female priest, no? How can a woman stand in the place and play the role of Jesus, who is and was man. She can’t. But let’s continue. The Church as a body is the Bride of Christ. So that means the Church is resembled as a woman.

Let’s now take note of that overused phrase I just had: the Bride of Christ. If the Church is the Bride, then it has to be married to a groom, right? As mentioned in the article, that groom is the priest. Priests don’t just officiate the services and Sacraments, when they are ordained, they marry the Church – the Bride of Christ.  So when you logically follow that line of thought, allowing a female priest to exist in the true Catholic church is exactly the same as accepting gay marriage. If the Church started to accept female priests, it would have no choice but to accept gay marriage. Morally, the Church can’t do that. This is not a blog post about Church teaching on gay marriage, so I’m not going to open that can of worms for now. But already, can’t you see why it’s so wrong? It has nothing to do with gender equality, it has to do with morality and what the Church believes. The only way to get past it would be to accept homosexuality, which we can’t do as those who respect human life.

Moving on to the next section of the original article, I want to comment on Meehan’s frustration with the pope referring to women as “strawberries on the cake.” I can understand how someone could view that as being jipped and not earning the real respect and powerful role that women deserve. But once again, women are the crown of creation. Let’s make the strawberries on the top of the cake akin to the crown atop the head of a king. It’s small, it’s delicate, it’s pleasing to look at, but does that make it any less?

Just as a crown atop the head of a king tells others he is a king, so do the strawberries atop the cake make it pleasing. I mean, look at a cake with plain white frosting. I’m sure it tastes just fine, but then, when you put it next to a cake decorated and adorned with strawberries, which one is better? Just because we are strawberries doesn’t mean we’re not vital to the awesome power and beauty of the Church. Man would be nothing without women. Eve, Mary, and all the amazing women throughout all of history have created the world. They have reminded men of gentleness when violence was all they could see. They have shown tenderness and raised children to be good. Women have so much power, and all we are is the crown, all we are are strawberries. Is that really so bad?

The next thing Meehan complains about is that the hierarchy of the Church is blaming Jesus for “sexism” and claims that Christ’s teaching and the Vatican clearly display the difference. Can you show me where that is, Meehan? Because as far as I know, Jesus only gave the power of the Holy Spirit to men. And he only gave men the power to pass on that spirit. And he called the Church His bride, so I doubt it was ever in his plan to have female priests. Yes, he gave many women great roles in the gospels. He admitted the incredible role they had and gave them an incredible amount of respect. But there is no way to say he viewed them as having the same roles.

Since I like to comment on other media, I’ll bring in a movie I watched recently that’s relatively well known, so I’m hoping people at least understand the gist of what I’m about to say. Divergent is a futuristic dystopian film where everyone as a certain age is separated into factions. You can be smart or kind, brave or selfless, etc. But you can’t be more than one. Now what’s going on here is like that in some ways. Men and women play different roles in life, the church, society, and basically everything.

But women are getting mad that they can’t play the role men play. The reason these factions were created was because the government realize they need both intelligence and kindness. Without kindness, intelligence becomes cold and hardened. Without intelligence, kindness cannot grow. I’m not saying women and men cannot have similar features. Women can be intelligent and men can be kind – yes! But if men and women are the same and can be the same, then what’s the point of even having a difference?

As a priest, Walker has said she wants to establish a ministry of visiting prisons in the diocese.

Now, I can’t finish this blog post without giving Walker her dues. What she wants to do is good. It’s great! It’s absolutely amazing! I know my household has talked about considering prison ministry with our brother household when bouncing ideas around. But there’s a licit way to do things within the Catholic Church. Walker wants to bring more people to the Church, but she’s not leading them to the true Catholic Church, because in calling herself a priest, she’s living against that reality and truth. She has a great and good desire, and I love her enthusiasm! One could argue that even with as wrong as she is and as much as she’s doing to go against the faith, she’s better than many cafeteria, mediocre Catholics, because at least she’s on fire and not lukewarm to just be spit out.

In the end of the article, the actions taken by the Church are explained, with Walker and those involved being excommunicated. Thankfully, no “validly ordained Catholic clergy” were involved, which emphasizes how much a core belief this is. Walked ended saying that Pope Francis “cannot cancel [their] baptisms.” And this is true. Once baptized, always baptized. In fact, even without being baptized, it is the Catholic belief that anyone can make it to heaven. I’ll repeat that so anyone reading this can understand: it is the Catholic belief that anyone can make it to heaven. Did you know St. Hippolytus was an ANTI-pope? Notice how he’s a Saint – recognized by the Catholic Church. If he can do it, so can Walker.

But it has been mentioned that there’s no easy path to heaven. And while it’s a bold claim, it is boldly proclaimed that the Catholic Church has a guided road-map to heaven. There’s no guarantee that just by following the rules it’ll work, just as there’s no guarantee that it won’t work without following the rules. But if there’s an easy way through, then why add the difficulties?

Walker may have grown up a Catholic. She may believe in everything else Catholics believe in, but by that one action of claiming the role of priest, she has created such a diametric rift between her claims of belief, and what she’s living out, that she can’t be Catholic – not truly. No real Roman Catholic would do such an act against what Catholics believe.

Thanks so much for reading my blog once again! I hope you enjoyed it. Please feel free to suggest my next blog topic – movies, music, books, news, etc. – anything you find interesting and would like a critical view on! Hope to see you again soon. God bless!

Blog Image: http://www.kansascity.com/incoming/2migjn/picture5393589/alternates/FREE_960/woman%20priest%20metro%2001032015%20spf%200265f.jpg

Why am I even doing this?

Hey everyone! Thank you so much for being patient with my  lack of posts recently. I would like to apologize, but it’s been an interesting couple of weeks with finals in college. Anyway, before I get to my next analysis, I would like to take a moment to explain the idea behind this blog a littler further for some of my readers. I was discussing my ideas for my next song with some friends a week or so back and one of them seemed to have a rather notable revulsion to my verbal analysis of the song I thought would be good to consider. My friends’ argument was that there was nothing basically good in the song and there was no reason to try and force it.

I would like to make a distinction here before we continue to more analyses so that no one gets confused by them. I am not saying that what the songs I analyze promote are going to always be necessarily good, even if I give it a good analysis. What I am here to comment on is not that these songs, movies, books, or news tid-bits are necessarily good, but that a good majority of them have a basis in good. Having sex outside of marriage isn’t a good thing, but can we as Catholics really say the desire to love and be loved that instigates that action is bad? No. So why should we do that with everything in society? There is a lot of evil in our world, and if we want to just avoid it all and block everything out, we’re going to live very sheltered lives and we will never be able to preach and convert those who are of and in the world. We have to be in the world, but we don’t have to be of it.

A good review doesn’t mean the topic is absolutely and perfectly moral. It simply means that there are redeemable qualities within the pieces that I believe we can learn from and use to help others understand both the world, and our Catholic faith in a deeper, truer way. I take what I see, and I look for a deeper meaning as a way to kind of prove that even the immoral parts of society are driven by a desire for good, and that’s why they seem so good at first glance. And that is something we can use to show people the Truth.

When MLKJ spoke to white people about equality, he didn’t use black authors, although there were many very smart and popular ones, because he knew a white audience that didn’t like blacks wouldn’t find black authors a compelling enough reason to listen.

As Catholics trying to preach the Gospel, we will come across people that don’t believe in the credibility of the Bible, or won’t see  why that’s reason enough to listen. But atheists don’t have a doctrine or dogma they believe in, they only have what they watch and listen to. If we can find Truth in what they consider truth – if we can find Good in what they call good – if we can find Love in what they call love, then we can find God where they say He isn’t. And that’s what this is about – taking the Fallen view of the world and looking at it through the eyes of Original Man, when everything was good and true. It’s not about forcing good into evil, but about cultivating our senses so we can look through the bad into the good that is hidden everywhere in our barely surviving society.

 

Blog Image: http://thespiritscience.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/purpose-1-6.jpg

Phantom of the Opera

Alright, guys! Here’s my first critique on a movie: Phantom of the Opera (2004 version). This is a video Christian analysis of the movie that I did for a podcast. You can find this one by me and others by Ned Bury (owner of the podcast) on YouTube under Parables of the Film Industry at this link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCopF1mKEnui0kOtVSjpQarQ.

The text below the video is the same as in the video with the exception of the introduction and conclusion to the podcast (the hellos and goodbyes). I would encourage you to watch the video if you haven’t already, but if not, you’re welcome to read it below. It may be faster to read it, but the podcast is wonderfully made with intermittent scenes to enhance and complement the analysis. Enjoy!

 

***To make up for missing a post last week, I’m posting twice this week.***

 

The story of Phantom of the Opera follows a young woman, Christine, who is just coming of age and has been sheltered and innocent since her father died when she was a child. An almost Eve-like figure, Christine maintains an astonishing purity after his death, remaining child-like in her faith. When the pride-filled, egocentric “La Carlotta” leaves the beginning play, Christine is asked to sing the solo as a try-out for the lead role. The purity of her voice and tone starkly contrasts the vibrato of the more worldly diva – undoubtedly a purposeful transition – and moves the hearts of everyone, most notably that of her childhood sweet-heart, Raul. This is meant to be a metaphor, as “La Carlotta” represents pride and vanity, thinking herself so far above others that she expects groveling at the drop of a hat. Often one of the more hated characters, she portrays the reality of how much of society has come today – crass, prideful, and self-righteous, almost to the point where she sees herself as divine and thus able to do anything she desires whenever she desires.

Now up until this time, Christine and the Opera Ghost, whom she lovingly knows as the “Angel of Music,” have had an ideal relationship. He is needed, loved, and desired as her voice teacher and the one who holds her heart. She believes him to be an angel, and with his angry pride learned from the cruelties of the world, he graciously accepts the chance to be God. A fallen angel figure, the Phantom is content with her innocent admiration. This all changes when Raul reenters Christine’s life and the Phantom can see how she loves Raul in a way she’s never quite loved him. Playing off his god-complex, he frightens her back into her innocent faith and seduces her as he brings her into his lair.

Although in this scene, she seems quite comatose to what’s going on, we see later that this moment – when she saw the face of her Angel – was the beginning of her fall from disillusionment and ignorance. It is here where her idealized image of her teacher is shattered. Later, after the Phantom’s first public murder, Christine and Raul run together to the rooftop, the exact opposite direction of the Phantom’s cave, and she shares how she has seen through the mask of her Angel and seen the terror that he’s capable of. In this scene, the fallen angel watches as his only faithful follower abandons him for someone else. In our lives as Christians, we are often presented by Satan with things that seem beautiful and perfect, but once we’ve chosen what he offers, we realize too late that it was a bad decision. In our daily lives, we have to make many choices, either to follow the false beauty of the Phantom’s cave, or the open truth of the rooftops. It is up to us to accept the cold reality and the truthful love it brings.

Already prone to anger and hate because of his traumatic childhood, the Phantom is soon driven to madness, cursing the woman he once cherished and proclaiming that he will have his vengeance. The Phantom becomes bolder and more bitter, making demands, terrifying those who had loved him, and plotting to kidnap Christine to keep as his forever when he finds out she has agreed to marry her lifelong love, Raul. What is different here that we should note as Christians is each man’s approach is winning over Christine. The Phantom sees her as his property, and as though he has a right to her. This became too much for Christine, who soon found herself despising the Phantom she once adored. Raul, however, asks for her love, offering everything of himself in return. In this way, Christine realizes the most fundamental truth about love: love makes you a person, lust makes you a possession. With her pure heart, it’s no surprise she chose the better part. This is a reflection of the desire that is on every human heart – to love and be loved. We know when someone loves us and when someone lusts after us, but so often we accept the smooth voice of the Phantom and succumb to passion. Christine, a parallel for who we desire to be, sees this difference and confronts her Angel once again.

Down Christine went, willing to sacrifice herself to save those she loved and live with her “Angel in hell,” as the Phantom calls himself. Despite all the deaths in the film, it is the final confrontation in the Phantom’s lair that is the most heartbreaking. Christine had been hardening her heart to the Phantom ever since he kidnapped her, and even more so since the attack in the graveyard. As humans, we often harden our hearts against our loved ones who have hurt us, and more often than not, these wounds resound deeper than any others. Christine clearly stated this in the scene when she said, “Angel of Music, you deceived me.” How often have we as Christians been deceived by our friends and had to deal with the hurt? How often have we taken the place of the Phantom, a wounded, angry, hardened animal lashing out against the only ones capable of loving us? When Christine is faced with a life and death decision, she does not allow pride or stubbornness to rule, but instead chooses, like Christ, to show mercy to her enemy who has hurt her and purposefully tried to ruin her.

It is in this wave of mercy she shows him that the heart of the Phantom is touched and his reign of hate is ended. Experiencing a real kind of love for what is most likely the first time ever, his is faced with purity and goodness like he’s never seen. He doesn’t try to seize that love and goodness, because he has finally realized the importance of choice. He does not destroy it, despite the fact that he himself is being destroyed by it, because he knows how wonderful love really is, and even the worst of all people cannot deny his desire for a true and good love.

We started this podcast with saying the Phantom of the Opera was a movie about murder, innocence, hate, compassion, madness, despair, hope, lust, and love. While it does have all those elements, I would argue that the deeper Christian meaning is found in the simplest of actions and the purest of people. It is a film about humanity and our desire for love, acceptance, and truth, all of which can be found in its total completion in only one place: God.

 

Blog Image Source: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0e/5c/e1/0e5ce1a0ced05f6b276d55771e17d5af.jpg

ANIMALS

So since last week’s song was a popular song by a relatively new artist, I thought I’d tackle another crowd pleaser by a more seasoned veteran: Animals by Maroon 5. Once again, for those who are new to the blog, these are critiques from a Catholic perspective on lyrics, musical/aesthetic appeal of the music in general, and (if it has one) the quality of the music videos.

***For this song, there is a music video attached to it, but I chose not to include it on this blog post as a courtesy to my audience because of the significant amount of grotesque imagery and sexuality, including nudity.***

Baby, I’m preying on you tonight. Hunt you down eat you alive, just like animals, animals, like animals-mals. Maybe you think that you can hide. I can smell your scent for miles just like animals, animals, like animals-mals…

To start off with – wow. The fact that something like this is allowed on the radio is a disheartening expression of how society is in regard to the value of the human person. There is no such thing as a person anymore – we’re all reduced to animals, no more able to control our sexual desires than an ape. Sex between two persons is reduced to a physical interaction between two creatures – and how sad is that?

In the Catholic psyche, sex is about more. While this is not a blog meant to teach anything, I think it’s important to differentiate between the different kinds here because some people could very well take issue with my last comment about sex as just a physical interaction being sad. I do not mean that sex that way is not physically pleasing. In fact, it is! Sex is good. It is pleasing. It can be mind-blowing! But it cannot be reduced to something as base and mundane as a physical interaction.

People have sex with the animalistic ideology every day, yes. But I don’t believe – I cannot believe – that that is all there is to sex. Because if that’s all it is, then my body is worthless. Then there is no deeper value in the human person. The intimacy of the union that is so close and two become one and enter into each other has no deeper meaning than the fact that the bodies are together. If sex is nothing more than the pleasure it gives and an appeasement of my desire, then I cannot help but reflect back on Plato’s “Republic.”

“The Republic” has many memorable stories and images meant to teach people, but perhaps the most memorable for me is known as the composite beast. Three creatures are used in the story to resemble basic desire (the many headed beast), Spirit/Pride (a lion), and reason (man). Already, notice how man is reason and not desire? Anyway, long story short, these are the three parts of a man’s soul: desire, spirit, and reason. If one allows desire to run free, the many headed beast and the lion devours Reason and we cease to be truly man, as we have killed off what makes us man. Likewise, if we let Spirit/Pride rule, the beast and the lion devour what is most human. The only way to be truly human is to allow Reason to rule – to befriend Spirit/Pride and together tame the beast that is Desire. Basically, if we want to truly call ourselves human, it’s been philosophically established for millennia that we can’t live like animals – especially when it comes to how we treat others.

As Shepard Book said in Serenity, “how we treat our dead is what makes us different from the ones who killed them.” If an animal kills a man, we bury him out of respect from him and his humanity. It is the same with sexuality – if we treat our sexual partner as nothing but an animal, that is all we can claim to be, nothing more. What’s so unfortunate here is that there’s not even much room given for a mutual desire in this lyric as it explicitly states that the voice is the predator, and his object of lust is his prey. He is clearly forsaking his humanity to become the beast of desire.

Something I noticed in this song is that he has an oral fixation when talking about having sex with someone when he says “eat you alive.” By equating sex with a woman to eating food, he takes away even more from any meaning behind sex. It is literally no more significant than eating food. I don’t know about you, but I hope that when I have sex it means more than eating a burger…

So what you trying to do to me, it’s like we can’t stop we’re enemies, but we get along when I’m inside you. You’re like a drug that’s killing me, I cut you out entirely, but I get so high when I’m inside you.

Although this section isn’t as overtly dehumanizing, it is adamantly against love. It is excruciatingly selfish. It is focused on personal satisfaction above all else. The voice of the speaker uses very objectifying words, calling her a drug, cutting her out like a piece of meat, and getting a personal high. Notice how not once in this section does he talk about actually having any feelings of love. Notice how the woman is nothing but a source of sexual pleasure. And YES, I do admit, sex is good and pleasing. There IS a huge part of sex that has to do with satisfaction. However, this depiction of sex does not allow for the other three parts necessary in a true self-gift act as sex is meant to be: procreation, intimacy, and unity. One could argue there is a unitive aspect considered in that he says “when I’m inside you,” but the unitive aspect of sex is more than just a physical union. It’s meant to be a spiritual and emotional union as well. And there’s no room left for that. After all, how can you have an emotional union when one person views the other as meat?

Yeah, you can start over, you can run free. You can find other fish in the sea. You can pretend it’s meant to be, but you can’t stay away from me. I can still hear you making that sound. Taking me down, rolling on the ground. You can pretend that it was me, but no.

I don’t want to be repetitive about how despairing this song is when considering what society says is good and desirable and what as Christians we know to be desirable in our hearts. We don’t want to give everything of ourselves – our hearts and our souls – to another just to “start over” and “run free.” We don’t want to enter the most intimate union humans are capable of knowing we’ll just go looking for someone else. It’s true, there are people who do that and don’t care. But I have yet to hear of someone who was raised well, has always had a good life, and partakes in “free sex” and is not broken by something deep.

Since I don’t want to go on ranting about the same things, I’ll take this time to consider the music video [the actual music video that is NOT the one above].

The video begins with a woman, notably dressed to display her body, entering a butcher’s shop. The singer plays a worker in the shop, handling and chopping bloody meat as he lusts after the woman ordering some meats. Now already I’m expecting some would argue that he’s not looking “lustfully” so much as desirously and in appreciation of her beauty, because she is undeniably beautiful. However, the imagery is done purposefully. She is dressed like a prized meat, and he practically drools over her like a hungry dog. There is no emotional connection establish, simply a carnal desire to obtain her, to possess her.

The scenes for the rest of the video rotate between multiple clips. The first to consider is the singer in the freezer truck. He is staring at photos of this woman, taken from afar to emphasize his lack of close and true connection to her, as he dances around meat hanging. He himself swings from the bars, covering himself in what is supposed to be blood, making him more and more into a piece of meat and less and less like a human. When I watched this scene in consideration that he was viewing himself and the woman as no more meaningful than the dead, bloodied meat hanging in the truck, I was horrified that society has blindly and actively accepted and allowed something like this into the minds of our generation as “good.” Personally, I hope my children don’t see other people as meat, because that revokes what makes us most human – our dignity. It is true, animals have sex just to procreate and have sex. But we are not animals, despite what some people say, including this song. I am not an animal. I am a human person. I can control myself. I can choose. I have dignity, and I am better than the beasts of the earth that I eat at my dinner table. I want sex to be more significant than eating a Thanksgiving meal, and that’s something that I, as a person, can do that no other creature on Earth can. Animals cannot control themselves or hold themselves back. I am better than that, and so are you.

The next scene is of the singer standing outside the woman’s window and staring at her, again from afar. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never found stalkers to be attractive. And yet people watch this video and love this song despite the most basic fact that it’s displaying and promoting stalkers in an almost predatory way. He howls at the thought of her. Howls. In this action, his stalking is easily paralleled to a predator stalking his prey. And in connection with the next scene, where he finally obtains her sexually, it becomes his conquering of her. As the prey being taken by her predator, it is a metaphor for stealing her innocence and beauty.

When he does finally obtain her sexually (and it is not clear if this is in reality or simply in the imagination of the man standing outside the window), the grotesque imagery continues and is intensified. They have sex. He has conquered her and satiated his desire for her body. But nothing in their union makes me think of love. Nothing in their union is something genuinely beautiful and pure. Nothing in their union is something I want for anyone. All I see is two creatures entwining – something I could find on a hike if I really wanted to see that. It’s especially disturbing when they are continuously covered by what is meant to look like blood, yet another reminder that this is not two people making love, but two creatures forcing themselves together for the sake of personal gain and pleasure. It’s more depressing than exciting, and not something I could imagine people truly desire as the totality of life and sex. I would hope that humanity isn’t so lost to realize that lust makes them an object, while love makes them a person. I would never want to treat a person like that, but I could easily treat an object that way. That’s why as Christians, we are called to see people, not objects.

Baby, I’m preying on you tonight
Hunt you down eat you alive
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals

Maybe you think that you can hide
I can smell your scent for miles
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Baby, I’m

Now I have to be fair. Musically, this song is amazing. Before I actually took the time to listen to the words, I loved this song. It’s so great to sing along to. The varied melody keeps it interesting and so very entertaining to sing. The singer himself is wildly well-known, and for good reason – he has a wonderful voice! I love Maroon 5. It’s a great dance song with a fun beat that can easily lift anyone’s mood. Take away the words and the music video, and this is a great song, hands-down!

And this is where the Christian dilemma shows up. Do we listen to the song and desensitize ourselves to the distorted view of sexuality already permeating our culture? Do we watch the music video and expose ourselves to such horrors? Do we jam out to an amazing beat and sing along to what could very well be our favorite song?

It’s hard, I know. I used to love the song. It’s so fun to sing. But I love people more. I care about my purity of heart more. I care about true love more. And so I don’t listen to it anymore. I’m not saying you have to stop listening to it. But I am saying that as Christians, we have a duty to God and to man to respect each other, and this song does everything but respect God and man. And I can’t accept that anymore. Some of you have been ignorant to what this song really wants you to accept. I don’t blame you. But now you know, and now you have a choice. Some of you might be strong enough to listen to it and not be fazed. I know it’s possible because that’s me too. But I also know I can live without one song that goes against everything I believe to be true about love. I can live without it. I don’t need to keep putting bad in and trying so desperately to get good out. Some of you won’t be at this point of conviction, and it’s not a judgement against anyone. It’s okay because we’re all on a different path and are called to do different things. The goal of this isn’t to make you feel guilty for liking the song. It’s meant to get people to start thinking about their contribution to what’s popular in society. I don’t want to contribute to that kind of sexuality. I want to contribute to a real love.

So if I run it’s not enough
You’re still in my head forever stuck
So you can do what you wanna do
I love your lies, I’ll eat ’em up
But don’t deny the animal
That comes alive when I’m inside you

Yeah, you can start over you can run free
You can find other fish in the sea
You can pretend it’s meant to be
But you can’t stay away from me
I can still hear you making that sound
Taking me down rolling on the ground
You can pretend that it was me
But no

Baby, I’m preying on you tonight
Hunt you down eat you alive
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals

Maybe you think that you can hide
I can smell your scent for miles
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Baby, I’m

Don’t tell no lie-lie-lie-lie
You can’t deny-ny-ny-ny
That beast inside-side-side-side
Yeah, yeah, yeah

No, girl, don’t lie-lie-lie-lie
You can’t deny-ny-ny-ny
The beast inside-side-side-side
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Yo…
Whoa…
Whoa…
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Just like animals (yeah…), animals (yeah…), like animals-mals (yeah…)
Ow

Baby, I’m preying on you tonight
Hunt you down eat you alive
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals

Maybe you think that you can hide
I can smell your scent for miles
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Baby, I’m

Don’t tell no lie-lie-lie-lie
You can’t deny-ny-ny-ny
That beast inside-side-side-side
Yeah, yeah, yeah

No, girl, don’t lie-lie-lie-lie
You can’t deny-ny-ny-ny
That beast inside-side-side-side
Yeah, yeah, yeah

Image source: http://www.1053kissfm.com/files/adamlevine.jpg

Sorry for the delay

Hey guys! I’m sorry I haven’t posted yet this week. It’s been a combination of two things:

1. I have a lot of school work due and that’s currently my priority, and

2. I keep trying to add when I can, but what I write keeps getting deleted and doesn’t save, so I have to write each section several times because of my computer glitches.

Again, I’m sorry! My new post will hopefully be up soon. A sneak peek into what’s coming up: Animals by Maroon 5! Keep your eyesnears open for the next post! Thanks for reading 🙂

All About That Bass

Because you know
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass

“Yeah, it’s pretty clear, I ain’t no size two but I can shake it, shake it, like I’m supposed to do.”

Meghan Trainor does a really great job with her song in starting out commenting against the idealistic size that society has created for women. With these unrealistic goals, so many girls don’t feel like they’re good enough unless they’re a size two. Contrary to this idea, her first comment is that she can “shake it like she’s supposed to.” Immediately, women listening who are not the idealized “size two” feel empowered with their bodies as they are, which is wonderfully important for the modern girl growing up seeing what’s in the magazines.

Musically speaking, I have to be a bit more negative. The tune of the melody is not very exciting for the first half of the song. Yes, it’s catchy. And yes, it gets super stuck in your head. But that doesn’t mean it requires an advanced skill level to figure out how to sing the tune. No, I am not commenting on Trainor’s singing ability! I personally find her voice very different and refreshing when it comes to pop music. But when you listen to the beginning of the song, you notice there isn’t a huge variety of notes. There aren’t many jumps, deviations, runs, or, well…anything. So while the beginning is bumping and thumping, I’m not sure I would say it starts off in any impressive manner.

‘Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase
And all the right junk in all the right places

Although I absolutely love the anti-self-hate commentary that Trainor does in her song, I am a bit disappointed with these lines. The majority of the song is extremely empowering for the young female listener, but in these two lines, she inadvertently places too much emphasis on the man’s desire for the woman’s body. Basically she’s saying that because she has bigger boobs and a bigger butt than someone who’s a size two, it’s good because the guys will like her better.

Here is where I feel she’s lacking in her desire to inspire. The whole problem with the society that she’s critiquing is that thin is beautiful and men will like you better if you’re thin. While she does a phenomenal job of saying that that’s not necessarily true, she uses man’s desire as a reason: basically she’s not fixing the problem of “this is what men want, so this is what I should be,” she just says “men actually like this too, so it’s okay to be that way.” It places too much emphasis on the male concept of beauty of the female body.

I see the magazine workin’ that Photoshop. We know that **** ain’t real, c’mon now, make it stop

Again, Trainor attacks the media’s façade in beauty and revolts against the idea that beauty is only what can be created on a computer screen. And while this isn’t an unknown idea, I appreciate and applaud Trainor for using her influence and music to make such an important proclamation to the world.

At this point I’m going to comment on the music video itself. To start off, I don’t think anyone could miss the bright pink color scheme that permeates the entire video. All the pastels colors used are an interesting contrast to the dark tone of her voice and bring an interesting lightheartedness to the video.  I will hand it to Trainor and her music video producers, the all inclusiveness of the dancers in race, size, and age is phenomenal.

While I personally hate to make such distinctions, these are important considerations in modern society where any exclusion is taken by the media as an attack. So thank you, for including everyone! I am especially happy to see the two young girls dancing in their makeshift bedroom, because not only are the words of the song telling girls just like the ones in the video to love themselves as they are, but it’s including the younger generation, making the video itself more relatable to them. And while the lyrics are commenting on how Trainor isn’t insecure in her size and shows how she embraces it, she did not hesitate to have people of all sizes surround her for the video, from those heavier than her, to those skinnier than her. This inclusiveness emphasizes that her goal isn’t to change beautiful to bigger, but to admit that everything is beautiful, no matter what size.

Another aspect I really appreciated was her general modesty. While I know everyone hates that word and that sometimes it’s used too much or in an annoying way, I think it’s appropriate here. Trainor dressed in a way that would make Stacey London and Clinton Kelley proud – she complimented and respected her body. This is what I mean by modesty. Her dresses were not too short, nor were her shirts too low cut. And while I’m not a prude, I personally find that when women dress to compliment their figures, they’re more attractive than when they try to dress for a different body type. And this is seen in the dancers. Some of them wore shorter dresses, and the girl in the saran-wrap-esque dress was obviously more exposed, but she didn’t seem indecent. Each girl dressed for her body, and they each looked good as themselves.

The idea of modesty also transfers over to the dancing. I am not personally too keen on the twerking, but it wasn’t a focal point of the video, nor was it “in your face” like I feel it was in Taylor Swifts’ video for “Shake it off.” Trainor herself also portrayed herself with grace and charm, always being very proper and wonderfully feminine in every dance move she did.

If you got beauty, beauty, just raise ’em up. ‘Cause every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top.

Yeah, my mama she told me don’t worry about your size. She says, “Boys like a little more booty to hold at night.” You know I won’t be no stick figure silicone Barbie doll. So if that’s what you’re into then go ahead and move along.

So at this point of the song, she brings in more musical variety. The what I call “talk-singing” is replaced with more obvious singing and the melody has obtained a more interesting texture.

I am still hesitant with her lyrical focus on that it;s okay to be bigger because boys like that as opposed to just because she loves herself, but in other parts of the song, she does focus on one’s personal fulfillment and acceptance with one’s own size, so I don’t hold too much of a grudge against her here.

Because you know I’m
All about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass, no treble
I’m all about that bass
‘Bout that bass
Hey!

I’m bringing booty back. Go ahead and tell them skinny ******* that. No I’m just playing. I know you think you’re fat, but I’m here to tell ya every inch of you is perfect from the bottom to the top.

This section is probably the only part of the song I don’t find good, and that’s only because the first like alienates and tears down women. While her video does a phenomenal job of including thinner women, this line immediately alienates those women by calling them a derogatory name. This would be in some convoluted way understandable if one’s size was completely a personal choice, but some girls have fast metabolisms and cannot help being skinny. Calling them such a negative name for something they cannot help, just as some heavier girls cannot help weighing more, is just as counterproductive as calling heavy girls fat. But I do love the last line of the stanza where she affirms the women who are hurting from their poor self-image.

All in all, I like the song. The message, the music, the video – everything is positive and new and a daring step for someone trying to make a name. I love that it’s not about sexuality, it’s not raunchy, it’s not about getting drunk or doing something bad. As a Catholic, I can honestly say I like the song and I support what it says and tries to achieve. I wish Meghan Trainor the best of luck in years to come, and I hope she keeps this freshness that makes her different from the rest of the over-sexualized pop-culture.

Thank you for reading! Please feel free to comment, suggest a new post, and share this with your friends! Until next time; God bless and keep you! I’ll be praying.

 

Blog post image source: http://cdn03.cdn.justjaredjr.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2014/10/meghan-trainor-glamour-feature-november-issue.jpg

What’s in a name?

Before I get into the critiques, I want to share with you why I am starting this blog, where my inspiration comes from, and what my blog name means. I decided to start a blog because I’ve realized just how much people stereotype and judge. As Christians and Catholics, we are called not to judge. In my experience, however, it is often Christians who judge the most without giving a fair chance – I’ve seen this in movies, with music, with books… and it’s so sad because sometimes that judgement leads to people missing out on true beauty and good friendships.

My inspiration comes from a friend of mine who started a podcast for one of his classes recently, called Parables of the Film Industry. He does a great job of finding Christian meaning within the film industry. It is a new podcast, but he will continue to upload new episodes consistently. Check it out!

My blog name, Appleyesnears (Apple eyes and ears) comes from the idea of what Man was meant to be back in the Beginning – at the moment of Creation. Apple comes from Eve as the first woman who knew Original Innocence and consistently experienced absolute good. When Eve encountered something in the Garden, she encountered its goodness, and that’s what I’m hoping to do with my critiques – find the good in everything I encounter. While for Eve it was simply a matter of a moral good, I am an English major and movie/music fanatic at heart, so I want to seek the good in the quality as well.

Every good critic knows that with good, there’s bad, which is another aspect of why I chose Apple instead of Eve. When Eve ate the apple, she obtained the knowledge of not just good, but also evil. In these critiques, I will consider each post with both scenarios: Original Innocence, and good and evil after the Fall. The “eyes and ears” part comes from both the ways we receive these types of media (for your viewing and listening pleasure), and from the idea of the monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). Well, I hope you have a better understanding what it’s going to be about! Please keep following 🙂