50 Shades of...... reactions.

The parking lot was packed out with not one spot left even though we were thirty minutes early. Women were everywhere. Cops were parked out front. Signs of Valentine's Day permeated the air: Nervous laughter from uncomfortable would-be couples. Groups of single people making the best out of what might otherwise have been a lonely Friday night. Red ribbons and streamers hanging from the ceiling in the wine bar, where they served deliciously red mixed drinks. The bathrooms line was filled with women sizing each other up with smirks on their faces, wondering who was on the right team. There wasn't a protester in sight, but the atmosphere suggested that no one would have been surprised to find themselves accosted for the name of the film on the ticket stub in their hand.
It was Friday the 13th, and here in Fayetteville, NC, the air inside the brand new Patriot Carmike Cinema complex was electric..... the mood was one of smoke, and fire.
The movie theater employee who addressed the crowd asked animatedly: "Are you guys excited to see 50 Shades of Grey??"
And the crowd cheered, albeit nervously, as they packed in close to make room for stragglers. She promised a full theater and I wondered at how much the experience of going to the movies had changed in just a few short years.
The mass popularity and consequential polarization of women over this book and film series felt somehow like a momentous event in American culture.
For the first time in my mind's saturated-in-French-culture memory, Americans were talking about sex. Out loud.
And not just any sex..... they were talking about BDSM.
In Europe, we often say that Americans are the most gluttonous of cultures precisely because people here are notorious for holding puritanical beliefs externally that force them to keep secrets and act out.
Puritanicalism creates a culture that is hypocritical at best and flat out schizophrenic at worst. Ask your European friends..... they'll tell you Americans usually make the rest of the world shake their head in wonder. BDSM is typically portrayed as an "extreme"type of sexual expression, and so it seems perfectly natural to the rest of the world for Americans to open the public dialogue about sex and relationships via a book and film about bondage and domination.
I've been chastized repeatedly for even bothering to see the film and review it, so as not to add to the voices out there discussing it. The way I see it, the more we talk about this stuff, the better.
Also, I rarely see my newsfeed so opinionated and polarized over a book.
If memory serves the last time I think it was over Twilight, and Twilight has a lot to do with why I'm writing this review in the first place.
You see, when Twilight came out, I jumped on the boycott bandwagon. Without knowing anything about it, I poopooed it til the cows came home. Only to read it, years later, and realize that I had been so, so wrong. Twilight was amazing. It was surprisingly well written and beautiful, with powerful themes that reflect the virtues we hope to highlight to our children.
Twilight remains an epic example of a creative display of Truth and Beauty and I regret very much the time I lost ignoring it in popular culture.
I normally review movies and books with paranormal themes, though, and 50 Shades is not one of them. But I needed to do this, because I didn't want to miss the chance to comment on popular culture for the sake of my sisters who sit and who wonder. And though I didn't feel about 50 Shades even remotely as good as I did about Twilight, I think it bears noting that I didn't walk out shocked, horrified, full of unbridled lust, or ready to fling reason to the wind, either.
I walked out thoughtful.
So there I sat, lights dimming all around me with a dear, like-minded friend, ready to experience 50 Shades and come to my own conclusions. If I've learned nothing else in the past three months, it's been that I will never again let people draw conclusions for me. Let me always think. Let me always reason. Let me always be open, and listen.

Before I can address the film itself, I have to address the reasons people are criticizing it.
First... the graphic sex itself.
Let's be real: this was no where near as naughty as people claimed it was going to be. Certainly no worse than, say, Vikings, or Game of Thrones, or HBO's Rome.
So if people are boycotting it on the premise that it's pornographic, but still watching other TV shows, to you, I roll my eyes. Truly. I'm not saying there wasn't any graphic sex or nudity. I am saying that it was no more shocking than most popular American TV shows these days. There will always be those who find nudity shocking, and more power to them. Many persons in my community intentionally shield themselves from it and this is not a comment about them, in fact I admire their commitment to purity. However, it is my duty to point out that if you are making facebook posts about how evil the graphic sex in 50 Shades is while sitting on your couch watching Game of Thrones.... well.... you're wrong.

Next: the elements of "abusive behavior" / bondage and domination.
Again, let's be real for a moment. BDSM is not abuse in any way shape or form. In fact, I'm not sure if my readers realize this, but for every Christian rabidly posting on social media about boycotting 50 Shades, there is a person openly involved in the BDSM community who is also posting boycott requests. Why? Because for people who aren't familiar with BDSM, for people with both feet firmly planted in the land of vanilla sex, 50 Shades may give a misleading portrayal of what BDSM actually is. It contains all of the elements without a proper explanation, leaving the elements open to interpretation. And so to fairly portray BDSM, here, I think, is important.

BDSM is about two (yes, or sometimes more) people consenting from their own free will to explore fantasies and desires (both sexual and nonsexual) with each other in a safe and sane way.

BDSM typically involves building platonic relationships first, deciding carefully on the pursuit of a sexual relationship, building trust and communication for long periods of time in said potentially sexual relationship, often goes so far as to include a contract which clearly communicates the rights and responsibilities of each party within that relationship before any sexual contact occurs, and furthermore, said relationships are oftened hoped to last for life. The practices of BDSM include breaking down physical and psychological barriers, paying careful and loving attention towards each partner's wants, needs, and fears, and many persons claim to find it both healing and enjoyable, which is why many persons go so far as to identify with BDSM and seek to build community and a lifestyle around it. Again, BDSM is about sex, but only insofar as sex is a part of human relationships. Many people practice BDSM without having sex at all, and many others incorporate BDSM sexuality into their ordinary lifestyles, recognizing in it some spark of something they find healing or helpful in relationships.
Let me be very clear: I say this not to normalize BDSM but to give you a truer depiction of what it is and means to those who practice it than what your imagination or popular culture might be portraying it as.
The problem with 50 Shades is that instead of seeing BDSM through the eyes of the people who practice it, the viewer here is seeing it through the eyes of a woman who not only isn't familiar with the dynamics and culture of BDSM, but is also a virgin, so inexperienced with sex in a general sense and also with relationships. She also isn't seeking a spouse or long term relationship, but an experience, and not even with any foresight, just.... as it comes.

And to the public, this creates a situation that leaves BDSM open to interpretation, when in fact it is a particular set of norms that -- though it means different things to different people -- cannot be changed. BDSM can not ever be abuse, because it is the opposite of abuse, in a way. It is a loving, caring, committed exploration of one's own psyche and that of one's sexual partner, often of one's spouse.
Dominants and submissives walking among you who are involved in the official community of BDSM are typically seeking to be part of caring, trusting, loving, carefully handled, and committed relationships. Which isn't to say that abuse doesn't happen or that there isn't a lot of immorality happening that is glorified when BDSM is glorified--- there are abusive men masquerading as Dominants around every corner within the BDSM community because it makes their own desires very easy to achieve. But if we are going to talk about a thing, we need to address it for what it actually IS, not what people assume it is. I ask for the same courtesy, for example, when people discuss a religion, not going to "Anti-Catholic" websites to learn about Catholicism but to learn about it from officially sanctioned Catholic websites. Same rules apply here.

Further, Catholics, of all people, should have a clear understanding of the dynamics because we practice obedience, silence, submission, chastity, corporal mortification, fasting, and other types of actions in common which hold spiritual significance because of the changes they effect in us and in our community. I'm obviously not comparing Catholicism and BDSM here, but I am saying that we have practices in common in some areas and that we can at least acknowledge that fact in our attempt to understanding what is happening on the screen when a movie attempts to depict BDSM for popular culture.

OK, so those two things being said, what about the film itself? The film itself is your average "finding oneself" love story. It was as gripping as any romantic drama might be... if you enjoy those, you'll enjoy it, and if you don't, you won't. It wasn't particularly gripping and I found Anastasia's character especially annoying. She was frumpy, disorganized, made poor decisions, and clearly needed someone to help her get control of herself. At the same time, she was portrayed as the reasonable one, whereas Christian, who was successful, productive, had his life together and was clear on what he wanted and who he was (read: actualized) was portrayed as a mess-- possibly even a dangerous abuser.
The film presents a duality in which the characters (and therefore viewers)  are forced to choose between BDSM and actual love, something that I'm not sure I agree is a choice people are forced to make. When a wife tells her husband how she enjoys being touched, and her husband respectfully attempts to give her that while maintaining whatever boundaries she has set into place, they are basically involved in BDSM. Kinky people might disagree with me here, but I'm just saying....that's really the bottom line, and you don't have to be in one camp or the other to be "legit."
Labels are silly.

For some people, like Christian, it obviously went deeper than that, and the Church addresses that in various ways which I'll leave to the viewer to discern because I'm sure everyone walked away with a different sense of what Christian was going through based on their own life experiences. A person who has experienced heavy abuse will react one way to Christian's story, whereas a person who has never been abused but suffers from jealousy or confidence issues will react a different way.

Ultimately, sexuality is a personal, unique, and intimate thing, and the only real guidance the Church can give is to hope that we are operating within a context of marriage between a man and a woman, exercising our free will and caution, and open to life.
I was upset about Christian's nonchalant rule-making about birth control. He wanted Anna to eat well, exercise, and sleep enough, but he had no qualms about poisoning the very body he claimed to love with birth control pills. This was also a sign of his actual objectification--- essentially he was saying to her: "I want all of you, every inch, except your fertility and everything that makes you an actual woman." Ick. That was the only real objectification I saw present in the film, though, ironically. The rest was actual affection and desire to know her. But the birth control?.... Yeah. It was ugly and sad.

I walked into the film under the impression that people were going to see it with the intent of having a naughty Valentine's date that would culminate in couples trying new bedroom antics, basically, but realized once the credits starting rolling  and I started spying on reactions that the majority of female viewers felt especially empowered and uninterested in bondage and domination in the end. Sure, there were those in there who saw it because of an interest in bondage and domination, but they were by far in the minority, which is probably a good thing.
Honestly, it sounded like most of the women in the theater were going to go home and have a bowl of ice cream and congratulate each other on being awesome, strong women while periodically interjecting with comments objectifying Christian Grey, likely while poopooing him for objectifying Anastasia's character.

If you've read the "Five Fat Lies" article on the same topic, I did want to point out that I vehemently disagreed with two of his points. Violence CAN be sexy. It's sexy if it turns someone on, and is consentual and that's really the bottom line. No one person gets to say to another: "Hey, THIS is sexy. That isn't." That's not how sexuality works. Our sexuality is built up of our experiences, our psychological makeup, and our inner workings, and we are as unique as snowflakes in that regard, and you won't have to give up your Catholic card to believe that. Further, I would argue that "sexual brokenness"actually CAN be sexy as well, for the same reasons. In particular when it is being healed, and especially in the context of a loving, monogamous, committed relationship like marriage.  These things will be especially healing and possibly pleasurable when coupled with the grace that comes from making frequent and regular use of the sacrament of healing: reconciliation.
And I mean, again..... let's be honest. Catholics flog themselves and wear cilices and hair shirts and impose silence for the same reasons in many ways. To understand ourselves and to hear God's voice through all our mess. What in the world makes a couple consensually, safely, and sanely doing it to each other such a horrific or awkward thing? Am I really the only one who finds that kind of ridiculous?

Now, this is not a movie for everyone, and likely, a small number of people only should see it.
Some may find it shocking and should steer clear. Others will find it enticing and it may lead them astray. In all honesty, some may find it boring.
But for those who feel it speaks to them one way or another, I hope that they will leave with one thing in mind: that our sexuality comprises a large part of our identity and sense of self, and that we must understand ourselves and our spouses, if we are married. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone but the people doing it, and it doesn't have to be kinky, it doesn't have to be "ordinary," it doesn't have to be anything but real. We must FACE our true selves. Only then will we hear God clearly, and make progress. Progress means drawing closer to God and to each other,  and becoming the people he intended us to be. What that looks like will be as unique as each person on the journey, so put away your boycotts, and learn to speak honestly about your experiences, to pray and study hard, and to communicate your sexual feelings with your spouse. I can only hope that that is the conclusion most people will draw from the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey, even though the film itself clearly didn't convey that message accurately.
Fire can destroy us or purify us. It can rush through us and burn everything in it's path, or it can clear the way and make room for new growth. Don't play with fire, but don't be caught without it, either. Just be..... cautious. Fire is fire.

Connect the Cuts: a review of The Devil Inside (NO SPOILER)

As I sit down to write this review, I still don't quite know how to say what I need to.
Was this movie good?
No, it was monumentally awful.
Was it bad because it was unrealistic about the issue of exorcism?
Yes. The makers of this film apparently decided to forgo any type of research-- even the most fundamental basics-- regarding the practical, theological and scientific aspects of the rite of exorcism and the issue of demonic possession within the Catholic Church outside of the most common, superstitious, and base stereotypes. My five year old could have written this movie with exponentially more accuracy--it was as if they truly didn't have even the most remote interest in portraying mental health issues or demonic issues with any type of realism. Because of this, watching the movie is painfully.... confusing.
It is the mental equivalent of watching a movie intended to be about NFL football, but which takes place entirely  in a swimming pool with an all female cast. It just makes no sense.
To be fair, There were moments in the film where I found myself nodding in agreement with one of the characters only to suddenly shake my head in disbelief--- wait, what did he just say??? Rewind.
For example, at one point in the film, Isabella is questioning the two rogue exorcists who are taking the course in exorcism alongside her. She asks: "But how do you KNOW when it's really demonic possession and not just mental illness?"
"You know," They reply in unison, with certainty. I did find myself nodding--- indeed, you just "know in your knower" as my old pastor used to say.
She asks again and they reply again in the same way, and I continued nodding along.
Moments later, from inside their apartment the priests are discussing the fine line between science and religion and their personal history with exorcism.
One of them says to her something along the lines of: "Along this journey, though, I feel like I've seen the Devil a lot more than I've seen God." I nodded again, able to relate to that feeling of "alone against evil" which people who participate in spiritual warfare often get.
But then the conversation shifts, and they begin to malign the Church, the Magesterium, the sacraments, and pretty much anything which a Catholic priest would use to get TO the very God they are woefully trying to reach. What??!!
Alright, so it wasn't realistic. But was it bad filmmaking?
YES.
From a purely film perspective, there was absolutely no cliché left untouched by this movie. Certainly, I will acknowledge that it is difficult to make a "new" exorcism movie. The Classic film The Exorcist covered the fundamentals, the Exorcism of Emily Rose covered the theological and practical aspects and introduced the mental health issue, and The Rite beautifully rounded them out and added intimacy with God and the ordinary activity of the devil which is so necessary for a healthy understanding of these issues.
To some degree, the ending notwithstanding, The Last Exorcism also contained elements that hadn't been explored and needed to be on the subject. But I admit , there isn't much left to work with from a visual and plotline standpoint. It would take creativity and effort--- two things sorely lacking from this production. I actually wonder if the filmmakers did this on purpose, to make a film which was as awful as humanly possible using every single horror-genre cliché.
Now, I'm very disappointed. So, before I go any further, let me give you the basic plot line according to the filmmakers.

In 1989, emergency responders received a 9-1-1 call from Maria Rossi (Crowley) confessing that she had brutally killed three people. 20 years later, her daughter Isabella (Andrade) seeks to understand the truth about what happened that night. She travels to the Centrino Hospital for the Criminally Insane in Italy where her mother has been locked away to determine if her mother is mentally ill or demonically possessed. When she recruits two young exorcists (Quarterman and Helmuth) to cure her mom using unconventional methods combining both science and religion, they come face-to-face with pure evil in the form of four powerful demons possessing Maria.

 Based on this synopsis, I thought to myself that this had some potential. Well, no.
I hate to relate it to the Blair Witch Project, which I enjoyed at the time of it's release, because so many reviewers are doing that. But if we're going to be honest, I have to, because the Blair Witch Project certainly changed the standard for documentary-style films with on-camera confessions. One thing particular to THIS movie though was the amount of reality-show drama that frequently went on, there were moments where I literally just wanted to pass out valiums to each of the characters and put them in separate rooms just to get a break from the frantic whining.
Kind of like The Real World meets the Blair Witch Project meets a giant can of cheese whiz.
Beginning with Maria Rossi, the woman allegedly demonically possessed, there are inconsistencies and bizarre twists that show lack of forethought and a total lack of common sense on the part of the film editors/writers.
With the intersection of science and religion being an area which absolutely fascinates me, I was looking forward to finding relevant, or at least thought-provoking information in this film, and "buddies" in what appeared in the previews to be a set of parapsychologically-oriented priests with experience in exorcism . Indeed, the previews showed us these cool, young priests, diligently working to combine reason with faith for the good of all.
Instead the "science" was hilariously laughable..... I think the pinnacle was when the two "priests" are at work with the possessed mother whose heart rate and blood pressure begin to rise.
They suddenly stop and stare at the monitor very seriously, ceasing all activity. In the silence we hear:  "wait a minute, I think we've got something here." Blinking lights abound, letting us know that she is..... experiencing a raised heart beat and high blood pressure. Surprise!
From a medical standpoint, the details of this film were beyond absurd. Everything from a doctor leaving a violent psych patient with a visitor alone in a room without any precautions to medicines which worked at the speed of light and restraints which were made of what amounted to be toilet paper. There was truly no limit to the stupidity exercised by supposed medical and mental health professionals in this film, which is irritating to me because for many people, the issue of taking diabolical possession seriously as a plausible cause for human difficulties revolves around the accuracy of the scientific method used when dealing with such people, as well as the attention to detail necessary for true scientific study. Any film which misrepresents the actual scientific attention to detail which MUST be paid when examining a patient for exorcism (for example, the Church usually requires a psychological examination before an exorcism is approved) does a HUGE disservice to the cause of truth and to those for whom science can not explain what they require for healing.

But of course, the issues that interest me most are the representations of possession itself, the explanations of Catholic belief, etc.
The opening assures us that the Vatican was in no way involved in the film, and that should be obvious to any Catholic watching considering the numerous fallacies portrayed in the film.... virtually everything was "off"--- explanations of theological concepts (such as what happens to unbaptised babies, or what it takes to be an exorcist) are totally false. Throughout the film, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the fact that certain men are "ordained exorcists." However, the men presented in such a way are vocally anti-magisterial and in direct disobedience  to the Church, which is almost laughable, if it wasn't so sad.
So in a sense, I am thankful that the very first scene immediately made it very clear that this film really has nothing to do with the Vatican, with Catholicism, with the Rite of Exorcism, etc. It's comparable to watching an agnostic or atheist write a book about Catholic theology-- to the person who is educated in these issues, utter nonsense is being put forth as fact from beginning to end. In fact, it kind of reminds me of how so many protestant pastors teach their congregations about the Catholic faith, TOTALLY demonizing it without qualms, without once citing an actual Catholic doctrine or belief, only stating protestant hypotheses about what Catholics believe, all the while preaching from a Bible the Catholic Church gave them. This is just like that.
Another incredibly annoying aspect of the exorcisms themselves stems from the fact that there is absolutely no order--- apparently these rogue priests operate in total disarray-- incoherently shouting insults mixed with latin sentences, randomly flinging crosses and stoles about the room, periodically checking machines which do absolutely nothing, stopping to re-arrange cameras, and allowing anybody and everybody to be involved and present in the actual exorcism, despite the state of their souls or the possible danger to themselves. There is nothing methodical about it.
Contrary to what these filmmakers seem to think, the Rite of Exorcism is a RITE, with an order, a beginning, a middle, and an end. For a reason. Priest exorcists must prepare, sometimes for months if need be, and so do their assistants. The Rite itself has an order, and must be followed exactly according to the book. So what is presented as "exorcism" is in fact, not. What is presented as an "exorcist" is in fact.... not. And what's presented as extraordinary behavior of the possessed is in fact.... not.
At one point, the allegedly possessed mother leans in to whisper to the daughter that she "knows" (via preternatural knowledge) that the daughter has had an abortion. This is a common scenario during exorcism or conversation with possessed persons that has made me (and any other person who has ever assisted at an exorcism) very uncomfortable-- having one's hidden sins being exposed openly is never something anyone enjoys. Nevertheless, when the daughter later relates it to the rogue exorcists she is working with, it doesn't seem to phase them at all that this woman has had an abortion and might need healing, nor does it concern them in the slightest that her soul might need help, because only moments later she is assisting at an exorcism herself, nevermind the fact that should she become injured or killed she would, according to Catholic doctrine, have needed absolution in order to be forgiven for the mortal sin of murder.
Inconsistencies like those are rampant throughout, but the number one difficulty I faced while watching involved how little tiny kernels of truth were strewn haphazardly throughout the film at key points, so that eventually the viewer appears to see some sort of connection..... a connect-the-dots (connect the cuts? A clue from the film?) if you will. These shreds of "factual" information, to those familiar with these issues, or somewhat familiar, appear to confirm something very troubling: that the Vatican is concealing/ keeping it's ability to heal people from demonic possession and allowing them to suffer.
This idea, so completely far from the truth, is presented as factual, but also given so subtly throughout the film and in such imperceptibly small doses that a perfectly normal Catholic may actually walk out of the film beginning to ask himself those very questions.
The issue that seems most important here is that there is a very real "dialogue" at work within the Church regarding matters of exorcism and legitimate questions people have about changes in norms. There is also a very real issue---- which is being addressed, in the manner the church ALWAYS addresses issues.... with patience, prudence, and prayer.
Meanwhile, Hollywood is perfectly content throughout this movie to use the mysterious and wonderful facets of the Catholic religion that people are naturally drawn to while completely bashing it's heart-- the Church-- at every turn.
There's something profoundly wrong with that... and I don't think the terms "hypocritical" or "opportunist"even begins to describe it.
If, like me, you believe (you KNOW) that there are persons rotting away in dirty mental institutions, forgotten, who can receive very real, very needed help from a Catholic priest....then you owe it to those people to do what you can to make sure that the tightrope line between science and religion is frequently walked and explored. A movie like this has so much potential for good--- and instead embraces wholeheartedly everything sad and terrible about human nature... and filmmaking. Save your money.