Headline version: It was amazing! … -ly bad.
It was too long by an hour and dripping with shlock and sentimentality. I had to resist bursting out laughing at its hamminess at points, including a ridiculously edited dream sequence and another flashback sequence, the overuse of swelling soundtracks at relatively unimportant scenes, and a text introduction in the film’s opening minutes. Why not just throw in star wipes to transition between scenes and maybe have Andy Garcia break the fourth wall by winking at the camera at some point, since we’re all apparently taking cinematic pointers from Battlefield Earth?
Despite its agonizing length, and perhaps out of weakness of stomach or simple cinematographic incompetence, it neglected even to suggest the full range of horrors for which the Calles government was responsible, limiting itself to bodies hanging from telephone poles and the torture of a teenaged boy. (Check out this Audio Sancto sermon for a more complete depiction of the many unprovoked atrocities committed by the Mexican government in its mysterious hatred of God). The fact that Calles was a Freemason, atheist, and socialist is never really mentioned — in fact, very little of the background to the war is mentioned, leaving the ignorant to scratch their heads at what the hell this whole thing was supposed to be about.
Most perniciously, as I hinted at before and as Dr. Charlton suggested more explicitly after the movie’s trailer was edited by its new distributor, the whole film makes the Cristeros out to be martyrs for the Enlightenment, rather than its victims. I mentioned a second ago that the ignorant were left initially unclear about who we were supposed to root for and why. Well, the movie quickly supplies the answers: the Cristeros. Why? Because they’re fighting for freedom! (By contrast, Calles’ primary evil is that he’s a tyrant, not that he’s, you know, basically a Satanist).
Ugh. Spare me. The movie captures enough of the truth that it will give atheists ulcers just knowing it exists (so, in that respect, hooray, I guess), but does anyone think we’re going to win the culture wars producing shlock like this? What a wasted opportunity — not even the sentimental shot-in-the-arm that Braveheart gave to Scottish separatists. Boo!
The Orthosphere 
That’s too bad.
Off-topic, Proph, but I think you’ll like this one, from Canada’s most prominent newspaper:
I assume that, like me, you’ll be refreshed by the honesty: “Roman Catholicism is incompatible with Canadian law.”
Sadly, the largest plurality of religious people in Canada are Catholics (this is true even if you classify lots of dissimilar groups as “Protestant”).
Speaking of honesty — do you think that the Cristero war displayed a refreshing explicitness about the conflict between secularism and religion, a conflict that is awkwardly shoved under the rug in more liberal societies like the present-day US? I mean, you guys essentially believe that Calles was *right*, in the sense that religion actually *was a threat* to his values.
Or in other words: you want a theocracy or something like it. Shouldn’t you expect the forces of secularism to fight back in the way the Mexican Government did? This is a battle, isn’t it?
“This is a battle, isn’t it?”
Yes, but not necessarily a physical one. It is primarily a spiritual struggle, and spiritual combat is primarily about getting others to acknowledge the validity of your ideas. The battle is about what constitutes the good and how this understanding of the good should be instantiated in society and in personal lives. The primary weapons are words, and the ideas that they express.
True, physical combat often accompanies a spiritual struggle such as the one we’re in. But our opponents / enemies claim to eschew violence. They claim to espouse only freedom and toleration. They hide their positive beliefs and the force they exert to support them. If they were openly to declare what they really stand for and that they will use force to maintain their hold on society, then we would be in a whole new world.
Yes. We expect Satan to be evil and to do evil. That does not excuse him from being evil. That does not excuse us from the obligation to point out that he is evil. Calles, like his master, had an accurate world-view: “the devils also believe, and tremble.”
“I mean, you guys essentially believe that Calles was *right*, in the sense that religion actually *was a threat* to his values.”
Sure. But only because his values were monstrous. Calles was “right” only in the same sense that cannibals are “right” to attack whoever objects to eating people.
Proph,
Calles is called out very early in the movie as a Bolshevik by the US Secretary of State under Silent Cal (Kellogg). That’s probably a bit more amplified to modern ears than the Socialist that he called himself. The wife and I really enjoyed this movie, and little of that enjoyment was the meta-joy from the pain it likely causes many of the wicked.
The Satanic influence on Calles — ok, let’s go ahead and say domination, is implied pretty heavily in the movie but never explicitly stated. I don’t think such was really necessary. The Cristeros never flagged in their statements that they were fighting for Christ the King.
You’re right, I forgot about that. Given that it’s mentioned once and never again, hardly surprising. (By the way, was I the only one who thought it absurd that Calvin Coolidge was played by the short, doughy, baritone Bruce McGill, pretty much the opposite in all respects from the actual Coolidge?)
Was it implied? I never got that impression. The impression I got of Calles was that he was just another dime-a-dozen petty tyrant who decided for no particularly good reason to suppress the Catholic Church. Well, we know exactly why he hated the Catholic Church, but are never really told why.
Proph,
Look to his minions, especially the torturer. Also look to his practice of decorating his telegraph lines throughout the country with the hanged.
Also, there’s another complication — the Cristeros general was also a Mason. Also look to his incredible PR malpractice (which was worse historically even than in the movie). Dime a dozen petty tyrants known how to kill tons of people without making too many effective martyrs, and given the Boshevik association, I’m sure he could have received plenty of instruction on ‘best practices’.
“…dripping with shlock and sentimentality…”
Why every modern expression of pro-Christianity in films, art, and music Sucks. All. Day. Long.
I liked the movie and didn’t think it was too sentimental. It reminded me of the old historical epics Hollywood used to make.
They were also pretty cheesy and sentimental, by some standards. But I’d rather have Hollywood cranking out those types of movies than another comic book movie.
Bummer. I guess this is a bad side of having one’s movement shut out of the cognitive elite: no good movies putting forth your point of view, except when they do it by accident.
By the way, I see that there’s also a movie about the Vendee uprising (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/frodo-versus-robespierre). I don’t plan to see it, but I guess we should be glad that there are people out there making movies like this and the Cristero movie at all.
That article explains a lot. I watched the Vendee trailer without knowing that the director made a conscious decision to use child actors, and I wondered why they all looked 12.
What about: Snow White and the Huntsman as reactionary allegory? Might be a somewhat useful line of inquiry.
Can’t say I’ve seen it, so I can’t comment. Maybe one of the other Orthos can?
All fairy tales are reactionary. That’s why feminists hate them.
Re: Snow White and Huntsman, Steve Sailer didn’t have much nice to say about the movie.
Either that… or rewrite them so the true moral of the tale is, “You go, girl!”
Dang. That link to Sailer is here!
@Bohemund,
I found Sailer’s review a little .. erm .. superficial.
Also, the movie’s marketing is misleading on some of the ‘you go, girl’ angle of butt-kicking females. In the movie, Snow White disdains fighting. She suites up for battle at the end, but mostly that’s so the armour and the men surrounding her can protect her until she reaches the Queen.
Kevin McDonald has a much better review of Snow White and the Huntsman here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/06/snow-white-and-the-huntsman/
Kristen Stewart may be B-level talent at best, but there is something about that dark hair and pale skin that is quite beautiful; add the green eyes and it’s almost a pre-Raphaelite perfection
We watched the movie and liked it, but that’s bc we are Christians and wanted to like it. Agreed that the movie fails to put the struggle in a realistic historical perspective, failing to note that Calles and his U.S. supporters were Freemasons. Trouble is, people are so deluded by Hollywood history that if you told the truth, it would likely seem ridiculous; is this why the only seemingly plausible reason for U.S. intervention is portrayed; namely, oil and financial ones? If dialectic materialism is the real cause of war, rather than sin and evil, and if Calles was just a petty tyrant, not a devoted disciple of the Masonic religion whose persecutions were relgiously motivated, maybe the Cristeros, despite their fervent faith, were just rectionaries dedicated to landed aristocracy and private property, etc. How weird how Hollyweird is not weird enough weave even a tightrope accross the vast chasm between fact and fiction, lest they fall into bathos and seem ridiculous to their own adoring dupes. Reality stranger than Hollywood?
Hard to believe but hard to deny.