I just saw the new movie directed by Darren Aronofsky, The Wrestler , starring Mickey Rourke. If I had to summarize the aesthetic of this movie, I would describe Marisa Tomei's character giving Mickey Rourke a lap dance as he documents the wounds of a long and successful career in professional wrestling. Tomei then says, "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." She notes she's quoting Passion of the Christ not Isaiah 53, but she gets the point. Randy "the Ram", nee Robin Ramsinski is a sacrificial victim of a sort, bearing the griefs of a world that can't bear forgiveness and the burden of unconditional love. The movie also has political undertones, pitting the heroic Dodge Ram-driving Ram against an African-American named Bob who wrestles as the Ayatollah, carrying Iranian flag as his cheap prop. In these less immediately Iranophobic times, Bob is a car dealer in Phoenix, but in the ring, the assaults on his body and his expressions of disdain for the American hero still stir up primitive and orgiastic emotions in a crowd whose ancestors loved bull-baiting and public executions. The Wrestler is a reminder that the ritualized violence of the past remains a very present part of modern life, whose only enemy is compassion for the Other and the villain. I also think Aronofsky gets a real kick that his title character's signature move is the Rambam.
NBC is desperately trying to hype its new show, Kings about a "modern monarchy." Here's the web site. Yes, it's true. Hollywood has so run out of ideas that they're updating I Samuel. Who has the rights to that anyway?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Two Words: Rhinestone Chasuble
And the sermon described forthcoming appearances of the preacher on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
But we sang St. Patrick's Breastplate at the Recessional, so I guess it was a good Sunday.
But we sang St. Patrick's Breastplate at the Recessional, so I guess it was a good Sunday.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
About That Incident in Tess of the D'Urbervilles
bls mentions in her post today the incident in Chapter XIV of Tess of the D'Urbervilles depicted in a BBC adaptation of the Thomas Hardy novel being shown on PBS last Sunday and this coming Sunday, in which Tess baptizes her dying baby Sorrow privately according to the form given in the Prayer Book, because her father has locked the house against the parson.
I'm afraid as far as I can tell that even in the era during which the novel is set, the parson was in the wrong to deny Sorrow burial in consecrated ground. Hardy unfortunately glosses over the parson's exact justification for his actions and the BBC production tries to fill in with a little hemming and hawing to imply that Tess could not be a lawful minister of Baptism, perhaps because she is a woman. The early 17th century canons of the Church of England do discourage private baptism, perhaps less for the theological grounds we would cite today (the importance of the local Christian community showing visible support for the incorporation of the child into the Body) than as a form of repression upon non-conformity. However, the ancient Patristic precedents support Tess. Some of these even allow baptism in the proper form of words by pagans and heretics to be valid Reading them more restrictively as the Roman Catholics do to exclude those baptizing in the correct form of words with heterodox beliefs concerning their meaning, Tess still would be empowered to baptize in extremis as was clearly the case. Renton and Robertson's Encyclopedia of the Laws of England quotes Bingham's Scholastical History of Baptism , "[The Church of England] forbids laymen or women by its laws to baptize: but if it be done in due form, she does not wholly disannul or order it to be repeated as entirely null and void." These authors also quote ecclesiastical law reports from as early as 1809 in support of this position, even allowing baptism by Dissenting ministers to be valid.
Hardy's account of the incident doesn't really give much insight into the priest's motivations, noting only that he was new to the parish and so not acquainted with the devout and reasonably well educated Tess (for a rural working class woman) or her unfortunate circumstances. His attitude may be punitive and malicious, treating Tess as a "loose woman" who locked him out of her house in the cold night while he was trying to do his duty and now expects him to believe she baptized the child according to the Prayer Book rite (which Hardy actually says she did). His attitude may stem from simple ignorance and the obligation to enforce his misunderstanding of canon law. After all, Tess does get him to admit "sinner to saint" that Sorrow is properly baptized. This rather misty business suggests that Hardy finds his Anglican clergymen easier to portray one dimensionally, whereby they may be more easily pilloried. But I think it's fair to say that situations like this easily could arise in a world where a poor rural woman could not be expected to have recourse to a canonist or even any kind of second opinion.
It's not a situation that could arise in TEC today, where emergency baptism is a little more clearly explicated in the Prayer Book and the funerary offices of the Church are more freely offered in recognition of the deep theological truth that even non-Christian human souls and bodies have kinship with the Triune God and are worthy of being put to rest with dignity and good order. But I suppose such things still depend on who the priest is.
I'm afraid as far as I can tell that even in the era during which the novel is set, the parson was in the wrong to deny Sorrow burial in consecrated ground. Hardy unfortunately glosses over the parson's exact justification for his actions and the BBC production tries to fill in with a little hemming and hawing to imply that Tess could not be a lawful minister of Baptism, perhaps because she is a woman. The early 17th century canons of the Church of England do discourage private baptism, perhaps less for the theological grounds we would cite today (the importance of the local Christian community showing visible support for the incorporation of the child into the Body) than as a form of repression upon non-conformity. However, the ancient Patristic precedents support Tess. Some of these even allow baptism in the proper form of words by pagans and heretics to be valid Reading them more restrictively as the Roman Catholics do to exclude those baptizing in the correct form of words with heterodox beliefs concerning their meaning, Tess still would be empowered to baptize in extremis as was clearly the case. Renton and Robertson's Encyclopedia of the Laws of England quotes Bingham's Scholastical History of Baptism , "[The Church of England] forbids laymen or women by its laws to baptize: but if it be done in due form, she does not wholly disannul or order it to be repeated as entirely null and void." These authors also quote ecclesiastical law reports from as early as 1809 in support of this position, even allowing baptism by Dissenting ministers to be valid.
Hardy's account of the incident doesn't really give much insight into the priest's motivations, noting only that he was new to the parish and so not acquainted with the devout and reasonably well educated Tess (for a rural working class woman) or her unfortunate circumstances. His attitude may be punitive and malicious, treating Tess as a "loose woman" who locked him out of her house in the cold night while he was trying to do his duty and now expects him to believe she baptized the child according to the Prayer Book rite (which Hardy actually says she did). His attitude may stem from simple ignorance and the obligation to enforce his misunderstanding of canon law. After all, Tess does get him to admit "sinner to saint" that Sorrow is properly baptized. This rather misty business suggests that Hardy finds his Anglican clergymen easier to portray one dimensionally, whereby they may be more easily pilloried. But I think it's fair to say that situations like this easily could arise in a world where a poor rural woman could not be expected to have recourse to a canonist or even any kind of second opinion.
It's not a situation that could arise in TEC today, where emergency baptism is a little more clearly explicated in the Prayer Book and the funerary offices of the Church are more freely offered in recognition of the deep theological truth that even non-Christian human souls and bodies have kinship with the Triune God and are worthy of being put to rest with dignity and good order. But I suppose such things still depend on who the priest is.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
New Year, New Blather
Or the same old...
Item the First: The Postulant designates me a Superior Scribbler. I thank him but realize that all memes of this type generally die here.
Item the Second: I had a month of blog silence there. It's been a rather hectic couple of months, involving three transcontinental round-trips (well, come next week) and one intercity train journey. In that time, I've attended three services of Lessons and Carols, all somewhat different. I've also been to two conferences and presented two talks and two posters. I've seen the Wren Chapel at William and Mary, where services are far more rubrically proper than I've seen in a long time. Reflecting on this busy time, I realize that I must have been having a lot of fun, but it was intensely exhausting.
Item the Third: In the new year, I have a thesis to write. Being single and childless, this is easier for me than others we know. But I'm also going to try to learn to drive and get a job during the same period. So will there be long periods of blog silence in the new year? As events warrant.
Item the Fourth: The anonymized title of my thesis is Flying Particles of Nanophase Iron Oxides and the Boreal Spring and Summer Weather of a Cold, Desert Planet. Take that, Google.
Item the Fifth: James Howard Kunstler's predictions for the new year include multiple families living in suburban housing, farming organic gardens. Some of these families will become a new servant class to replace our broken service economy. In addition, the Federal Government, who is the ultimate source of compensation in my current future, will become gradually insolvent. Living in a state with thousands of vacant units of suburban housing, a potential water shortage that will pit the needs of the nation's fruit basket and my thirsty metropolitan area, bonds that cannot be floated, and a treasury that will be insolvent before the lions of March come calling, I say that Kunstler's future is looking plausible indeed.
Item the Sixth: I am currently reading Don DeLillo's Underworld , which might be called an American Foucault's Pendulum thematically, but proves quite convincingly why Europeans don't respect our authors come Nobel time. I should write about this more later.
Item the Seventh: I disagree somewhat with bls about Slumdog Millionaire but only because I suspect my cinematic standards have been warped by the subpar offerings of the last year. But I disagree with any claims that it is the "best movie ever." It will be Oscar-competitive, but it has its faults, especially in how it presumes knowledge of the complex religious politics of Mumbai and the surrounding state, which is important for understanding the early scenes. In other news, did you know that Sony Pictures is making Bollywood movies now? I hope they show some of them in the United States.
Happy New Year!
Item the First: The Postulant designates me a Superior Scribbler. I thank him but realize that all memes of this type generally die here.
Item the Second: I had a month of blog silence there. It's been a rather hectic couple of months, involving three transcontinental round-trips (well, come next week) and one intercity train journey. In that time, I've attended three services of Lessons and Carols, all somewhat different. I've also been to two conferences and presented two talks and two posters. I've seen the Wren Chapel at William and Mary, where services are far more rubrically proper than I've seen in a long time. Reflecting on this busy time, I realize that I must have been having a lot of fun, but it was intensely exhausting.
Item the Third: In the new year, I have a thesis to write. Being single and childless, this is easier for me than others we know. But I'm also going to try to learn to drive and get a job during the same period. So will there be long periods of blog silence in the new year? As events warrant.
Item the Fourth: The anonymized title of my thesis is Flying Particles of Nanophase Iron Oxides and the Boreal Spring and Summer Weather of a Cold, Desert Planet. Take that, Google.
Item the Fifth: James Howard Kunstler's predictions for the new year include multiple families living in suburban housing, farming organic gardens. Some of these families will become a new servant class to replace our broken service economy. In addition, the Federal Government, who is the ultimate source of compensation in my current future, will become gradually insolvent. Living in a state with thousands of vacant units of suburban housing, a potential water shortage that will pit the needs of the nation's fruit basket and my thirsty metropolitan area, bonds that cannot be floated, and a treasury that will be insolvent before the lions of March come calling, I say that Kunstler's future is looking plausible indeed.
Item the Sixth: I am currently reading Don DeLillo's Underworld , which might be called an American Foucault's Pendulum thematically, but proves quite convincingly why Europeans don't respect our authors come Nobel time. I should write about this more later.
Item the Seventh: I disagree somewhat with bls about Slumdog Millionaire but only because I suspect my cinematic standards have been warped by the subpar offerings of the last year. But I disagree with any claims that it is the "best movie ever." It will be Oscar-competitive, but it has its faults, especially in how it presumes knowledge of the complex religious politics of Mumbai and the surrounding state, which is important for understanding the early scenes. In other news, did you know that Sony Pictures is making Bollywood movies now? I hope they show some of them in the United States.
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)