“It’s a huge, huge deal in campus ministry, and all the Newman Centers want to add dorms. These are the first, the pioneers. We are creating authentic Catholic campuses inside secular ones. If we want a way to change the culture of campus life and affect the future of our country, this is a big way of doing that. We can’t sit back and watch these kids go uncatechized. We’ve got to do something, and we are.”
The film contains a revenge theme, pervasive and explicit bloody violence, a glimpse of full male nudity, fleeting upper female nudity, frequent profanity as well as constant rough language and racial slurs. The Catholic News Service classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
Jensen (my film-reviewer find of the month) has offered ample detail before that sum-up, such as:
As in most movies that Tarantino both writes and directs, the violence is by rote. Characters die by a single gunshot with a little splatter, their demise as tightly choreographed — with the help of computer-generated special effects — as a routine by the Radio City Rockettes.
. . . .
Tarantino unleashes the same over-the-top attacks against [the evil white man] Candie and his ilk as he previously launched against Nazis in his 2009 historical wish-fulfillment fantasy “Inglourious Basterds.” Incongruously, though, he also incorporates satiric shtick reminiscent of Mel Brooks’ 1974 comedy “Blazing Saddles.”
. . . .
Tarantino also evidently finds it quite funny when 19th-century characters swear, and do so with contemporary expressions. The use of the N-word in the dialogue has been clocked at 110 appearances. But at that frequency, it loses all impact.
. . . .
The inhumanities [of chattel slavery] depicted include whippings, the use of chains and other restraining devices, the branding of escapees, confinement in outdoor “hot boxes” and threats of castration. Worst of all, perhaps, is the fate of a slave torn apart by dogs.
The film offers “a stark reminder of the sins wrought by racism” but is not for “the easily jarred.” C’est moi, for what it’s worth.
I get a message like this:
Your account is temporarily locked.
It looks like someone else may have accessed your account, so we’ve temporarily locked it to keep it safe. For your privacy, others cannot see your account while it is locked. To unlock your account, you may need to pass a security check.
Note that attempting to access someone else’s account is a violation of Facebook’s terms. It may also be illegal. If you are not, press Cancel. [italics mine]
If I am not what?
To certain ears, then, “Happy Christmas” conveys a sober, well-earned enjoyment, the satisfaction resulting from hard work and virtuous living.
On the other hand:
“Merry Christmas” stirs in us an impulse more primitive and unrestrained: The childlike giddiness of Christmas morning, the rush down the stairs and tearing at paper, the intemperate delight in gifts long hoped-for and wholly undeserved.
Which phrase conveys a more fitting response to the overwhelming, unearned, gift of Christ’s birth? Suffice it to say that when our Lord comes I hope I do not greet him with dignified reserve but instead rush at him with the unguarded, unembarrassed joy of a child at play or man at his cups. Merry Christmas to all!
Senate Democrats have been avoiding tough votes on fiscal issues for some time. They haven’t passed a budget resolution for three years, though the budget act requires them to do so.
That likely reflects a reluctance to make their policies clear to the public and, perhaps, differences in their caucus making it as hard for them to muster a majority as it was for Boehner Thursday night.
Are we going over the cliff? Looks like it to me.
Merry Christmas, everyone. We will survive. Times that try men’s souls are times to become men and women.
|The secretest of them all: