Is Hollywood afraid of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMortenBay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is not true. New movies and TV shows are coming/have come out about World War II. The attention to detail, mannerisms, period language and other details is amazing.
 
Gibson claims he isn’t, last I heard. He’s just not in communion with Rome.
There are all different stripes of sede. The most common argument is that there was no valid pope after Pius XII. Some say that the present pope holds the office materially but not formally, others say legally, others say the Holy See is neither totally occupied nor totally empty. I even read one website where they said Pius IX was the last valid pope.

It gets interesting out there in sede land, I’ll grant them that.
 
I’d love to see Mel’s private chapel. Don’t think you can just show up though, somehow.
 
Just started my one month trial to Pureflix. This thread helped motivate me, then I saw an ad on FB so, thanks!
 
The elites tell writers what to write. They also tell Literary Agents what they are looking for.
In general terms, perhaps. But I highly doubt that anyone who could be considered an “elite” told anyone to have the priest in the OP’s example wear a collar and jacket instead of vestments for a baptism.
 
Gibson warned him that starring in POTC 1 would kill his career. He did it anyway. Love the guy!
 
At least they didn’t put him in a white Nehru suit.
They knew enough that Catholic priests do wear collars and jackets. They just weren’t aware that they don’t wear them for baptisms.

It’s just like when you see German soldiers in WWII films eating with their utensils like Americans do. They knew enough that Germans use knifes and forks, but were unaware that they use them very differently than Americans.

Same with smoking cigarettes. German soldiers during WWII held their cigarettes differently than Americans,

It doesn’t mean that the writers, producers or the “elites” made them eat or smoke that way out of antipathy. It’s just really hard to get all the little details right.
 
Last edited:
Benny, yep. Slain in the spirit! Not my thing but if someone comes to Jesus, that’s a win.
 
Are you SURE the character is Catholic? Is it possible that she could be Episcopalian, or one of the other mainline denominations?
She’s Columbian. She crosses herself. I’m pretty sure she is Catholic.
I didn’t think a priest in the Catholic Church was required to wear vestments for a baptism, since any Christian is allowed to perform a baptism during an emergency, and also, the Catholic Church recognizes as valid the baptisms of Protestants, many of whom are baptized by people wearing casual clothing and even jeans or other outdoor clothing.)
Well, there’s a big difference between receiving the sacrament of baptism, (which as you say can be administered by anyone with the right intention, matter and form) and performing the baptismal rites inside a Catholic Church. I don’t think you’re “allowed” to ask for a toned down baptism in a Catholic Church without GRAVE reasons.
 
The Young Pope.
I liked The Young Pope. It was a good show aesthetically speaking and I thought they did a decent job of portraying some of the politics of the Church. The plot was a little preposterous at times, but hey, it’s a TV show. I enjoyed Jude Law’s somewhat over-the-top portrayal.

I believe that Italians were involved in the production, if I am not mistaken. They tend to have a much greater understanding of clerical culture than Hollywood.
 
Last edited:
High church types cross themselves. Low church folks don’t, and pretend they don’t notice. Sometimes a little twitch gives them away, though.
 
I liked The Young Pope .
I agree. And unlike my two examples it gets the DETAILS just right. They can make their characters into horrible caricatures and terrible Catholics, but everything on display is liturgically spot on.
 
I liked it too. Especially the kangaroo. And the tiara. And that groveling / Machiavellian cardinal who was always three moves behind, lol!
They could have called it The Very Eccentric Pope.
 
Last edited:
I agree. And unlike my two examples it gets the DETAILS just right. They can make their characters into horrible caricatures and terrible Catholics, but everything on display is liturgically spot on.
Exactly. I loved the attention to detail. And it was very artfully done too. One thing Europeans always seem to do better than Americans is recognize cinema as an art. (But that is a discussion for another thread).
 
Don’t even get me started on their portrayal of.military members. They take their covers (hats) off inside, folks. It isn’t that hard to find these secrets out…
 
Last edited:
It always seem to me that Hollywood likes to kinda do its own thing (I’m a bit of a TV geek too).
 
Last edited:
40.png
puppson:
At least they didn’t put him in a white Nehru suit.
They knew enough that Catholic priests do wear collars and jackets. They just weren’t aware that they don’t wear them for baptisms.

It’s just like when you see German soldiers in WWII films eating with their utensils like Americans do. They knew enough that Germans use knifes and forks, but were unaware that they use them very differently than Americans.

Same with smoking cigarettes. German soldiers during WWII held their cigarettes differently than Americans,

It doesn’t mean that the writers, producers or the “elites” made them eat or smoke that way out of antipathy. It’s just really hard to get all the little details right.
There’s that great scene in Inglorius Basterds where a German officer realises that the German officer he is talking to is actually English because when he orders three more drinks he holds up his first, middle and ring fingers. People on the continent would use thumb, first and middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top