Troy vs. Passion

Troy was made not out of love for Homer, but to satisfy the vanity of director Wolfgang Petersen. Proof of this is in the fact that the first thing the viewer sees after the movie is over are the words, "Directed by Wolfgang Petersen."

Silly argument huh? - yet such were the quality of the those used 'round these parts to attack The Passion. As one put it,

"It wasn't about Christ, it was about Mel, because the first thing the viewer sees after the movie is over are the words 'Directed by Mel Gibson.'"

No, those are actually standard fare for films today: they're called credits.

But enough on Mel's accusers - Personal taste aside I thought the movie was good for the world, others did not for reasons I am unsatisfied with.

Furthermore, aside from the "Hey honey" that the group of women to my right uttered each time the Pittster showed up, I enjoyed Troy and it got the coveted millinerd dreads-up rating.

And apart from the toxic infusion of the modern-American-myth-of-romantic-love, I'd say it was generally faithful to the spirit, though not the letter, of the Illiad. That spirit being (and one must pronouce the following word with an intense whisper, clenched fist and furrowed brow): Timay - the Greek word Homer used for honor.

Similarly I suggest was The Passion faithful to the the spirit, though not the letter, of the Gospel accounts. That spirit being (and one need not take oneself so seriously when pronouncing this one): Agape.

Much has been made at least in my education of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which is all fine and good. I am told this new book is quite the read.

Nevertheless I am inclined to study not only the man who attempted to kill Hitler, but the one who actually succeeded.

Contrasting is fun, let's try it: Hitler the anti-Semite, Churchill the Zionist. Hitler the humorless, and Churchill the (it does not take too long to discover) hilarious. Hitler the teetotler, while Churchill enjoyed his first of nine daily whiskeys at breakfast (yet would remark "I have taken far more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me").

Hitler summoned what was worst in people, Churchill what was best. Churchill was married to "Clemy" for 57 years, Hitler to Eva for (quite literally) one day. And while Hitler claimed to be an artist and never produced, Churchill rarely bragged about it but was actually quite successful as a painter. His works sold well under pseudonyms, and Picasso even remarked that Churchill could have made his living on art alone. On his craft other than statecraft he wrote:

"When I get to heaven I mean to spend a considerable portion of my first million years in painting, and so get to the bottom of the subject. But then I shall require a still gayer palette than I get here below. I expect orange and vermilion will be the darkest, dullest colors upon it, and beyond them there will be a whole range of wonderful new colors which will delight the celestial eye."

And continuing on the theme of the afterlife,

"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is quite another matter."

If only I had to write that college admission essay again about a hero of mine... Of course all this information is thanks once again Dr. Fears whose praises I will continue to sing until I am joined in the chorus.

The Passion-success-resentment-movies are here!

And if you expected anything less than a pot-smoking Jesus played by Marilyn Manson you need to get out of your culture-war bunker.

A word to sensitive Christians: Don't protest these movies, that's just what they want. Don't protest these movies, that's just what they want. Don't protes- Too late.

the elephant has spoken

You may have heard the story illustrated above about the blind men who each claim to grasp the nature of the elephant they're examining. One insists it's a tree because he feels the trunk, the other that it's a wall cause he feels the body, etc.

And you may have heard it employed as an analogy for the world religions. The blind men being each a world religion, and the elephant being God. Consequently each religion has a different angle on God, but none of them understand God completely (EXCEPT of course for the enlightened - those who understand and accept the elephant analogy and can as a result sit back and enjoy being their "spiritual but not religious" selves).

The fable could be adopted as the 21st century Creed. It is, I suggest, the default position of all of us... meaning it is natural for most people in our pluralist context who have thought about God at all to end up committed, even religiously so, to this very Hindu point of view.

The Christian would (I hope) object. Why in the fable is the elephant so passive? Why does he just let these fuddling blind men grope away without offering any assistance? What if the elephant decided to spur along the discovery process? What if the elephant spoke: Said "No, I'm not a tree, not a wall - I am... An elephant." Then one of the blind men who happened to be close to the mouth would say "Wait, this thing's an elephant!"

The fable so adjusted is the position of Christian faith. It may sound arrogant for Christians to assert that theirs is the right way to God, and in fact that would be an arrogant position, if the elephant hadn't spoken up. But if the elephant has spoken, then what arrogance is there in spreading the Word? The arrogance then would be in keeping one's mouth shut.

That being said, here are two qualifying remarks:

1. That the elephant has spoken does not suggest that Christians and only Christians have knowledge of God. Other religions may have important insights. The fact that God has spoken definitively in Christ does not rule this out, it just gives such insights an ultimate context in which to be assessed.

2. That the elephant has spoken does not mean Christians have God in their pocket. Christians understand that God has revealed himself in Christ, but they do not necessarily understand how. Logical comprehension is a satisfaction that God simply doesn't offer us). At the first of the two meetings (in 325) that would give us the Nicene Creed, when one disputant tried to explain definitively how God "spoke" in Christ, this is was St. Spyridon's reply:

"Listen, philosopher, to what I tell you... We believe that He is One in Essence with the Father, and equal to Him in authority and honor. We believe this without any sly rationalizations, for it is impossible to grasp this mystery by human reason."

That is to say, it is only the luxury of heretics to be able to completely understand the deities of their own creation.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a religion that didn't claim to understand God - just to worship him in the mystery of his revelation? Oh wait... there is.

two paradoxes

"All Cretans are liars. I was told this by a Cretan."

This, as you may know, is a centuries-old logical quandry. Are all Cretans liars? If the above quote is all the info you've got, it's impossible to answer.

Here's another:

"Be suspicious of power. I was told this by a tenured Princeton University professor."

I really was so advised by just such a professor - along with an auditorium full of eager young minds who may have been able to make sense of the statement - but I'm stumped.

The Prometheus of higher education

Who will have taught you the Illiad? Brad or Rufus?

I know I've mentioned this before - but if you haven't discovered this place, you need to. As with anything, contemporary teaching is wrapped up in politics, often to the detriment of that actual "teaching" part. Briefly recalling your own experience of being educated will I'm sure confirm that the actual best teachers do not necessarily get the job.

The Teaching Company doesn't have to worry about all that - they just go for raw ability to enthusiastically impart accurate information. These are the professors whose classes you would have had to line up at the Registrars office for. There's nothing like doing the dishes with Rufus playing on the walk-man... He has a way of making Ancient Greece utterly absorbing, probably even moreso than will the Pittster.

As you've gathered I do like the company that steals fire from the Academy to give to the average... let's hope they don't suffer the same fate.

Here's the hit-counter for planet earth:




Click refresh and welcome the newbies.

The Velvet (is) Underground...

But not for long. Referring to the deficiencies of the millinerd grand tour (see below), "john" writes,

I am astonished that you, with your extensive art background, could have ignored the items spoken about at this web site. There should be a MOBVA somewhere.

And he is right! (About both my extensive art background, and my lamentable ignorance on this point.) Indeed I had no idea that

Though it's often omitted from art history, curator Christina Ochoa says black velvet painting goes back to the 14th century, when Marco Polo found samples of velvet paintings in Kashmir.

And that

many artists appreciate the lush texture and depth of contrast of black velvet, which makes paintings seem to "glow" with an inner light.

Let the dissertations begin!