Priest Movie Review Part 2
17/05/11 20:31 Filed in: Popular Culture
This is the second movie review of the movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I posted the first one on Monday 16 May 2011. In the first review, I discussed Priest as a critique of the Catholic Church hierarchy over the sex abuse scandal. In this critique, I want to focus on the movie as a dystopia.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
A dystopia is the reverse of a utopia: where a utopia is a paradise, a dystopia is hell. Generally speaking, a piece of dystopian literature takes one or two facets of human life and magnifies it to highlight the way it disrupts and destroys human life. (Noticeably: someone's dystopia can often be another's utopia: consider Plato's republic.)
If we view Priest as a dystopian movie, not just for the Catholic Church, but for the wider society, what do we see?
Immediately we recognize a particular view of the role of religion in politics. During the vampire wars, the Church in the movie defended the people, particularly by training priests and sending them out to destroy those who would destroy human life. At the time of the movie, though, religion has become a tool of control: to defy the church is to defy God.
Thus, Priest is a critique of the power of religion as a means of control in life, and, in this case, I imagine of the Christian right and other forms of fundamentalism. This topic is a familiar one with dystopian literature (for instance, V for Vendetta).
Seen through this lens, then, Priest shows us what can happen if we rely to heavily on fundamentalist religion to protect us from terrorists. The vampires would be terrorists and the church an example of some fundamental group. If we cede too much control to the fundamentalist group, not only will we lose any freedom, but we will also be unprotected from those terrorists.
Interestingly enough, the movie never explains why the church decided to put the remaining vampires on reservations rather than eradicating them altogether. Of course, the point might be so that there is always the threat of vampires that can be used to keep the populace in line. This too is a common theme among dystopian literature: one way to ensure control of a populace is to give them a common enemy outside the state to fear: Brave New World. 1984, Brazil, and many other pieces of dystopian literature and movies share this theme. And it is one we should be constantly vigilant for. We've seen repeatedly the attempt to remove freedoms in the name of security.
Seen through this lens, then, it's unclear that Priest adds anything to the dystopian genre. We know about the power of fundamentalism and about the hidden enemy. But, the threat is real enough that, as a reminder of the possibility of this dystopia, the movie serves a useful purpose. While the movie is violent, the gore remains minimal particularly by today's cinema standards. The acting is so-so, except for Karl Urban (Star Trek) who plays a wonderful Black Hat. The movie is filmed well. I saw it in 3-D. Though not as spectacular as Avatar, the cinematography proved rewarding.
Would I recommend that everyone rush out to see the movie? No. I'd recommend checking out the graphic novel first, or reading some other piece of dystopian literature or watching a different dystopian film (Avatar, Bladerunner, Children of Men) first. But for an afternoon or evening's entertainment, the film is worth seeing and enjoyable.
Comments
Priest -- Movie Review Part 1
16/05/11 18:33 Filed in: Popular Culture
The movie Priest directed by Scott Charles Stewart is based on the graphic novel written by Hyung Min-woo. I have not read the graphic novel, so my comments here are based strictly on the movie. (I do want to read the graphic novel now that I've seen the movie.)
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.
The basic plotline is this: the world is divided between vampires and human beings. The war was going poorly for the human beings, until a group of human individuals with superior strength and speed arrived on the scene. They were organized by the church as priests and fought back against the vampire menace. After the war, vampires were relegated to reservations and priests were disbanded and lived meager lives in a society unwilling to accept them. Until, the (illicit) daughter of one priest is kidnapped by vampires and he sets out on a rogue mission to gain her back. The church hierarchy opposes his mission and sends others after him. What you have here is an action movie with two power groups in a dystopian world in which human beings are secluded in dark cities controlled by the church.
It doesn't take much to see that the church in the movie represents any general church but specifically the Catholic church. Further, the monsignors, who control the city and the priests, represent the hierarchy of the Catholic church -- bishops, cardinals, and pop. One central conflict of the story, then, is that between the everyday priest who fights for the people and the hierarchy.
If one sees that basic conflict, it isn't a leap, I think, to see that one issue the movie plays with is that of a hierarchy that tries to hide a secret -- that vampires are still out there ready to destroy us. The fact that the vampires kidnap a young girl calls to mind the Church abuse scandals -- even though it is a girl that is kidnapped. The fact that the rogue priest is her father should call to mind that priests are often seen as the father of the members of their flock. So, we can see a blatant criticism of the Catholic church hiding the bad guys -- those who abuse children -- from the rest of the world and willing to condemn any priest who exposes them.
Except two problems emerge here: first, it's not clear that there's any evidence that the Catholic church actually threatened sanctions against a priest willing to expose the dark secret of sexual abuse. Certainly, the hierarchy did not pursue and condemn the abusive ministers enough and they switched them from one parish to another -- here we see the reservation of the vampires in the film -- but I'm not aware of any priests that were threatened for revealing the scandal.
The second problem is with the movie itself: it's unclear to what extent the monsignors in the movie are aware of the vampires and to what extent they sanction vampire activity outside of the cities. Does the monsignor really believe there is no vampire threat or is he just trying to keep people from anarchy by hiding the threat? The reason this proves relevant is that the monsignor would have to actively be hiding something he knew existed in order for it to mirror what happened in the Catholic Church abuse scandal. Perhaps the graphic novel makes this clearer, but the movie does not.
Which brings me to a criticism of the movie: the movie seems torn between being an action movie with little concern for plot thread or motive and being a thinking person's movie that looks at motives and power struggles. While the movie hints at certain things concerning motives for the monsignor, it does not make clear what the monsignors believe or know and what their motivations are in denying the vampire threat which has clearly surfaced. So it is hard to assess the value of the movie as a dystopian piece focused on the real world.
I will have more to say about this in part 2 of the review tomorrow. In that, I will examine the movie, not from the lens of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal, but from the lens of the wider society.