James Corbin (Francis Lederer) has a deep, dark secret. Two, actually. The first is that the woman in his paintings is not his model, Helen North (Linda Stirling). The body might be, but the face is the face of a woman from his past. The second is that his name is not really Corbin. It's Corbet. The rather infamous Corbet who was tried for and acquitted of murdering his first model - the woman in his paintings. Then Helen turns up dead on the river and the questions begin again. Determined to discover his secrets, Helen's actress sister named Linda (Ann Rutherford) gets herself hired as Corbin's latest model. As time goes on, she finds herself stepping deeper and deeper into murky waters. What kind of man is this brooding, talented artist? Is he a murderer? Or is some unknown enemy trying to frame him?
This is a fairly impressive movie, considering when it was filmed. The production values are decent. It seems to be an odd sort of cross between the film noir genre and an Agatha Christie story. Definitely dark, dramatic, and a little bit of a psychological thriller in parts, it still manages to hold onto a bit of the good old-fashioned mystery story.
Taken as a forties B movie, the acting and especially the writing are pretty good. Lederer plays a marvelous Corbin (with the exception of a few rather strangely-directed scenes), and Rutherford pulls off sweet and spunky Linda better than a lot of actresses I've seen. The exposition is particularly well done. In general, conversations reveal only as much as the viewer needs to know. On top of that, I never felt like I was listening to a voice-over. (Well, except for the opening line. But that really is a voice-over.) The Madonna's Secret shows the story as it is without taking the time to make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on at all times. That's part of the charm of the film noir genre: One can never be too sure that one didn't miss something important.
The other film noir elements in this movie are pretty obvious. It's dark, with a conflicted main character (who may or may not be bad) and a girl who ultimately finds herself in over her head. There's also a sexy temptress and, of course, crime in the mix. But the crime part is also a bit like an Agatha Christie murder mystery as well. Clues are established as to who might be killing these girls, but these clues are subtle enough that they don't construct neon signs pointing to the murderer. (At least, I hope not. I totally missed them until the last scene of the movie. Of course, that could be because I didn't want to think that that person was the murderer. But I'd better shut up now; that's getting into spoiler territory.)
Judged by the standards of its peers (both in time and in genre), this movie is pretty decent. The production values are impressively high for such an old and evidently cheap movie, and the slight mixing of genres is interesting and well-done enough to earn The Madonna's Secret a spot on the list of old movies that are worth someone's time.
My Rating: T (frightening scenes, thematic elements)
Showing posts sorted by date for query signs. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query signs. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
On The Loser Letters: A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism
(Written by Mary Eberstadt.)
Dear Theists, Atheists, and the Rest of Mankind,
If you're looking for a book that's dripping with sarcasm, full of truth, and more sobering than a cold shower and a cup of coffee, this is the book for you. I don't have to tell you that the debate about God and religion is center-stage right now. I mean, just look at the debate over marriage; theists and atheists alike who happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are selfish, hateful bigots, and the open-minded, tolerant theists and atheists who believe that anything goes as long as it makes you feel good are trying to shut down the opposition with rightly-deserved diatribes. But I digress. Have you ever thought about the logical arguments for atheism? I mean, they have to hold water, right? People as intelligent as Richard Dawkins have to have good reasons to believe that God doesn't exist. Don't they? Or is it something else that drives people to disbelieve in the existence of God?
Your Obedient Servant,
A.D. Catholic
Normally, I don't like it when people use sarcasm to tear down opposing arguments. As a general rule, if the only argument you have is one of mockery, then you have no argument, you just have a loud voice. But in the case of The Loser Letters, sarcasm and mockery are tempered by sympathy - and not "sympathy" of the patronizing kind. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't.
Using the voice of the "one and only convert" to atheism, a fictional character who signs her name with the pseudonym "A. F. (A Former) Christian," Mary Eberstadt manages to neatly expose the contradictions and downright foolishness of some major arguments in favor of atheism. In the book, A. F. Christian is trying to help her fellow atheists by explaining why the arguments don't hold water and by pointing out that they should quit using those arguments (the ones that don't quite make sense) because they only turn off potential converts.
This book is right on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. To save myself (and you) from an agonizingly long post, I'll just say that every one of the fallacies and contradictions that A. F. Christian so ably points out are true. Atheism and watered down religion that permit anyone to do whatever they want without any consequences are destroying our culture and, more importantly, destroying our young people. A. F. Christian is a case in point - but you'll have to read the book to find out more.
The sympathy comes later in the book when the reader finally discovers A. F.'s story. It's heartbreakingly sad; she could very easily be the poster girl for godlessness run amok. The sympathy that comes from A. F.'s sad story makes readers see atheists not as objects of mockery and sarcasm, but as misguided people. They simply live in a world where up is down and down is up, and we should give them our prayers, not our mockery.
*Spoiler Warning* The final part of the book seems to have its basis in Dante. Alas and alack, I have not read Dante, so I'm probably not the best person to analyze this part of the book. I'll keep it as basic as I can. In the last letter, we find that the rehab clinic where A. F. Christian has been living is really Purgatory. During the time that she has been there (and the time that she has written her letters), Jesus has given the angels a chance to figure out the state of A. F.'s soul. It's made quite clear that He doesn't really trust their judgment; He just lets them have a crack at it before He sends her off to the her final destination. My problem with this element is that the Catholic Church teaches that "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1022). Meaning that if someone is headed to Hell he or she goes to Hell at the moment he or she dies. No short stop in Purgatory. Straight to Hell. The only explanation for this theological hiccup I can think of is that Jesus, knowing as He does the state of everybody's soul, knew she was headed to Heaven eventually anyway. In other words, he allows the angels to try to figure out the state of each soul in Purgatory, but all the souls they try to evaluate are headed to Heaven anyway. Which, in my mind at least, kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. (Although I have to admit that the imagining of Purgatory as a rehab or "detox" place is a brilliant move.) *End of Spoiler*
In the end, The Loser Letters is about the pain and destruction that comes from cutting God and meaning out of life. Sure, the basic atheist arguments are destroyed like waves destroy sandcastles, but the fundamental point is not so much the foolishness of atheism. The fundamental point is that atheism has resulted in evils and suffering that have sickened our culture. Faced with such a world, theists can only pray and try to help the "collateral damage" pick up the pieces of their broken lives, trusting that God will heal all our wounds.
My Rating: MT (sexual and drug references, language, pervasive evil in people's lives)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Dear Theists, Atheists, and the Rest of Mankind,
If you're looking for a book that's dripping with sarcasm, full of truth, and more sobering than a cold shower and a cup of coffee, this is the book for you. I don't have to tell you that the debate about God and religion is center-stage right now. I mean, just look at the debate over marriage; theists and atheists alike who happen to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are selfish, hateful bigots, and the open-minded, tolerant theists and atheists who believe that anything goes as long as it makes you feel good are trying to shut down the opposition with rightly-deserved diatribes. But I digress. Have you ever thought about the logical arguments for atheism? I mean, they have to hold water, right? People as intelligent as Richard Dawkins have to have good reasons to believe that God doesn't exist. Don't they? Or is it something else that drives people to disbelieve in the existence of God?
Your Obedient Servant,
A.D. Catholic
Normally, I don't like it when people use sarcasm to tear down opposing arguments. As a general rule, if the only argument you have is one of mockery, then you have no argument, you just have a loud voice. But in the case of The Loser Letters, sarcasm and mockery are tempered by sympathy - and not "sympathy" of the patronizing kind. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but it isn't.
Using the voice of the "one and only convert" to atheism, a fictional character who signs her name with the pseudonym "A. F. (A Former) Christian," Mary Eberstadt manages to neatly expose the contradictions and downright foolishness of some major arguments in favor of atheism. In the book, A. F. Christian is trying to help her fellow atheists by explaining why the arguments don't hold water and by pointing out that they should quit using those arguments (the ones that don't quite make sense) because they only turn off potential converts.
This book is right on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. To save myself (and you) from an agonizingly long post, I'll just say that every one of the fallacies and contradictions that A. F. Christian so ably points out are true. Atheism and watered down religion that permit anyone to do whatever they want without any consequences are destroying our culture and, more importantly, destroying our young people. A. F. Christian is a case in point - but you'll have to read the book to find out more.
The sympathy comes later in the book when the reader finally discovers A. F.'s story. It's heartbreakingly sad; she could very easily be the poster girl for godlessness run amok. The sympathy that comes from A. F.'s sad story makes readers see atheists not as objects of mockery and sarcasm, but as misguided people. They simply live in a world where up is down and down is up, and we should give them our prayers, not our mockery.
*Spoiler Warning* The final part of the book seems to have its basis in Dante. Alas and alack, I have not read Dante, so I'm probably not the best person to analyze this part of the book. I'll keep it as basic as I can. In the last letter, we find that the rehab clinic where A. F. Christian has been living is really Purgatory. During the time that she has been there (and the time that she has written her letters), Jesus has given the angels a chance to figure out the state of A. F.'s soul. It's made quite clear that He doesn't really trust their judgment; He just lets them have a crack at it before He sends her off to the her final destination. My problem with this element is that the Catholic Church teaches that "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1022). Meaning that if someone is headed to Hell he or she goes to Hell at the moment he or she dies. No short stop in Purgatory. Straight to Hell. The only explanation for this theological hiccup I can think of is that Jesus, knowing as He does the state of everybody's soul, knew she was headed to Heaven eventually anyway. In other words, he allows the angels to try to figure out the state of each soul in Purgatory, but all the souls they try to evaluate are headed to Heaven anyway. Which, in my mind at least, kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. (Although I have to admit that the imagining of Purgatory as a rehab or "detox" place is a brilliant move.) *End of Spoiler*
In the end, The Loser Letters is about the pain and destruction that comes from cutting God and meaning out of life. Sure, the basic atheist arguments are destroyed like waves destroy sandcastles, but the fundamental point is not so much the foolishness of atheism. The fundamental point is that atheism has resulted in evils and suffering that have sickened our culture. Faced with such a world, theists can only pray and try to help the "collateral damage" pick up the pieces of their broken lives, trusting that God will heal all our wounds.
My Rating: MT (sexual and drug references, language, pervasive evil in people's lives)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Thursday, August 19, 2010
*Spoiler Reflections* On Religion in Signs
This article contains spoilers of M. Night Shyamalan's movie Signs (starring Mel Gibson)
Which is better, a pie in the face or a pie on the table? A pie can't be eaten after it's been slapped in someone's face. A pie on the table, though, is ready and waiting to be enjoyed at its eater's leisure. The same can be said for movies. Filmmakers have two choices when they set out to make a movie: slap the viewer in the face with a message, or invite the viewer to enjoy the message at his or her leisure. Unfortunately, most Christian filmmakers choose the former.
Because of this, I am not a fan of movies made by Christian groups. Once, I tried to watch a Kendrick brothers film - Facing the Giants. I made it through ten minutes before I turned it off. I could see exactly how the story would go, and exactly how it would end. I could probably even paraphrase The Line that would tell the viewers exactly what the message of the movie was. The movie was predictable, and would just slap me with its message, over and over and over again. Don't get me wrong; sometimes people need to be slapped with a message. But not in movies.
Now I'll reveal the real reason I'm writing this blog post: Plugged In ticked me off. I watched Signs, M. Night Shyamalan's movie about faith. Curious about Plugged In's review of the movie, I went to the website and checked it out. I was unpleasantly surprised. The reviewer was disappointed in the way the movie portrayed Graham's renewal of faith. To quote the reviewer, "It's a windblown faith based less on God's remarkable and unchanging character than on how smoothly life is going at the moment." Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.
When Graham's son Morgan survives because of his asthma, Graham realizes that "Someone" saved him. In the next scene, which is the final scene of the movie, we see Graham wearing his priestly collar. He has obviously renewed his commitment to God. Does he need to be shown praying to God, something he refused to do earlier in the movie? No. Besides, how could M. Night have shown Graham making a daily commitment to God, through good times and bad, without either drawing out the movie or putting in a very cheesy, slap-in-the-face line or series of lines? To me, the brief ending M. Night used is more than adequate for the story's purposes.
In the end, because there's only one "footnote" scene at the end of the movie, viewers walk away from Signs remembering the moment when Graham realizes that there are no coincidences, and that Someone is looking out for us. That moment has more power than a hundred scenes describing Graham's renewed commitment to God.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Concerning Signs
Graham Hess (Mel Gibson) used to be a priest. Six months ago, his wife died and he lost faith in God. Now strange things are happening on his farm in Pennsylvania. His kids, Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Abigail Breslin), wake up early one morning to find huge geometric patterns stamped on the cornfield. Graham and his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix) dismiss the patterns as vandalism. But as things become stranger and stranger, the Hess brothers are forced to confront a spooky possibility: What if there are aliens on Earth?Cons: I didn't get some parts the first time I watched it. But everything one needs to enjoy the movie is very clear - the confusing parts are of secondary importance. I still don't get a few things, but I think M. Night Shyamalan wanted it that way. He focused on the things that were important to the movie, and left unimportant things unexplained.
My Rating: T (spookiness, language)
Picture from coverbrowser.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)