The American Press circa 1873

I mentioned before that my wife, on a trip to our nation's capital, picked me up a book of Great American Speeches. The more I read these speeches, the more I realize some of the basic aspects of American life have not changed.

To illustrate the point, I'll share with you the first paragraph of Mark Twain's speech on the American Press in 1873:

"The press has scoffed at religion till it has made scoffing popular. It has defended official criminals, on party pretexts, until it has created a United States Senate whose membes are incapable of determining what crime against law and the dignity of their own body is - they are morally blind - and it has made light of dishonesty till we have as a result a Congress which contracts to work for a certain sum and then delibarately steals additonal wages out of the public pocket and is pained and surprised that anybody should worry about a little thing like that.

...There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press... "

It seems that very little has changed over the past 100 years. We still have the press scoffing at religion. We still have a press that will defend a member of Congress, no matter what the charge, because of their party affliation. We still have members of the Senate and House who look to make a quick buck instead of representing the wills of their people... we still have a press that is quick to condemn, but very slow to admit guilt.

So, it makes me wonder what change, if any, will come in the near future. In the end, will all of our collective grumbling amount to any sort of change? Or will someone, in 100 years time, be writing on their journal about the continued injustices of the media and the continued attack on religious beliefs?

It makes me wonder.

Rear-End Update

Well, I've had to take two days off from work. The pain meds and muscle relaxers cause extreme drowsiness, so I've been sleeping a lot. My back still hurts and the left side of my neck is the most sore. I have a follow up with a doctor on Tuesday.

Secret Agent (1936)

Secret Agent is another one of Hitchcock's early works, made in 1936. The film stars John Gielgud, Peter Lorre, Madeleine Carroll and Robert Young. Gielgud stars as Richard Ashenden, a spy who is assigned to work with his "wife" played by Carroll. Once in Switzerland, Gielgud hooks up with another fellow spy, portrayed by Lorre, who takes sadistic pleasure in killing his targets. Lorre's performance is particularly disturbing considering the era in which it the film was made . Young, who would later be known for his role as Marcus Welby, M.D., plays a flirty college boy in Secret Agent who keeps hitting on Carroll, even though she's masquerading as Gielgud's wife.

One thing that Hitchcock always did well was to incorporate local landmarks, locations or industries into his films. In Secret Agent, the bulk of the film takes place in Switzerland and Hitch expertly weaves a Swiss chocolate factory into the film. The factory engines roar so loud throughout the entire factory scene that no dialogue can be heard. Hitch uses this limitation to showcase his finely tuned silent film techniques and creates a wonderfully suspenseful scene without utilizing any words, only images and editing.

Hitchcock's use of other local landmarks can be better found in North By Northwest, where Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint end up at Mount Rushmore. Or in Saboteur, where Normal Lloyd and Robert Cummings fight on the Statue of Liberty. He uses the Albert Hall in the climax of The Man Who Knew Too Much and the beaches, casinos and weaving roads of Monaco in To Catch A Thief.

Robert Young and Madeleine Carroll

Secret Agent is a satisfying film by Hitchcock... again, the acting and simplistic plotlines are dated by today's standards, but Hitch's flair for the suspenseful keep you entertained throughout. Plus, Peter Lorre eats up the screen as a fellow spy who calls himself "The General." He's weird and funny and a psychopath... all at the same time.

Carroll, Gielgud and Lorre

If you're a die hard Hitchcock fan, like myself, then you should check out Secret Agent. It's an entertaining trip.

Rear Ended

On the way to lunch yesterday, I got rear-ended while stopped waiting to merge onto 4th St. The car hitting me wasn't going very fast, but I got whiplash and my back is hurting. We went to the emergency room and got x-rays... everything seems okay at the time, however I have plenty of days of pain and therapy ahead. They told me that tomorrow will be the most painful, so I ask for your prayers for a quick healing. I'll offer up the pain and let the Lord do something good with it.

I knew I should have brought my lunch to work today...

Young and Innocent (1937)

During Hitchcock’s early portion of his career in England, he made over 30 films including The Lodger, Blackmail, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes and culminated with Foreign Correspondent. During this time he also made a few lesser known, but quality thrillers, including one of my favorite of his early works, Young and Innocent made in 1937.

I have found in every one of Hitchcock's films, there is always at least one scene that is a nugget, a hint at his genius. This is true during the climax of Young and Innocent.

Young and Innocent revolves around a young writer who's innocently accused of murdering a famous actress. He escapes prison by hiding in the car of the Constable's daughter. They are instantly attracted to each other and she helps him track down the real killer.

Young and Innocent stars Derrick De Marney as Robert Tisdale, the young writer on the run, and Nova Pilbeam as Erica Burgoyne, the beautiful woman who helps Tisdale prove his innocence. As with most films of the time, the plot is straight forward and simplistic... not quite believable to today's standards, but it effectively thrusts the plot into gear and lets the fun begin.

As for nuggets of Hitchcock, Young and Innocent has a few scenes that are quite effective. I love it when he utilizes silent film techniques in his talking films... for example, the killer gave an overcoat to a bum. When trying to find the real killer, the bum dresses up in new clothes so he can enter a swanky hotel. The killer spots the bum from across the room and we visually see, through dissolves, the bum go from riches to rags and back... visually showing us the killer recognizes him.

Nova Pilbeam in danger.

The killer in the film has a distinct eye tick. Tisdale finds that the killer may be hiding out at a fancy hotel. They look through the hotel, ending up in a large ballroom with a big band playing in black-face in the background. Tisdale and Erica stand on one side of the ballroom, scanning for the man with the tick. The band plays a song called The Drummer Man... in one continuous shot we move the high end of one side of the ballroom, over the diners, over the dancers, down toward the band, ending up on a close up of the drummer in black-face, where we see him slightly tick. It's a very cool shot and, in standard Hitchcockian form, lets the audience know more than the protagonists.

Beware of the "Drummer Man"

In a Hollywood world where everything is a remake of something else, the Young and Innocent is an excellent candidate. It's good Hitchcock and mostly unknown. It is also one of my personal favorites of Hitch's early works.

Hey Buddy, Can You Spare 200 Million Dimes?

Okay, here's the deal. I need $10 - $20 million dollars.

Before you think I've completely lost my marbles, let me explain...

I think I have a formula to successfully provide high quality, broad appeal Christian films to the large Christian market currently jaded by low quality, preachy films. It's also a market that Hollywood is unable and unwilling to fill.

I'm writing the first four scripts and defining a business plan now. Through my research I have found that it takes a budget of around $1 million to hire the right people and get the right equipment to shoot a movie that is on par with Hollywood's production values (actors, lighting, soundtrack, crew, etc.).

To put that amount of money in perspective, Hollywood films cost on average of between $40 - $100 million films each. So, $1 million a film is considered very low budget, if you can believe that!

Usually, when shooting a low budget film you raise enough money for one film at a time.

• You raise money
• Shoot movie
• Distribute movie

Then you start on the next film...

• You raise money
• Shoot movie
• Distribute movie

And so on... Instead of investing a lot of time going through the fund raising efforts over and over again, instead my goal is to raise between $10 and $20 million, put that money into a 10% fund and use the annual $1 million - $2 million growth to fund a film a year indefinitely while keeping the original $10 million to $20 million intact. Also, if we take a lion's share of the profits and put it into the original $10 - $20 million, then the annual film budget will increase accordingly.

Now, I'm not asking anyone reading this for your money... you have something far more valuable than money... the power of prayer.

So, I'm asking that to pray for this venture. I feel the Lord has been directing me toward this path over the last ten years. And if the Holy Spirit wants this dream to happen, then nothing can stop it. If not, then nothing can make it happen. I'm only asking you to add this venture to your list of prayers and we'll let the Lord do the rest.

In anticipation of your efforts, I want to thank you for your prayers and I will keep you all informed of our progress.

ACLU, Meet Mr. Washington... Again

In a previous post, I highlighted portions of George Washington's inaugural presidential speech where his first act was to thank God for the graces bestowed on this country.

In Washington's farewell address in 1796 his main concern was the creation of political parties and that they would not represent everyone in the nation (funny, that seems to be accurate). But, he also mentioned the following. Again, highlights by me to make the point:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion... reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Interesting how accurate his words are over 200 years later... He states that religion and morality support this nation, that they are "Pillars of human happiness" and that no man could be called a patriot who works to subvert them. So, you can clearly see that organizations like the ACLU are not Patriots when they attempt to remove religion from the public discussion and the governmental process.

Washington warns us of the dangers of removing religious obligation from the Courts of Justice. He maintains that morality without religion is a flawed approach, for it is impossible to "expect the National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

I have often wondered how our founding fathers would now look upon the society for which they created. Reading their speeches, their thoughts, I can only imagine they would be appalled at our current state.

I can only imagine that they would surmise that their experiment in a democratic republic is nothing more than a complete failure.

Looking at the direction our nation is heading, I would be hard pressed to disagree.

All that being said, despite our current and numerous failings, we're still the greatest nation on the planet and we should actively work to repair our moral injuries before they weaken us beyond healing.

US Appeals Court Upholds Banning Nativity, But Allowing Jewish and Islamic Holiday Symbols

Let the Anti-Christ... I mean Anti-Christian momentum continue in our liberal courts.

From Lifesite.Net - the Second Circuit Appeals Court ruled that it is constitutionally permissible for New York City public schools to ban the display of the Christian nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

You can read the entire article here.

This is so blatantly biased against Christianity that it is sickening.

Terri's Law? How About Canon Law

Let me start by saying I'm no theologian or scholar or expert, just a life long Catholic trying to understand and live his faith. So, don't take my word as gospel. Hell, don't believe anything I say... do you own research and come to your own conclusions.

That being said, much to the dismay of many Catholics in the Diocese of St. Petersburg, our flock is lead by a rather liberal bishop, Bishop Robert Lynch. He has slowly stripped away some of the more traditional aspects of Mass, considering them "unnecessary" and the growing conservative Catholic base have become somewhat irritated by his decisions.

However, the recent marriage of Michael Shiavo in my parish of Espiritu Santo Catholic Church by our pastor Bob Schneider and approved by Bishop Lynch has sent a growing wave of discontent throughout our diocese.

See, the Roman Catholic Church has these things called Canon Laws. They're the laws and regulations that the Church follows and, in the case of the marriage of Michael Shiavo, I guess the Bishop considered them more as guidelines than actual laws.

See, the gist of it is that, due to the circumstances surrounding Terri Shiavo's death and the Canon Law that states that you cannot kill your wife in order to marry another woman, well only the Pope himself could grant dispensation for Michael Shiavo's marriage.

We all seriously doubt this has happened.

A lot of concerned Catholics have called the Bishop, asking for an explanation, only to hear thought-provoking and faith enhancing words such as "No Comment."

There is a wonderful article in the North County Gazette of New York that explains it better than I ever could, so read the article here.

And if you have the urge, you can contact Bishop Lynch by using the following:

Email: communicate@dosp.org

Phone: (727) 344-1611

Fax: (727) 345-2143

Or you can contact Father Schneider at:

Phone: (727) 726-8477

Fax: (727) 799-2062

Maybe this is all just some misunderstanding. Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe I'm just an idiot. However, we'll need a more illuminating response than "No Comment" to fully grasp the genius of their decision to conduct this marriage in my parish.

In the end, this entire event has left me with one simple question... if the Bishop doesn't have to follow Canon Law, then why do I?