My Saturday night movie watching--Two Weeks Notice and Basic Instinct

Saturday evenings are often good opportunities to catch up on movies I've missed or ones that I want to see again (infrequent occurrences but they do happen). Last night was one of those evenings. I watched Two Weeks Notice (2002) with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant for the first time (I don't know how I missed it when it first came out), and after that I watched Basic Instinct (1992) with Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas for the second time. While both movies belong to different genres--romantic comedy and noir erotic thriller, respectively, and both are very good, the portrayal of women in each film is quite different. Sandra Bullock's character is far more realistic and nuanced than Sharon Stone's character, oddly enough for a romantic comedy, and far less cool. In Basic Instinct, Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone's character) is a writer of murder/crime books, with firsthand knowledge of murder. She is a psychopath and pathological liar, brilliant yes, but completely without morals. I can understand an actress wanting to play that role, but the character remains unexplored--a superficial view of a murderess who surrounds herself with other female murderesses. In 1992 when the movie was made, this was probably heavy stuff--a female murderess, extreme behavior, graphic sex scenes, bisexuality, cocaine use, reckless driving--all thrown in the mix. God knows we have had a plethora of murder/slasher films (too many of them) where the psychopath is always a man with a penchant for raping and torturing/murdering women. So now we had a female psychopath. But Basic Instinct makes the female psychopath cool. When I first saw the film in 1993, that thought didn't dominate my impression of the movie. It did last night, and now that I'm older, I waver more about the implications of making a psychopath (male or female) cool. Because psychopaths are not cool--that's an unrealistic presentation of them. They're frustrating and annoying to be around and to deal with. They make you feel uncomfortable in their presence, like you are pinned to a dissecting board, waiting for the worst. There is a certain 'creep' factor associated with them, as in--they are creeps and they make your skin crawl. They are often intelligent, charming, attractive, unattainable to most, narcissistic, amoral, pathological liars interested in playing games with people. They are ultimately destructive individuals and that is their aim. But they are not cool, rather anything but. I have met men (and perhaps one woman) with psychopathic tendencies (intelligent and amoral pathological liars) but they were neither interesting nor attractive people, and after a short time, their superficiality was a turnoff. After a few encounters, you avoid them at all costs. For most men, I would guess that a female psychopath would be the same after a while, after the initial attraction wore off. Few people talk about their experiences with a psychopath, unsurprisingly, since most of those interactions don't go well for the non-psychopath. Most psychopaths are probably not killers, but a number of them can be violent if it serves their purposes. So why does Michael Douglas' 'prone-to-violence' character Nick Curran risk his life by getting involved with Catherine Tramell? Because he has an addictive personality--he's obsessed with her. The film's atmosphere has been compared to that found in some Hitchcock films. I was rather reminded of both Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill (1980), with Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, and Nancy Allen, (a lurid film if ever there was one), and of Harold Becker's Sea of Love (1989) with Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin. Sea of Love is a much better (but underrated) film than either Dressed to Kill or Basic Instinct, mostly because it had a logical plot, gritty NYC atmosphere, and characters you actually cared about. If you're looking for an erotic murder/crime film that makes sense, where policemen behave rationally (or at least try to), this is the film for you. Basic Instinct is not (in my opinion); it is rather a superficial illogical thriller with a lot of sex and violence thrown in. Guaranteed to earn tons of money at the box office, which it did, thanks to the presence of actors like Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone and some soft-core sex scenes. At this point in my life, I'd simply say--sex sells--the sex scenes are what made this film so popular. None of the characters even remotely interested me, in terms of the types of people I'd like to get to know in real life. But it's a wild ride toward what for me was the obvious conclusion, so in that sense it was enjoyable.

So that is why Two Weeks Notice won out over Basic Instinct for me last night. Because despite the fact that I had few expectations of a romantic comedy being well-written (intelligently-written), non-superficial, and with interesting and witty characters, I was pleasantly surprised. Sandra Bullock's character Lucy Kelson in Two Weeks Notice was intelligent, witty, engaged and attractive. I would want to get to know her. She wanted to make something of her life; she stood for something. Working as a pro bono lawyer when we first meet her, we understand that she has inherited her parents' commitment to working for justice and good (often underdog) causes. So when she meets charming, handsome, and superficial millionaire George Wade (played by Hugh Grant) who mostly cares about what suits/ties to wear and the next woman he will bed, sparks fly and we know how it is going to end since it's a romantic comedy. They're diametrical opposites who are attracted to each other, who like each other and who are willing to change a bit for the other, albeit not immediately and not without major resistance. It surprised me, considering the awful romantic comedies I've seen lately (you can ask me for a list--many of them with Jason Bateman and/or Jennifer Aniston), that this one was so good and so well-written, with characters I could root for. It was actually a lot of fun joining them on their journey toward maturity, watching them admit that they were human and could change. Of course I know that the basic plot was inherently unrealistic; how often are pro bono lawyers offered a 250,000 dollar a year job at a major corporation, how often does said lawyer end up in almost daily communication with her boss, etc. But I can suspend my requirement for logic and my skepticism and just accept the (often far-fetched) premise when we're dealing with romantic comedies. That is not the case with crime thrillers and series; I expect a certain amount of logical thought and reasonable responses to certain events. When I don't get that, I get disappointed, and that happens with a lot of crime movies/series these days.

One Catholic’s reflections on the sexual abuse scandal in the Church

Who knew? Who the hell knew that the Church, that bastion of all that was good and right and ethical and moral (or so we were told as children), would turn out to need a complete overhaul? Who knew that behind its closed doors, priests were behaving as criminals? No, not all of them, but enough of them to make me sit up and take notice, become angry, and demand change as of this week. When we were growing up, we would never have imagined in a million years that priests would be carrying on with young boys and girls in ways that literally make you sick to your stomach. When I read the recent article in The New York Times this past week about the grand jury’s report investigating abuse in six dioceses over a period of 70 years (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/catholic-priests-pennsylvania-church-jury.html), I was horrified. And then something inside of me snapped. Like in so many other areas of my life, I simply do not want to tolerate bad behavior anymore. I won’t have it. I don’t want to be lied to, dissembled to, promised to, or cajoled. I have previously done so, and will continue to, cut off people who behave badly toward me. It’s that simple. They get the short shrift. No more second chances. And that philosophy now extends to the Church. I have given the Church a lot of my time over the years; I have attended mass faithfully, and have defended the Church when I felt it was unfairly attacked. And when I was a teenager, I worked church Bingo, in addition to being a church receptionist part-time, answering phones and writing out mass cards for parishioners. I also helped the cook at the rectory serve dinner to the priests, and cleaned up the dining room and their living room afterward. I saw a lot and registered it for posterity. I see now that they were nothing more than men, human, frail, weak, and lonely. They drank, many of them heavily, they smoked a lot, and they ate too much. They were decent men, the ones I knew, with one exception (a priest who was much too interested in my sex life at that time). Many of them did not stay the course; they met women in the course of their daily life, and left the Church to marry them and raise families. I understood then why they left, and I understand it even more now.

I want change in the Church, and I want it now. I want clarity, openness, honesty, and ethical behavior. I want an end to a patriarchal, male-only culture that thrives on power, prestige, secrecy, and on keeping women out. The criminal pedophile priests were allowed to do what they wanted to do, unimpeded by the law. Had they not been priests and been discovered, they would have ended up in jail. But not in the Church; pedophile priests were merely moved to other dioceses in other states, so they could start the pattern of abuse all over again. Their abusive and criminal behavior was played down by bishops and Church leaders, lied about, and covered up. The sheer arrogance, the 'we are above the law' attitude, is mind-boggling. You need only read the above article to get the full picture. Just the fact that the Church is paying out huge sums of money to the victims of these crimes, is witness enough to the magnitude of the crimes. But how many lives did these priests destroy? How many? Even one life is too much. Parents trusted priests, children likewise. Parents even encouraged their sons to become priests--that is how revered the Church was in some families. The Church could do no wrong, and of course, when that attitude becomes prevalent, it is only a matter of time before the opposite is a matter of fact.

I want priests to be able to marry, I want the vow of celibacy to be voluntary, I want women to be able to become priests, and I want pedophile priests to be prosecuted as the criminals they are. I don’t want to listen to more promises, more speeches, more 'all talk and no action'. If the Church won’t institute some of these changes, I am going to stop supporting it financially, and I encourage others to do the same.

I am so disappointed in my Church. I grieve for the parents, children, lay people, nuns, and other priests who bought into the lies sold them by an arrogant Church. While the faithful were trying to abide by the strict and unforgiving sexual codes set down by the Church (no sex before marriage, no birth control, etc.), some priests were doing anything other than abiding by moral and legal sexual codes. They were instead criminally abusing children and scarring them for life. It is a betrayal so huge that it boggles my mind. I can never forgive these men. I keep my faith, and honor my faith, because my faith is in God and Christ, not men. I am on the fence at present about how I want to punish the Church, because it is in need of punishment. It has confessed to its crimes, yes, and now it needs absolution. In my book, that means that the pedophile priests go directly to jail. The leaders who covered up their crimes can join them there. It means paying out until the coffers are empty. It means zero tolerance for criminals and criminal behavior. It means returning to a simpler Church, without the layers upon layers of bureaucracy and career power trips—bishops, archbishops, etc. It means living simply, and it could start in the Vatican, which is in possession of treasure after treasure. Open the coffers, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, and take care of the sick. God knows there are millions of them on the earth. For example, help the Venezuelans, whose country is falling apart economically, resulting in their being unable to buy food and support their families. That is far more important to me than preaching to married couples that they should not use any form of birth control. Christ would have worried about feeding the poor and homeless. Do what Christ would have done, and would have you do. I have no stomach anymore for supporting the lifestyles of priests who drive new cars, take fancy vacations, live well, and eat well. That is not living the vow of poverty that they took. I understand that priests too need shelter and food, but they would do well to take a look around and see how their parishioners live, and adjust their needs accordingly. But it would be a moot point if they could marry and live among us ordinary souls. Then they would know what it was like to earn a living, afford a place to live, buy food, raise children, and take care of aging parents. They would know what it is like not to be able to afford a third or fourth child. They might learn compassion and empathy when they actually had to face some of these problems themselves.

I close by including a link to an article, also in The New York Times, which was a response by the Vatican to the recent grand jury findings https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/us/catholic-church-abuse-vatican-statement.html). I pray that this is the beginning of major reforms in the Church. It is the only way it can survive. The faith of its parishioners will survive, but as my father used to say, the Church is made up of men who are human. They will fail, themselves and us, in ways that Christ will not fail us. Our faith should be in Christ. We cannot place our faith in men and institutions; they betray us without compunction.

A deplorable case--professor sentenced to ten months in prison for spousal abuse

Anytime you might think that academia is peopled by individuals of high moral caliber and ethics, think again. Like all other professions, it has its share of undesirable and seedy individuals. Unfortunately, the average person has a tendency to associate higher education with a certain amount of nobility and with people who behave in a moral and ethical manner. It simply is not the case and I can attest to this. I have seen a lot in my long career, but this recent story takes the cake. I'm sure there have been similar types of cases at the university, but they have never gotten this far, probably because the women involved did not pursue them all the way to a court case, as is often the case with spousal abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Aftenposten  Published 21.11.2016, at. 9:40 p.m. NTB
A professor at the University of Oslo has been sentenced to ten months in prison for having abused his wife over an eighteen-month period.
Oslo District Court found the man in his early 50s guilty of having beaten his wife in the head with a wooden hammer, of placing a chisel in her mouth and of having tried to strangle her.
The Court emphasized that the abuse lasted from March 2013 until October the following year.
Furthermore, it emphasized the significant potential harm of the actions and the woman's experience of psychological terror and fear that her husband would end up killing her.
The matter was first reported to the police in October 2014, while the indictment came two years later. The court took this time delay into consideration and noted that the normal punishment without this reduction would have been one year. Three days spent in custody were deducted from the punishment.
The professor is also convicted of having obstructed the justice system. According to the verdict, he sent an e-mail to his wife in which he threatened her if their situation should come to trial and conviction.
The court did not attach much importance to the defendant's admission of partial guilt concerning some abusive episodes because he denied that they were violent. The court did not otherwise find any extenuating circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------