Seeing Calvary
last week has sent me back to other literary and theological sources, which is
an unusual feat for a film, and I’m not just picking up the title’s signal that
we are dealing with hills at which good Christian sacrificial death takes place. I apologise for a post which won’t make much
sense to those who haven’t seen the film.
I’d like to know much more about how John Michael McDonagh, both screen writer
and director, developed it.
For example,
the cross between The Power and the Glory and Father Ted seems quite explicit. The Brendan Gleeson priest could walk from
Calvary into The Power and the Glory without breaking his stride, and his
whiskey, his in-part-abandoned daughter and his fate are just some of the
identity he would take from one to the other.
It is almost as if McDonagh was asking how The Power and the Glory might
look in a post-abuse-scandal Ireland rather than an anti-Catholic Mexico.
The David Wilmot
priest with whom he shares a Clergy House, however, could be parachuted into
Father Ted without anyone spotting the join, so much so that I suspected that
this was a knowing joke. This priest is
one of the stock characters presented as a foil for the Brendan Gleeson priest. Others seemed to be there simply to represent
everything from appetite for adultery and atheism to appetite for murder and post-abuse
scandal suspicion - and then disappear again.
More than
that, several appeared to be there to voice one aspect of the New Atheist / problem-of-suffering
debate - in some cases before they simply disappeared again as well.
And still
more than that, the second star of the film appeared to be Ben Bulben, the
distinctive mountain never referred to but often visible as the action takes
place under it. Since Under Ben Bulben is
Yeats’ final poem, was McDonagh picking
up some of Yeats’ characters (‘Sing the peasantry, and then / Hard Riding
country gentlemen, / The holiness of monks, and after / Porter-drinkers’ randy
laughter’)? Or his commission (‘Poet and
sculptor, do the work, / Nor let the modish painter shirk / What his great
forefathers did. / Bring the soul of man to God, / Make him fill the cradles
right’)?
This is
probably only half of it, so it is all very exhausting before one tries to follow
through other strands such as the suicide theme or ask ‘Who did kill the dog
then?’.
The picture is a further one from Alton last week.
The picture is a further one from Alton last week.
4 comments:
You were right Peter; have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but curiosity is aroused so am off to Google to find out.
Have found it on Amazon 'Love film' rental, so will await it's eventual arrival. Now will go read some more about it
Haven't the slightest, Joy. But then I'm an American and what do we know? I hope Peter will explicate.
Sounds like a couple of good films if I knew how to download them.
Jim of Olym
I'm sorry to mystify. Often these posts are just personal notes for me, but I do usually try harder to make them self evidently understandable to others. But, yes, do get to see the film if you can! Some of this might begin to look slightly more understandable after that. It isn't the first bit of writing with one or two complex and carefully observed characters at its centre and lots of one dimensional characters around it - I've just reread a critique of 'Pride and Prejudice' which says much the same of it.
Post a Comment