Hollywood's Lane: 'The Ongoing tale of the American Dream that No Longer Exists'

It is no surprise to find out the usual themes in the Hollywood big screen: money and power. Two of the big films now showing and giving a lot to talk about spin around these themes. American Hustle, a film starting Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, tell the story of a couple that cons their way to the top starting a loaning business that scams people. Later, the couple will find trouble as one of them is busted and has to cooperate with the FBI in operations to capture mafia members and representatives of congress who are willing to take bribes. All of this, while money and power become the protagonists of the film. The Wolf of Wall Street, starting Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort, makes of money and power an emblem in the film. The film tells the story of Belfort, a stockbroker that succeed by mal-practicing creating a firm that overpriced penny stocks for big corporations. Money and power become the central theme in this movie as well, as Belfort moves from one succeeding step to the other, living a hedonistic life until he is caught by the bureau.

The fascination with these stories lies in that they are somewhat true. Hollywood does not produce movies that will sell, but they produce movies that will sell for a reason. The market of everything, including the film industry, is knowing why your product is selling. In this case, the reason behind why these movies sell is that the spectator secretly wants to be one of these con-artists portrayed in the film--of course, with the exception of being caught (which is why must of us don't do it.) These movies feed the so called 'American-Dream,' only with the twist of being able to do it at all cost, even if this means doing it illegally and immorally. These movies not only feed our dirty desires to become wealthy and powerful at all cost but of course first they sell the idea that it is possible by telling us that some people have done so even through wrong means.

The American culture is not only doped with the idea of being successful, wealthy and powerful as part of the American dream, but Hollywood is gushing the idea down our throats. This is no longer an ideal that is no longer possible as class mobility is disappearing in the the United States and the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. The American dream is becoming an unreal and unattainable fantasy, but our sense of entertainment still speaks of a culture that is somewhat fixed on that dream.

For many the bottom line is that Hollywood sells movies that people want to watch. If the spectators want to praise characters like Jordan Belfort or couples like Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser the story will go on. Of course, there is a clear line between entertainment and reality. Hollywood is an entertainment industry. To take it as anything more than that would be to give it too much credit and importance and too little accountability and responsibility to the watcher. But is this so? After all, entertainment is an essential part of culture and films describe society. For the industry, it is in its best interest to sell people the idea of being able to become successful and rich. If they don't, not only do they detach themselves from American culture but become counter-cultural and as a product of this-- movies will not sell. In other words, if people crave a dream that no longer exists, you can still sell it. Ironically, the theme of both of these films is to create profit no matter what. In this case, Hollywood has embraced the philosophy perfectly.

What does it take to be a Saint

Nov 1st celebrates the feast of All Saints in the Catholic Church. From the men and women who walked along Jesus more than two thousand years ago to the recent deceased who faithfully have lived outstanding lives in the light of the gospel. Peter and Paul, Felicity and Perpetua, Francis of Assissi, Benedict of Nursia, Augustine of Hippo, the Gregory the Great, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila to Terese of Lisieux, what did all these men and women had in common?

Many people look for greatness when it comes to sainthood, after all, the Catholic Church designates this title as the highest measure of holiness in the Church. It is to no surprise that the ideal of sainthood is misinterpreted and misunderstood as a result. Sainthood is not a highest rank, a medal or an award. In fact, while it has to do with greatness--its relation with it is one that usually is misunderstood by people. We measure greatness in totalitarian terms most of the time. Automatically we designate holiness by the measurement of how effective a person was. How many lives did he or she touched? In how many humanitarian causes was he or she involved in? In other words, how successful was this person? But, what of those saints who lived secluded in monasteries and in the eyes of the world accomplished nothing? What of Jesus Christ whose death at the time was seeing as a total failure?

Sainthood has to do with greatness but not in the way many people understand greatness. What made this people special was the authenticity in which they lived their lives. The standard and values that they had for themselves were not only counter cultural most of the time, but were in fact great, beyond great--they were holy. Sainthood is a declaration of authentic living. To live a life that resembles the highest ideals, in fact, is great.

The Church reminds us that we are all called to be saints, not to greatness in the standard of how many people understand greatness, but in the standards of the gospel. The correlation here is that to live an authentic life, one must be fully oneself, and to do just that--one must get rid of the false self which alienates us from living the gospel fully. Ironically, when we are ourselves fully--is that we are must successful. After all, a preacher in Galilee was able to start a movement in the billions with twelve men not having ever to write a single word. Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Augustine of Hippo and Benedict of Nursia started movements now in the hundreds of thousands by first simply living a life of complete prayer and devotion. Terese of Lisieux became patroness of all missioners without ever having to leave the convent herself.
All these men and lived their lives radically. They accepted fully the true self within them. A true self that they knew most of the time was not in agreement with the world. A true self that demanded to strive for great ideals--those of the gospel and they accepted living this type of life.

Authenticity then is the mark of greatness, is the mark of sainthood. As I walk in twenty-first century Chicago  I am still amazed and perplexed to see so many people living authentic lives. Many will never be ever recognize in a public forum or have a text written about them, least be officially recognized by the Church as saints, but I know that they participate in the greatness of this tradition of living the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know that they partake in the body of Christ and that they share in the communion of saints.

"It's Far More Than Just Celibacy...''

I have been in formation for the priesthood for two years now and I have never heard in a homily the process religious or consecrated people undergo when they find themselves struggling with affection for another person. Many times I have heard of the examples of many who left the seminary or consecrated life to marry, but never of the process of remaining in consecrated life while letting go of a crucial aspect of being human--of developing a loving and romantic relationship with another person. Many issues are around this topic. A crucial question that has come up recently is the possible option for religious to marry for example, but the question is far greater than a stand on celibacy in consecrated life. As a seminarian, I find myself questioning the integrity of the office and of my vocation. It is quite simple for the Church to call it a 'gift' but what it lacks to explain and fully reconcile is the counterpart that the gift comes with. It is to no interest for me to make this a theological discussion because while these two years in formation has lack a human side to the vulnerability of consecrated people when they find themselves struggling with infatuation, it has been very informative in all the theological reasons for the office of the priesthood to be a celibate one, and so there is no need to go over those. Also, there are those who talk about the office in technical or practical purposes. Stating over again that the office spins around the idea of being completely flexible and unattached to be effective in the practice of the ministerial service. Without further argument, this view does not only equate vocation with work, but it reduces celibacy to practicality.

Perhaps one of the best talks I have heard in the topic was by a priest who once said that love was a decision. In a society where we often think of love as a sentiment, feeling or even ecstatic experience--commitment is erased from the equation. While I have come to find much truth in this, the dilemma remains. To the consecrated or religious, love is professed and expressed to a community, binding in intimate love the unity between an individual and a group or community. The problem in the office exists in the counterpart of this expression of love in which it can also be said that because an individual is committed to the community--he or she is not fully committed to any particular individual. This is a reality religious people face everyday. While priests for instance have many friends and countless acquaintances, they are not committed fully to one particular relationship because of the nature of the very office that tells them to be committed to all people. Here, I not only find problems in that a person might go all his life living a delusion sentiment of commitment in his vocation by choosing to love his congregation, parishioners or people he serves, as a group, while at the same time failing to be truly intimate with any particular individual. That is, being passive and transitory in people's lives. In most ministerial works in fact, priests see people at their birth, first communion, matrimony and death, and rarely in the 'in-between's, and so when we say that they are committed to a group, are we saying only during certain highlights of their life? Instead of commitment, the word practical or useful comes to mind. 

The questions are many. Can a consecrated person be committed to a group and at the same time in a very personal way to an individual? Can a consecrated person be committed to a community despite the transitory nature of his or her vocation? Does accepting the gift of a consecrated life deprive religious of a certain aspect of their humanity? 

Amour... A movie Review

"Amour" is a 2012 French film written and directed by the Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke. The narrative focuses on an elderly couple, Anne and Georges, who are retired music teachers with a daughter who lives abroad. Anne suffers a stroke which paralyses her on one side of her body. Georges then, takes on the job of caring for his spouse as she gradually deteriorates. 

Recently awarded the Best Foreign Film Award in the Golden Globes, the film was a must see for an aficionado of foreign films. However, while the film has an extraordinarily display of dramatization and a increasing momentum of despair and sorrowfulness that breaks the human spirit, it lacks for what it was originally meant to capture by its title. While we are not to idealized love by a high feeling of romanticism, this love spoken of in Amour shows the brokenness that are inescapable in life--but it scandalizes in the climax of the story where Georges decides to take the life of his wife.
The question that comes up of course, is whether George's homicide was an act of love. Georges had spent what might have been couple of weeks as he sees her wife go from fully mobile and conscious, to being restrained to a wheelchair, and later to loose fully her functions of speech and regress her mental abilities. In her last days, Anne is only capable of uttering a word repeatedly, cannot formulate sentences, cannot move on her own and lies in bed most of the day. While the viewer is aware that Anne has lost her will to live, she does not willingly swallow liquids and before she looses her speech tells Georges that she does not want to become an inconvenience for him, Georges act is not expected. 
The love that Georges professes is unquestionable, but his last actions are. The film also raises the question of whether Georges takes his life. He is seen writing what it might be a good-bye letter and he is seeing walking out of the apartment with Anne at the end, suggesting this might be in deed be true. Whether George acts against his will in taking the life of his wife or out of despair- we do not know, but the film evokes a great tragedy that reminds us not only of the fragility of life but also of what we are capable to do in the name of love. 

… The World Needs Less Tourists and More True Culture Lovers…

… The World Needs Less Tourists and More True Culture Lovers…

As this world becomes more interconnected and distances are narrowed more people are becoming aware of the diversity of this planet. This is not only a reality for developed countries or urban cities, but the entire world is a now under the effect of media and technology that bridges distances and supplies massive information in no time. As we bump into each other more frequently and at a faster rate, it is to no surprise that diversity is no longer something that we can avoid and certainly acknowledging and dealing with cultural differences are only the basic requirements to live a somewhat fulfilled life. While it takes much more than just tolerating cultural differences to fully experience our human potential, this phenomena has also created a false perspective in celebrating cultural diversity: it has created ‘Disney-Tourists.’

Certain attractions of places may be the center of attention that draws us to visit them or be interested in that specific culture, but this deteriorates our experience of the other. The practicing of this ancient tradition often referred as tourism is not only deteriorating cultural richness but it undermines our cultural endeavors altogether. Once again the reality of a fast and interconnected world through technology has shaped our cultural experiences to be merely data to be interchanged, in which, only certain objects or main attractions deserve our attention.

The building of stereotypes is made this way. If you get a glance or a shot of a different culture, the automatic response would be to be impacted by what is different from your own. However, with time, one picks up on the similarities. The problem here is the most people are not willing to put in the time to really get to experience the similarities within cultures giving that our sense of immersion in another cultural revolves around the desired to be perplexed by the newness of the experience.

While it is true that the world is making distances shorter and information a lot more accessible, it is also creating culture and altogether human experiences superficial. The need to appreciate our similarities and celebrate our differences arises from an experience that truly affects us as individuals and not from a data-based description of what culture is like.

What does the world need? The world needs less tourists and more true culture lovers. The world need people who are willing to disengage from the picture-taking and the crave for transitory newness. The world needs people who are willing to immerge in a culture not for a week or a couple of months on a giving vacation, but for some years, people who are willing to engage and sustain in other people’s customs and traditions. Unfortunately, the world tells otherwise, it points out for us what ‘should’ experience. Technology has made of culture, a data-transition. It is to no use that we have shorter distances if we are not truly experiencing the other. 

...I rebel therefore I exist..

I have come to recognize that one of my favorite lines of thinking in the world of philosophy is the category of existentialism. Part of what attracts me to these ideas is the heavy emphasis on a world where the individual has the ability to construct a reality according to his own determination and will. At first glance, it might seem idealistic or at best optimistic, but the view cannot be summarized and reduced to this. In fact, one of the characteristics that describes existentialism is also the seriousness in which it admits our frailties and limitations in all human aspects. Our tendencies to err or shortcomings are key for an existentialist. Nietzsche, described as an existentialist by many, focused his whole human theory on the human instinct for power and  dominion for instance, creating the Superman theory. And while many argued that existentialism led to a world that is obsessed with free will and consequently that it led to the problem with subjectivity, I tend to think that the world needs more of them--but those that are true to the heart of existentialism.

In a life where no one can escape death, mourning, suffering, injustice, hunger, exhaustion, ignorance, indifference, and the inability to truly touch and influence another individual--existentialism puts the finger in these wounds. In the sincere cry for the tragedy that is to be alive, (not that life itself is a tragedy--although many existentialist would argue for this) but that being alive contains much tragedy, we must act. In many forms and experiences, tragedy creeps up on us and taps on our shoulders and we turn in despair to see horror in the face.Our response must be defiant or else we are not only compliant but also collaborator of this condition. Our response, our action then is one of rebellion -- for we have no other one that truly dignifies us as human beings.

The irony here, is to walk a thin line between madness and realism. While Sartre for instance, said that there is no point of leverage to rely on that would save the human condition from its burdens and that the only response to the problem was to face our condition head on and because of this live consciously and fully aware that every decision truly is magnify in the great scheme of things, others submerged into madness for a solution. In a world that is desperately seeking to the realism of our condition, we need more mad people.

Madness, as a response is a legitimate answer. To say that within suffering there is purpose, to say that death does not end it all, to say that love can transcend all things--is to really be mad. This is what lies at the heart of existentialism, a call to freedom from our subjectivity we cannot escape and as a consequence a radical position in life. Life is a struggle, a fight, a strong force reminding you of your meaningless existence, why not answer from our deepest desire with a solemn word of resistance? No!

Rituals.

Life is full of rituals. We develop our life around a set of rites or 'habits' that become an expression of ourselves. From the very small things that give meaning to our life like starting our day with a fresh cup of coffee or the way we greet the people, rituals are everywhere  If we were to stop and see ourselves throughout the day, we would see that our life is full of them.

Is part of the human condition to developed a way to give meaning to our life and at the same time provide understanding to it. Anthropologists and sociologists referred to them as cultural or social behavior. It would be chaotic to live in a society were social norms would not be established for example and in the same way, it would be impossible to live a life without a set of rituals that expresses your personality or self. From waving your hand to express 'hello' to frowning to express 'discontent,' these symbols are expressed in rituals to provide meaning to our life.

In the same way, the spiritual world provides a set of symbols and rituals seeking to understand and give meaning to this reality. It is to my amazement the richness in diversity and unity within the Catholic Church when it comes to rituals. When young people ask me why is it important to go to mass or celebrate the sacraments as part of living a Christian life, instead of providing a profound and complicated theological or historical explanation of the mass, I often referred to the importance of rituals in our life and the meaning they provide to it. The mass and sacraments provide for our very own Catholic identity--worldwide. In the same way, our personal rites of prayer are very diverse and unique. These are often referred as 'schools of prayer' or types of spirituality. The way we 'perform' prayer can be so vast that coming to know how someone understands and communicates with God is a personal and unique affair. I tell them to let their imagination fly when it comes to developing spiritual rituals. Journaling and reading the sacred scriptures, eating cake and reciting the rosary, writing poetry and kneeling at church--they all can become profound expressions of communication with God. They can all become rituals of prayer.





While it is important to mention that we are not to reduced our sacramentality and rites to a cultural set of meaning that gives a certain group a specific identity, it helps us understand why we express our faith the way we do. However, we know the mass and sacraments not only give us our Catholic identity but truly professes and expresses a reality. In other words, in contrast to cultural habits, we do not give the sacraments meaning but rather it is the sacraments and mass that define us. We engage in these habits to be transformed by them. We enter into a reality that gives us meaning, and not the other way around.

As a missioner, I find that everything is a ritual. From the way we referred to God, the way we position ourselves in prayer, the chants we sing and prayers we recite to the way we eat, the way we communicate with each other, the things we express and hold important for us, the values we hold significant, and activities we engage in, these are all expressions of ourselves--they are all rituals and changed from culture to culture and from individual to individual. Culturally and individually, we have developed rites for ourselves that we hold very important to our life--again, because they give us meaning. Their sacredness does not depend on its relation to God or Church.

Rituals are everywhere. In fact, every time we find ourselves misunderstood or unable to comprehend another person is likely because we are not familiar with the rituals being expressed. The ability to engage in this art of developing a sensibility to the sacredness of another one is a profound reality of the missionary spirit.