< Part 1
Marsden, who plays Fred, is 37 years old. When George Bailey was 37 years old, he was a husband and father of four, president of his own company and had a whole neighborhood named after him where he had helped family after family realize the American dream. Hop doesn’t seem to realize what a complete and utter loser its protagonist is. It wants us to believe that Fred is special, that he has remarkable untapped potential—that in some way he is Easter Bunny material.
Fred shows no sign of any particular affinity for Easter—how could he? There’s nothing to care about, except candy. At least with The Santa Clause Christmas had some residual emotional significance for a number of characters.
Fred’s sole connection to Easter is having spotted the Easter Bunny from his bedroom window one night as a boy. That’s why he suddenly decides—at 37—that when he grows up he wants to be the Easter Bunny. It was destiny, don’t you see? Is this plot synopsis as painful to read as it is to write?
That’s why Fred cheerfully embraces an excruciating training regimen that includes bouncing along on a hoppy ball and running hurtles over hedges carrying Easter baskets. Excruciating for the audience, I mean. Apparently that’s all it takes—that, and chewing through black-licorice bonds in order to save Mr. Bunny from a dastardly plot. You’d think the criteria would be a little more rigorous than that.
Hop repeatedly commits a plotting fallacy I’ve seen numerous times but never defined as such. It involves situations in which the protagonist is in a social environment in which he is the only one aware of something untoward going on—a talking rabbit, say, running around in an office where the protagonist is interviewing for a mailroom job, or hopping up onto the stage where a grade-school play is going on.
The fallacy is that the protagonist acts as if anyone else spotting the rabbit, or whatever it is, would spell disaster for him personally. Why? What is there to connect him to a talking rabbit? Why can’t he be one more uninvolved bystander? Why is an unexplained talking rabbit his problem?
The grade-school play, in which Fred leaps onto the stage in front of the whole audience to grab E.B., leads to a dreadful sequence in which E.B. pretends to be a ventriloquist dummy, and Fred and E.B. lead the startled children in an impromptu rendition of “I Want Candy.” The audience, comprised of parents, loves it. Why not? What parent wouldn’t enjoy a showboating 37-year-old with a ventriloquist dummy crashing his or her kid’s grade-school play?
“I Want Candy” reprises over the end credits, making it an anthem of sorts for the film, despite the fact that the lyrics are actually about a girl. The possibility, however remote, that Hop could somehow succeed in making “I Want Candy” a secular Easter song fills me with dull dread.
An uncomfortable subtext of race and ethnicity runs through the film. The Easter Bunny and his heir-apparent son speak in posh English accents; Carlos, the evil but hardworking chick who resents E.B.‘s privileged status, has a Mexican accent. Then there’s a gag flashback in which we see the Easter Bunny being rejected in China—not by the government or the military, which might actually have been a gag with some bite, but by a “funny” Chinese lady waving a broom and shouting in Chinese. “We haven’t cracked China,” Mr. Bunny admits. Why is this funny?
Then there’s Fred’s Asian adopted younger sister Alex (Tiffany Espensen). Alex is a model student and overachiever who gets cast as a female Peter Cottontail, reportedly because of her strong singing voice—but when we actually hear her at the school play, she’s terrible. Perhaps the parents were cheering because they preferred Fred’s ventriloquist act to an uppity Asian girl singing off-key. I hope I wasn’t the only one in the audience rooting for Alex when she kicked Fred in the shin after the show.
The movie contains one (1) laugh, which I am now about to spoil. E.B., whose lifelong dream is to be a drummer in a band, tries out for “Hoff Knows Talent,” a fictionalized version of “Britain’s Got Talent” with David Hasselhoff playing himself as the host and judge (Hasselhoff is one of the judges on “BGT”). Fred has instructed E.B. not to talk in front of Hasselhoff, a talking rabbit apparently being much more alarming than a drumming one. When E.B. accidentally starts talking, he checks himself, noting, “You’re not surprised that I’m a talking rabbit?”
“Little man,” the Hoff says unflappably, “my best friend is a talking car!”
And now I am about to spoil the climax. Even though we see Carlos start to mutate into an actual rabbit once he gets hold of the Easter Bunny’s magical staff thingee, Fred never develops any rabbitlike tendencies. Tim Allen might need a paunch belly and long white beard to be Santa Claus, but James Marsden is perfect for the Easter Bunny just the way he is. Also, E.B. abandons his dream of drumming in a band and becomes “co-Easter Bunny” with Fred. Could a more gutless ending be imagined? I can’t think of one.
Comments
Post a Comment
Sadly, too late for us. It was a desperate day of disappointments in our house and I attempted to raise spirits with an unexpected day at the movies (there’s not much else to do in my small town and it was pouring rain). Hop was as terrible as you say. It was only made slightly better by the fact my older ones laughed - only in amazement at its stupidity and ‘absolute lameness’ as my 14 yr. old said and my little ones were young enough to see nothing but the colors.
Every time someone claims a Christian holy day is pagan, I’m reminded of Neo-Paganism: That dull attempt at antiquity and catholicity. I’m also reminded of how funny it is that people reference 16- to 18th Century works to support their ideas of overpopulation, socialism, and other garbage.
Against Heresies on the Paschal Mysteries
I saw a preview and thought “that’s not a real, in-the-theater movie, is it? Is this a joke?” I guess the answer is “yes” to both.
I think the Ramones said it best:
There’s no stoppin’ the cretins from hoppin’
Actually the song choice is worse than you thought: “I Want Candy” wasn’t about a girl named Candy- the term “candy” was slang for sex.
@ GS: I think it’s meant to be ambiguous. At least one version of the song—a 2000 cover by Aaron Carter, which is the version most likely to be known by Hop‘s target audience—is explicitly about a girl named Candy. I slightly edited the sentence to better reflect the ambiguity.
Hey! I’m 35, don’t own my own company, AND I play video games.
Not living in my parent’s basement though. I did manage to get married and have children. And no, none of them will ever see Hop. Ever.
@ Andrew: Now that I think about it, I’m not 100 percent sure Fred does play video games. I do remember that he considers it a plus that a company where his sister set up an interview for him makes video games. If Fred does play video games, I’m not saying that should count against him, just as Mr. Bunny is fine with E.B. drumming as a hobby as long as he takes care of business. It’s when E.B. shows no signs of doing anything but drumming, and Fred shows no signs of doing much of anything at all, that we have a problem. FWIW, I’m not the president of a company either, and while I don’t play video games, I do occasionally read comic books. I consider it one of my accomplishments as a father that none of my children would want to see Hop, and if you showed it to them, they would hate it. It should also be noted that neither of us is asking anyone to accept us as Easter Bunny material.
Two students recommended Hop to me, a movie I wasn’t going to see anyway.
However, I will get them to analyze the film a little tomorrow.
I once had a group of teens in my classes who were praising teen films of the 80s/90s. I explained that they were distasteful on so many levels and proceeded to critique them in detail: teens as having no control over emotions or hormones, adults represented as lustful and clueless and worthy of no respect, etc. A group of them rented 4 or 5 of said movies over the weekend to view them more critically and returned to class on Monday stunned that indeed the film’s portrayal of them and their mores was beneath contempt and should not even be viewed for the laughs.
Finally, RACHEL, your comment about the younger children seeing only a blur of colors cracked me up.
Is there one of those classic training montages, only with someone bouncing on a hoppy ball? That sequence alone should be worth the price of the ticket.
By the way, your “Read more” link at Decent Films is wrong.
@ Pachyderminator: Thanks for the link catch. As hard as I try to avoid that mistake and others like it, I seem to make them all the time.
Regarding the hoppy ball shot, if you must judge for yourself then you must, but my feeling is that it’s much less fun than you might think. It’s on the side of a hill, and Marsden topples over and rolls down the hill. End of shot. I’m sure kids under a certain age think it’s a riot, but I was embarrassed for Marsden just watching it.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, although my children want to… I think I’ll try to con—um, talk some other poor adult into going with them.
One fact check item: David Hasselhoff was never a judge on Britain’s Got Talent—only on America’s Got Talent. And he isn’t on it anymore—2009 was his last season. (Minor thing, I know, but thought I’d pass it along.)
@ LissaLynch: Stay strong! Rio opens in three short days. You don’t have to give in to Hop!
FWIW, according to Wikipedia, “Hasselhoff left the America’s Got Talent judging panel to join the Britain’s Got Talent judging panel, alongside Simon Cowell, Amanda Holden and Michael McIntyre.” He appears to be currently active in that capacity.
As a sidenote from an “It’s A Wonderful Life” fan—didn’t George Bailey have FOUR children (Frank, Janie, Tommy and Zuzu)? Or did number four (Tommy or Zuzu, whichever was younger) just come along after he turned 37? I was just wondering…
@ CameTheDawn: Ha. I knew I should have fact checked that. I forgot either Frank or Tommy, I don’t know which. Fixed, thx!
Am I to understand, Mr. Greydanus, that you’ve high hopes for Rio?
@ DTMcCameron: I’ve seen Rio. You may understand that I prefer it to Hop by orders of magnitude. Full review coming Friday.
I would think that being “of the world” would mean attending offerings such as this and others, like the 80’s/90’s movies ‘ann’ mentioned, whether or not it is done with prior critical attention. How does knowing it is bad before hand mitigate the act or influence of watching what is bad? Hey world, see this… don’t do this! It starts with bad behavior and ends with ‘Hop’, where we, hopefully, finally see the path of inane influences we subjected ourselves to.
@ Earnest Bunbury: True, merely knowing that something is bad doesn’t change the badness of it. But it can change, fundamentally, how you receive it. There’s a world of difference between passively imbibing a film as entertainment and engaging it in an active and critical way. Take the Index of Forbidden Books. How did anyone know what books aren’t good to read. By reading them—critically.
Off topic, I would be interested to hear your take on the Index. Was it a good idea?
@ThePachyderminator,
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum helped Catholics keep their faith rather than endanger their faith by reading books that seemed good but were evil. The Index is gone now because the list was getting too long. However, its morals remain. That means two things:
1) you may not read the books that were on the Index
2) you may not ready books condemned (“forbidden”) by the Catholic Church
Nick is incorrect. The index was neither abolished due to any concern for its length nor does it maintain any juridical force such that a Catholic would be prohibited from reading books which were on it.
However, he is correct that there remains some moral force or character to the list. Those books which were on the list are still to be regarded as dangerous or subversive to one’s faith and recognized as containing erroneous ideas. Normally, one ought not to read these books. However, given a good cause and presupposing a strong faith, one is able to read these books freely. Thus, for example, a Catholic apologist might at any time read a forbidden book in order to defend against its ideas. Previously, it would have been necessary to first obtain the permission from one’s bishop or a priest to whom he has assigned the faculty of granting this permission.
Shane & Nick, thanks. My understanding is that the Index does indeed retain its moral force, but not its legal force, which means that Nick is correct. Whether a Catholic has adequate reason to read a book that is possibly subversive of faith is now left up to individual conscience. I would interpret a “good cause” to read the books rather broadly. For example, one could read such books if that would be expected given one’s general educational level, even absent a specific evangelistic occasion.
My question, however, concerned the wisdom of establishing the Index in the first place. It seems dubious at best, even aside from the fact that some works were included for blatantly political reasons (such as Dante’s De Monarchia).
I own a copy of the last full edition of the INDEX. (Yes, I’ve read the whole thing, too.) There is scarcely a book on that one would wish to read voluntarily, unless your taste runs to racy 19th C French novels. The only English-language novel I recall is Richardson’s PAMELA. But there are lots and lots of obscure theological,philosophical, or historical tomes. The censors liked to pounce on anything that criticize the government of the Papal States, for instance. But the final supplement from about 1960 includes something that was justly forbidden and still deserves to be—THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD by Maria Valtorta. That’s one I’d like to see get the full court press of prohibition.
Some thoughts:
If I remember the commercials correctly, “I want candy” is even the domain name of the film’s Web site.
I hated this movie from the moment I heard the “4,000 years of tradition” bit in the trailer. I never thought about the paganism connection, though; I just chalked it up to the filmmakers either caring that little or being that stupid. (Note to self: Be more charitable.)
http://www.rhjunior.com/NT/00874.html
What’s so wrong with video games? I hope no one here is taking them as being synonymous with loserdom. Of course I also live in my parents’ basement, so maybe I should shut up…
I gave up on Rio from the moment I saw the trailer with the soccer ball (or whatever it was) bouncing off the full-frame, bikini-clad backside of some woman. Real cute family entertainment there. I do, however, look forward to your review to see if the men-are-morons themes I thought I saw were actually there.
Steven, didn’t you have an article on Decentfilms somewhere about the forbidden books list?
Finally, what’s up with the splitting up the reviews into two pages? (Not that I’m complaining—I still feel bad about whining about it in the TRON review.)
Yep.
Searching Decent Films for “Index of Forbidden Books” turned up a couple brief mentions, in contexts that suggest that SDG respects the moral force of the Index, but nothing substantive. I’m not aware that he has ever really addressed the issue. Neither am I aware of why I’m speculating on his views as if he was some long-dead author. Weird.
Probably the NCRegister website splits articles up so that viewers will look at more ads. Yes, it’s slightly annoying, but all news sites do it. I don’t think it could have anything to do with length, judging by some of Jimmy Akin’s ginormous blog posts.
Erratum: My post above should read “Shane is correct” instead of “Nick is correct.”
Brilliant headline.
I had no idea Marsden was that old. Wow. I knew he seemed to be way too old to be playing this type of character, but still. Wow.
I’m mildly surprised you didn’t mention the two scenes set outside the Playboy mansion, by the way.
Yikes, I didn’t mean to touch off such a spirited tangent on the Index!
I haven’t researched the Index in depth, but my impulse would be to come down somewhere between Shane and Pachyderminator. Here are a few basic principles:
1. Writings dangerous to faith and morals should generally be avoided, whether or not they are prohibited by any positive law.
2. Establishing the Index was certainly within the pastoral and disciplinary competence of the Church.
3. The abolition of ecclesiastical censures does not mean that the books once condemned are now safe and wholesome; to that extent, the Index retains moral force.
4. What is or is not dangerous to faith and morals is a question of prudential judgment where there is at least some room for reasonable disagreement.
5. What is dangerous for some may not necessarily be dangerous for others.
6. It is possible that some books included on the list were not really deserving of censure, or would not be dangerous today due to changing cultural situations.
7. Pragmatically speaking, the writings most dangerous today are of much more recent vintage than the final version of the Index.
Identifying what is or is not dangerous to faith and morals in books (particularly nonfiction books) is probably a more straightforward task than in movies, although considerable ambiguities remain. Just because something is wrong doesn’t necessarily make it dangerous, or dangerous to everyone. Loraine Boettner’s error-riddled, anti-Catholic tome Roman Catholicism played a significant role in bringing me into the Catholic Church, though doubtless it has done the opposite for countless others.
I agree with Pachyderminator regarding giving a broad interpretation to a “good cause” in reading once-forbidden books. That said, even for those who are strong of faith and who may have good reasons for being familiar with potentially dangerous works, I would counsel caution in exposing oneself to such content. Limited exposure and lots of therapeutic immersion in better stuff are crucial principles.
Perelandra, apparently Poem of the Man-God is unlikely to get a full-press prohibition any time soon.
P.S. I split up my NCRegister.com blog posts because I have reason to prefer more posts within a certain recommended length parameter to fewer posts greatly exceeding that length parameter, based on the terms on which I blog here. I’d prefer to leave it at that.
@ Peter T Chattaway: Thanks re. my headline! I like it too, although I think it’s a pale substitute for the one from the critic cited in my first paragraph who called the movie “an act of aggression against childhood”: “Abandon All Hop, Ye Who Enter Here.” (Warning: Some obscene content.)
BTW, I got an email from a Register editor complaining, “Now that lousy Danny and the Juniors song is running through my head and I can’t get rid of it.” What’s worse is that for me it’s been a medley of “At the Hop” and “I Want Candy.” I’m starting to feel queasy. (See what I mean about exposing yourself to corrosive influences?!)
I almost added a P.S. to the review saying “I can’t believe that after all that excoriation I never got around to either (a) the scene outside the Playboy mansion in which E.B. protests that as an ‘incredibly sexy bunny’ he should be welcome there or (b) E.B. pooping jellybeans.” I did mention both incidents in the content advisory at Decent Films. (There were two Playboy mansion scenes? Oh yeah, the one with the Pink Berets.)
I’m glad you gave The Santa Clause a little more credit on page two, as I rather enjoy that movie. No, it’s not on my list of classic, must-see Christmas films, but in my humble opinion, it is a movie that focuses on the relationship of a child and his father, and how that love can transform a life. Maybe I’m reading to much into my childhood nostalgia, but I always thought there was something sweet about the kid’s unwavering faith in his dad (not to mention how the dad’s transformation into Santa Clause made him a much sweeter, kinder person). The sequels, alas, I do not defend: Disney has a poor track record with those anyway (and wasn’t there an adult man as the Easter Bunny in one of them?)
Regardless, your review means that “Hop” is worse than I thought; from my limited purusal of the ads I merely thought it was moronic.
Totally unrelated to the movie review in question (although I agree that Hop sucks big time): SDG links to an article in Wikipedia that is mostly pro-Maria Valtorta, citing the amazing coincidences between the things she relates in The Poem of the Man God and actual facts (like the geography in Israel that she so painstainkingly describes in her work). Are these “facts” true? I remember reading somewhere that there were serious factual errors in her work (aside from the theological ones).
I frankly found the Poem of the Man God rather unsettling way before I knew that the Vatican looked down on it, and I would like to see it officially condemned, although of course, if the Vatican some day approves it, I would be forced to aknowledge it in some way.
I thought the depiction of the puritanical blond, blue eyed, eternally youthful-looking Mary was the biggest turn-off ever, but that’s just me, I guess.
Anyway, back to the review of Hop, I think the “Playboy mansion” scenes should be mentioned explicitly in your review. Just my $0.02. :)
It’s a bit of a toss-up whether Valtorta’s “Mary” who curses mankind at Calvary is worse than her petulant Mamma’s boy “Jesus” who asserts that he is giving Valtorta dictation to correct the defective texts of the Gospels because the Evangelists’ “flowery and pompous” Hebrew style prevented them from writing Scripture accurately. (A deal-breaker of a theological error, wouldn’t you say?) The work is pervasively and viciously anti-Semitic, even equating Judaism with Satanism. For all those claims of geographical accuracy, the customs, architecture, and material culture of ancient Palestine are wildly inaccurate. As gead of the CDF, then-Cardinal Ratsinger quoted with approval a writer who denounced the POEM as “a monument to pseudo-religiosity.”
@ Perelandra: Um. Wow. Thanks for that! I had no idea ... don’t really know anything about the work (though I expect to know quite a bit more in the near future). Looking more critically at the Wikipedia article, it seems seriously one-sided.
“It’s a bit of a toss-up whether Valtorta’s “Mary” who curses mankind at Calvary is worse than her petulant Mamma’s boy “Jesus””
I’m relieved to say I only read up to Volume 3 or 4 of the POTMG, so I missed all those scenes at the Calvary, but halfway through volume 1 I was already annoyed at the 3 year-old Mary, who’s portrayed as nothing more than a brat that doesn’t want to get hugged by her relatives because “her body was sacred” or something to that effect. If a child of mine talked to me that way, he or she would get a good spanking, unfortunately, her prudish behavior only gets worse from there.
The scene were adult Jesus visits his blond teenage-looking mom to be comforted also made me VERY uncomfortable, the way Valtorta described it, it almost reeked of incest. It was at that point that I put the books away, blaming myself for not liking this supposedly “divinely-inspired” work.
Oh, and I did I mention that the whole Poem of the Man God was the main prize in a raffle at my parish? Sad, but true.
Hey Steven, what would you say if I said I saw that film the other day?
@ Mark: Which film? Hop? Rio? I dunno, what should I say?
Wait a minute… Did Pachyderminator just blockquote me? Normal people can use HTML!? I’ve seen Steven do it but I thought it was reserved for bloggers! This changes everything!
Anyway, something else that struck me about the review is the fallacy of having the talking animal have to be a big secret. I guess I’ve noticed that before, but I never really thought about it.
I think I remember where I thought the forbidden books list mention was. I believe it was the “Don’t Have a Cow, Man!” post, something about the Production Code Authority:
—
—
Except I think I remember something being mentioned about whether the Production Code was binding or not, hence my confusing it with the forbidden books list in this discussion, but “Don’t Have a Cow, Man!” post doesn’t go there. On second thought, I’m probably thinking of a call you took on <cite>Catholic Answers Live</cite> about either the Production Code or the Index.
Best combox ever.
BTW, glad to have raised your consciousness, Linebyline!
Wasn’t James Marsden’s biggest role ever Spike, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Has he done anything since?
On a side note, I liked Rachel’s comment. I saw Santa Claus II by myself in the theatre. I was homesick for my younger brothers and sisters and all I saw throughout the movie were cute kids. :-D
Spike was played by James Marsters, not James Marsden.
Marsters has apparently done a lot of work since Buffy/Angel ended in 2004, but almost all of it has been on TV (Torchwood, Smallville, Caprica, etc.).
Marsden, on the other hand, has worked mainly on the big screen, where he has specialized in playing “beta males”, i.e. the “other guy” that a woman is involved with when she is drawn to the “alpha male” (the X-Men trilogy, The Notebook, Superman Returns, Enchanted).
@Peter,
Thanks! I must need more coffee!
Ha, Suz had exactly the same Marsden/Marsters name confusion the other day when we were talking about Hop.
Marsden’s propensity, noted by Peter, for playing the “other guy” whose wife/girlfriend/fiancee is either unfaithful to him with the “alpha male” or is at least tempted in that direction gave weird overtones to the scene in the Hop trailer in which Marsden stands helplessly by while costar Kaley Cuoco, mistaking E.B. for a stuffed toy, snuggles and coos over the rabbit who taunts Marsden by surreptitiously stroking and smelling her hair, later asking, “Is she available?”
Turns out Cuoco plays Marsden’s sister, not his girlfriend; still, the trailer really makes it look as if any male costar, even an animated rabbit, can make time with Marsden’s woman.
@ Steven: Whew! I’m glad I’m not the only one! I blame it on Netflix…
Marsden did get *a* girl in Enchanted, though…and took her back to a world with a lot of cartoon animals and only no other men, if I remember correctly. :-)
@Steven, I meant Hop of course. And while I do see your valid points, I actually thought it was entertaining, but of course, that is only my opinion.
With regards to what Ann had to say, I would be interested to see what her students had to say about Hop. It’s true that so many teen films are distasteful on many levels, but if viewed critically, like our friend Steven does, they may not be so harmful. Having said that, there are some films I wouldn’t want to see, even to evaluate, like Knocked Up. That sounds pretty bad, from what I’ve read about it. Another film I doubt I shall ever see is The 40 Year Old Virgin, because it seems to make virginity out to be something to be ashamed of. Well, I shall be 40 next year and am proud of my virginity.
Judd Apatow’s brand of humour certainly isn’t for everyone, but for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t say The 40-Year-Old Virgin makes virginity out to be something to ashamed of. Quite the opposite, in fact! Yes, it does take as its *starting* point the fact that this is how a lot of people think about adult virginity, but that’s not where it ends up.
If I may quote a couple bits from my review, which I wrote when I had been married for about five and a half months (at the age of 34—not quite 40, but getting there, perhaps):
“There are lots of stereotypes about grown-up virgins, and The 40-Year-Old Virgin—about a man whose co-workers conspire to hook him up, so to speak, after they discover he has never done the deed—plays on every single one of them. But in its own peculiar way, the film stands these stereotypes on their head, so much so that, by the end, our protagonist seems like the sanest character of the bunch.
“. . . there are moments when the film almost strikes a blow for virgin pride, such as a scene in which Andy accompanies Trish’s daughter to a family-planning clinic. And the film concludes on a very interesting note, indeed. (Spoiler alert: jump to the next paragraph if you don’t want to know how the film ends.) Of course, we expect Andy to ‘lose it’ by the end of the movie; but the striking thing is that he and Trish actually get married first—and the scene brought back happy, and funny, memories of my own wedding night. Instead of mocking my own personal choice to wait until marriage, as it were, it felt like the film was affirming it.”
Knocked Up also has some interesting moments that skew in a more “conservative” direction than you might think—but again, the humour is very raunchy and definitely not for all tastes, so I certainly wouldn’t disparage anyone’s decision not to see it.
Not having been interested in Hop at all because (from an aspiring filmmaker and animator’s point of view) it looked stupid, I hadn’t really thought about how Easter would be portrayed, but I nevertheless appreciate your review, and thought I’d put in my 2 cents.
“Nothing about even spring and new life, let alone, well, you know.”
NICE! Now if only public schools would do away with “Spring Break.”
Sad that even the Catholic Parochial school that my nephews go to is referring to it as Spring Break, and not Easter Vacation as it was when I was a kid. Sigh.
So this movie refers to the Easter Bunny as being a 4000 year old tradition huh? At least Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas Present, when asked if he had many older brethren replied “over eighteen hundred of them!” Which was as subtle a way (or not) of acknowledging the true purpose of the Holiday, as Hop’s way of denying the same.
If it’s any consolation, Hop currently has 24% on rotten tomatoes, so it’s being pretty widely panned by critics everywhere…
Hop may have a low Rotten Tomatoes rating, but it’s one of the top-grossing movies of the year so far (currently #5 in North America, behind Rango & Just Go with It & The Green Hornet & Gnomeo and Juliet, and likely to pass at least two of those films in the next few weeks). And it’s the moolah, not the reviews, that keeps these sorts of movies coming.
As for “spring break”, I don’t have any problem with it—especially since it doesn’t always coincide with Easter anyway. Where I live, we had two weeks of spring break between March 21 (the first day of spring) and April 1, and the schools don’t even have to take Good Friday and Easter Monday off until April 22 and 25, respectively.
I guess I always thought Spring break was invented because so many Christians took Holy Week off anyway for religious purposes. Otherwise what is the purpose of Spring break? Is there a Fall break? What’s the need?
Well, there’s a winter break. So, yeah, where I live at least, there’s roughly three-and-a-half months of school between September and December, then maybe two-and-a-half months of school between January and March, and then another two-and-a-half (if not three) months of school between April and June. So, not quite an even spacing of three, three and three, but getting there, perhaps.
Right, but isn’t the Winter break also based around the Winter holidays? And since most college semesters are 16 or 18 weeks and scheduled to end before Christmas, oops I mean “Winter Break” then the Fall Semester doesn’t have a break in the middle of it, meaning that the Spring doesn’t really need one either, but for the American “birthright” of wild beach orgies televised in late night infomercials.
We had a spring break coinciding with the week after Ash Wednesday this year, and here there’s a Thanksgiving break so we do get one in fall. Though the online class I take from a Catholic source is taking two weeks off during Easter and Holy Week… IMO it needn’t be called Easter break unless it coincides with Easter…
Well, if we’re going to bring college into this, my own alma mater (the University of British Columbia) has had a week-long “mid-term break” every February for as long as I can remember. This year’s break lasted February 14-18. But you’re right, there’s no equivalent week-long break in the fall term. I have no idea why this might be.
Why is Chattaway even interested in this topic? He usually celebrates Easter in the wrong week anyway #vjmducks
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.