For Greater Glory tells a story of religious freedom and oppression that is far too little known, and that would be important and worthwhile at any time, but is strikingly apropos in our cultural moment.
The Cristero War or Cristiada of 1926 to 1929 was one of the largest insurgencies in Western history. Yet Americans in general, even Catholics and those of Mexican heritage, remain largely ignorant of this period of brutal suppression and desperate resistance, not to mention the long and contentious history of church-state antagonism in Mexico surrounding it.
For Greater Glory (Cristiada in Mexico) redresses this neglect. One of the most lavish and ambitious films ever produced in Mexico, it’s a breakthrough achievement for producer Pablo José Barroso (previously responsible for the curious but dull Guadalupe and the pious but flawed The Greatest Miracle). It’s also a milestone for faith-based productions generally: a sweeping, handsome epic with strong performances, solid production values and magnificent locations across Mexico.
Making his directorial debut, visual effects expert Dean Wright manages the sizable production capably, and if at times the first-time viewer may not always be entirely sure which mustachioed Latino is which, it’s another reason to see it more than once. (For the record, I’ve seen it twice — and my Reel Faith co-host David DiCerto has seen it four times — and we’ve both found that the film benefits from repeat viewings … which is a good thing.)
Its scope, early 20th-century Latin wartime milieu and Spanish-accented English dialogue invite comparison to There Be Dragons — but where that film centered on a dull protagonist and offered no real picture of the shape of the Spanish Civil War, For Greater Glory follows an ensemble cast through key events of the Cristero War. A pious, faith-friendly celebration of Cristero valor and the Catholic faith, it’s not exactly a history lesson, but neither is it a pseudo-historical fable à la Braveheart.
Opening titles and early scenes sketch some of the background: The 1917 Mexican Constitution included harsh anticlerical provisions that went unenforced until the regime of Plutarco Elías Calles, a fervent atheist, Freemason and virulent enemy of the Church. In 1926, Calles introduced legislation — the “Calles Law” — specifying penalties for violating the constitutional prohibitions: Clergy could be imprisoned for criticizing the government, fined for wearing clerical garb in public, and so forth. Calles also moved to seize Church property, close Catholic schools, seminaries and monasteries, and deport foreign priests.
Andy Garcia plays Enrique Gorostieta Velarde, an accomplished general-turned-businessman whose devout wife Tulita (Eva Longoria) is worried about their daughters’ religious upbringing in the current environment. When Tulita refuses to be comforted, Gorostieta asks defensively, “What do you want me to do?”
What indeed. Gorostieta opposes Calles’ excesses and favors a regime of greater religious freedom, but he’s an unbeliever — in fact, like Calles, he’s an anticlerical Freemason, though the film doesn’t spell this out. Now established as a soap manufacturer, Gorostieta is prosperous, but bored and ripe for a challenge.
There’s a nice moment when Gorostieta is approached by a representative of the National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty (LNDLR), which stands behind the Catholic resistance, called Cristeros or “Christers” — originally (like the word “Christian” itself) a derisive nickname, echoing their battle cry, ¡Viva Cristo Rey! (Long live Christ the King!). Initially dismissive of the ragtag rebels, Gorostieta is caught short by the representative’s parting question and gesture: Taking a cake of soap from Gorostieta’s desk, the man sniffs it appraisingly. Is Mexico’s greatest general content to live out his days producing pink soap?
Peter O’Toole has a small but notable role as a foreign-born cleric named Father Christopher whose kindness and heroic virtue make a lasting impression on a youth named José Luis Sanchez (likable Mauricio Kuri, a Mexico City native). In another small role, Bella star Eduardo Verástegui plays Anacleto Gonzalez Flores, a lawyer who supports peaceful means of resistance to Calles’ campaign. Sanchez and Flores were beatified as martyrs by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. Sanchez’s martyrdom is almost a miniature Passion of the Christ, complete with Pietà shot.
Like many faith-based productions, For Greater Glory could have benefitted from a less heavy hand and more subtlety: less exposition, less intrusive scoring, more nuanced characters and more complexity all around. Take a scene in which Gorostieta introduces young José to his magnificent Arabian horse. It’s a nice character moment with an implicit father-son subtext — but then the filmmakers have to go and make it explicit: “I never had a son,” Gorostieta tells José, “but if I did, I’d want him to be just like you.”
For the most part, everyone does and says exactly what one would expect of a character like them. Every priest is devout, and every executed priest and layman dies with edifying grace, and not a single federale troop involved in executing even priests and children shows the slightest hesitation or conflict.
Father José Reyes Vega (Santiago Cabrera), an important Cristero general, takes up arms, contrary to the demands of his clerical state. Other than that, he is a picture of piety — in marked contrast to the historical Vega, a notorious libertine whose most infamous crime, involving a train holdup, is here depicted as an accident and then forgotten with unseemly haste.
Gorostieta displays some complexity as a leader fighting on behalf of a faith he doesn’t share but is willing to appropriate for his purposes. He wears a large crucifix and uses "God talk" with the troops, though it’s not always clear whether, or how, he believes what he’s saying or when he starts to believe it. When Father Vega says Mass at one point, Gorostieta pointedly sits aside, smoking a cigar. Yet rubbing elbows with God has a way of changing a person, and Gorostieta’s imperceptible transition toward faith is credibly depicted, whether or not it’s historical.
The film’s most intriguing character is a rugged rancher named Victoriano Ramirez (Oscar Isaacs, The Nativity Story), nicknamed El Catorce (The 14) in honor of an incident involving an ill-fated posse sent to kill him. Ramirez is basically a thug, but a thug with some noble impulses, and his character has the greatest potential for moral corruption or redemption.
That sequence involving the posse is one of the film’s best action set pieces, along with an ambush in a sleepy pueblo. Other action sequences, including an ambush in a valley, get the job done, but could have been staged with more imagination and drama.
Along with the Cristeros, For Greater Glory honors the contributions of the Feminine Brigades of St. Joan of Arc, a covert women’s society that supported the war effort by smuggling supplies, information and even ammunition — the latter in custom-made undergarments. In this work, as a tense scene on a train illustrates, a wardrobe malfunction could lead to imprisonment or execution.
Probably the most effective aspect of the film is its mixed depiction of the role of the Mexican hierarchy, the United States and even the Vatican. Early on, we hear that the Vatican is taking too long to weigh in on the Calles laws, though that’s quickly rectified. Bruce Greenwood is effortlessly authoritative as U.S. ambassador Dwight Morrow, a charming and effective negotiator whose main concern in Mexico is U.S. oil interests, though he gradually becomes aware of the enormity of what is occurring. (A nice exchange between Morrow and Calles (Rubén Blades) about mole poblano over one of their famous breakfasts together fleetingly shows another side of Calles.)
Morrow helped negotiate the tragic deal between Calles and the Church leadership that ended the Cristero Rebellion. The Cristeros were essentially sold out, and Calles conceded almost nothing to the Church, even breaking his promise of amnesty and proceeding to execute more Cristeros than died in the war itself. The ambiguity with which the Cristero conflict ended is indicated in the film, though the desire for a triumphant climax somewhat blunts what might have been more effective as a tragic ending (à la The Mission).
Visiting Mexico earlier this year, Pope Benedict XVI highlighted ongoing restrictions on religious freedom in Mexico’s Constitution. In the United States, the U.S. bishops have made a top priority the defense of religious freedom against encroaching federal tyranny on a host of fronts, from immoral health-care mandates to acquiescence to same-sex “marriage.”
The magnitude of the conflict around religious freedom today is something no one could have predicted when production began on For Greater Glory. Some might call the film’s timing providential. I wouldn’t argue with them. For Greater Glory is the right movie at the right time.
Steven D. Greydanus is the Register’s film critic.
Content Advisory: Graphic wartime violence and some disturbing images, including torture and executions of youths and executions of clergy; clerical participation in war violence; desecration of churches and sacred articles. Could be too intense for younger teens.
Dan Burke: The Truth About Movies and Les Miserables
SDG: In 60 Seconds: ALL THREE Iron Man Movies! Pain & Gain! More!
Comments
Post a Comment
I am a believing and practicing Catholic. I find the glorification of this movie disturbing, especially the support that some Bishops have given it. In what way is the depiction of killing in the name of Christ (no matter what the precipitating cause) a “faith-friendly celebration”? Think upon this: which of the 12 Apostles fought, let alone killed, to defend their “right” to preach the gospel? Not a one. They preached the gospel and joyfully suffered persecution and even death for the sake of The Name. We ought to do the same. Christ calls us to die for Him, not kill for Him. Anything else is our own conceit.
It’s ironic that you should say that on the feast of St. Joan of Arc, David. Tell her how we’re all called to be pacifists.
David Galalis: Thanks for your thoughtful and welcome comments. Some questions to consider: May Catholics use peaceful means such as occupying private property to prevent it from being seized? If Catholics are attacked with lethal force, may they defend themselves with lethal force? May Catholics fight against an unjust regime when and where just war criteria are met? I’m not saying they were met in this case, but if they were could resistance be justified?
Tim Jones: Thanks for your thoughtful and welcome comments, too. :-)
David Galalis: Do you believe in the just war doctrine of the Church? It is a doctrine of the Church that war can be just and used in self defense.
Your comparison of the apostles and the early Church does not fit. The apostles were trying to establish the Church and Christendom. The Cristeros situation is more like the self defense of the French in Vendee against the Freemasons and like the Catholics during the Crusades against the Muslims.
@Steven D. Greydanus: You pose valid ethical questions. But my comment wasn’t directed so much to the morality or immorality of the Cristero War itself, or other similar scenarios. Rather, my disquiet comes more from the fact that For Greater Glory is being upheld by some Catholics as a celebration of the faith. Your review also takes this position. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Cristero War did in fact meet all the just war criteria (and let’s also assume that there is such a thing as a just war). Deliberate killing is still always a grievous and mournful thing, even when justified. Thus, I do not see how any movie where Catholics take up arms in defense of the faith, even if morally justified, can constitute a celebration of the Catholic faith. Such a thing is a tragedy.
David Galalis: Death is always a tragedy. Doing what is right, even when it involves tragic circumstances, can always be cause for celebration. Also, FWIW, the film is at least as much about dying for the faith, including dying an unresisting martyr’s death, as it is about killing for the faith.
Mr.Galalis ,
If your family would be attacked for their faith would you defend them ?
@Seraph: I believe that just war is a theoretical possibility, as generally laid out in CCC 2302 - 2317, and in CCC 2309 specifically, which sets out the rigorous and difficult to meet criteria. I do not know, however, if the Cristero War was ever formally declared just by the Vatican or if any credible scholars with full command of all the relevant historical facts have put forth that position. If you have citations to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested in exploring them. In either case, I maintain my original position vis a vis the promotion of this film: war, just or not, is a poor exemplar of the Catholic faith.
@ Cesar Sanchez. I assume you mean if they were physically attacked would I physically defend them. Absolutely I would. I would not, however, wish to have a movie about the episode promoted as a celebration of my Catholic faith. I would believe that such a film would grossly reduce what it meant to be Catholic, especially as viewed by a secular audience. My quarrel here isn’t with the Cristero War itself, but with the film concerning it being trumpeted as a beacon of Catholicism.
Steven,
I’m having a hard time reconciling this: “It’s also a milestone for faith-based productions generally: a sweeping, handsome epic with strong performances, solid production values and magnificent locations across Mexico.”
with this: “For the most part, everyone does and says exactly what one would expect of a character like them. Every priest is devout, and every executed priest and layman dies with edifying grace, and not a single federale troop involved in executing even priests and children shows the slightest hesitation or conflict.”
Is the film good but with some deep flaws or is it a flawed film with some nice moments?
Adolfo: It’s a good but flawed film. I stand by both sentences.
There’s more here that was in the history but may not be in the film (I haven’t seen it yet). This is Mexico in 1926. Hostilities from the Mexican Revolution had barely died down with the end of that war in 1920. To really get a feel for the central-western to north-western Mexican highlands in 1926, you’d have to put yourself in Atlanta or perhaps Memphis in 1871. The biggest difference between the Mexican Revolution and the American Civil War, however, is the scale of violence. Nearly 700,000 people died during our own Civil War, if memory serves, and this was in a total population of around 30 million. In Mexico, the 1911 population of around 10 million dropped to about 8 million by 1920. Thus, the net births minus deaths was around negative 2 million – a figure that suggests that maybe 3 or 4 million people actually died during the Revolution (because some were born also). The scale of violence in Mexico compared to what the U.S. experienced was partly due to improved military technology – all the better to kill with, and more efficiently. But partly it was due to the extremely widespread despair that permeated the Mexican population. To give you an idea, the Mexican Revolution started and stopped several times from 1911 to 1913. There were revolts and counter-revolts; negotiations, agreements and broken promises. Lots of people died, but the serious business of war had not yet started. There was one ongoing rebellion in the southern part of the country (led by Emiliano Zapata), but the real violence had yet to begin. In February, 1913, the fighting finally reached Mexico City. There were artillery battles in the city itself. Some soldiers commandeered the building which is now the National Library and, essentially, launched artillery fire into the heart of the city during a 10-day period known as La Decena Tragica.
The war would get worse, and the fighting was desperate. One notable observation: when General Pershing’s forces entered Mexico in 1915 to chase down Francisco Villa, some of the soldiers observed the combat tactics of some of the more poorly equipped Mexican soldiers. A group might be armed only with lassos, and the group would attack a machine gun nest. Several in the group would be gunned down, but eventually one would get to the nest, take out the gunner, and win the machine gun over to his side. Such was the desperation with which the Revolution was fought.
So 1917 rolled around, and a Constitution was ratified. Fighting wouldn’t officially end until 1920, and even then, fighting would continue in pockets here and there. That’s how wars are. During the worst of the fighting, there were four main revolutionary factions: Venustiano Carranza in the northeast; Villa in the north, Alvaro Obregon in the northwest; and Emiliano Zapata in the south. This is another marked difference between the Revolution and our own Civil War: these factions didn’t necessarily trust each other, so where there were 2 main fighting forces in the U.S., there were 4 in Mexico, sometimes fighting each other, sometimes fighting whoever was occupying Mexico City at the time. And Mexico City was essentially a fifth faction, when it wasn’t held by one (or more) of the four.
This is the backdrop of the Cristero War. Ten years of the worst violence that the western hemisphere has ever seen, followed by a restless peace, and a brand-new caudillo, Obregon, in the presidency. Celebrating this kind of violence would be grotesque. Suggesting that families faced with it ought to set everything aside and simply die – for the faith or any other reason – is obscene. In such an environment, people simply defend themselves, and the central powers either work to end the violence or they don’t. In Mexico, not only did the government fail to work towards pacifying the country, it actually used the violence as a pretext to increase violent pressure upon the populace. And it was directed straight at Catholics, because they were Catholic. Self-defense, it seems to me, was the only option.
Why is so little said about the role of the Masonic Order?
Amen Chris. The picture you paint of the conflict in Mexico helps one better understand why the Cristeros rebelled as they did. I feel it was justifiable.
The strong call to see this film is there because it reveals the strong belief that our objection to the threat to our own religious freedoms is nothing to take lightly. Our bishops are counseling us to to civil disobedience should the Supreme Court rule in favor of HHS. One thing is certain, it does take a crisis to bring us together. We are at war to protect life, not at a war against women.
Having myself benefitted, too, from the opportunity to get a “sneak peak” at the film a couple of weeks ago, I left the film with 2 questions: 1) How much am I willing to sacrifice for the faith and for religious freedom? 2) Am I willing to give my life for Jesus, particularly in defense of all the “unpopular” positions His Church stands for (i.e contraception, marriage between one man and one woman, adult stem-cell research - not embryonic, etc…)?
I am a Spanish journalist and I could interview director Dean Wright about the film (you can read the whole interview in Spanish tomorrow in http://www.religionenlibertad.com). About masonry, he told me that, simply, you can not tell too many things in a film and he had to choose topics. I also asked him many questions about the ethics of violence. He said that he loves epic (he has enjoyed working in Narnia a Lord of the Rings) but he didn’t want to glorify violence. “We do not only show battles but also their consecuences, suffering and tragedy that war brings. They were brothers killing brothers, just like in the Spanish or American civil wars. As a film-maker I can not preach and tell “that should not have happened”, I can only tell what happened but it was horrible and I show it.”
He also told me that “this story is not told by a Mexican; I’m the teller, and I’m a presbiterian gringo; my father is a presbiterian pastor and I tell a story of Catholic martyrs. The resistence of those people to oppresion seemed heroic to me, I connected with the story. I wanted the (north)American viewers to enjot the story and to admire Mexicans, maybe as they have never done. I felt moved by the Cristiada. Maybe a film about the martyrs of Spain should need a foreign film-maker”.
@David Galalis,
I think you have a total misinterpretation of the support of the film, I think its about living, defending the faith and martyrdom than anything else, natural law teaching in the church allows us to defend ourselves and our way of life, either at an individual level or in case of war, witness the Crusades, French Revolution, Spanish Civil War, etc., violence does not have to be the solution, whats going on in the USA today can be countered with peaceful demonstration’s as our bishops have called for and voting your conscience this fall (that’s assuming your conscience is well formed).
I have no wish for lethal battles and do not own a gun. I do,however, pray for the grace to accept whatever cost may be required to defend the right to life and of the dignity of true marriage. Defending either one of those in the public square is set up for punishment as our secular society embraces the killing of the unborn and promotes and protects sodomy and there seems to be few voices to say to those involved that their souls are in eternal danger.
St. Thomas More died to uphold the dignity of true marriage and for the primacy of the Pope. Are we, am I, willing to do the same? Some martyrs were killed for not stepping on a Crucifix; would I lay down my life for that? I truly hope so.
Interesting that it comes out on First Friday. The Sacred Heart was the badge used by anti-Revolutionary troops in France during the First French Revolution.
The reviews of the secular critics are predictably withering.
This is really simple, you find it “disturbing” that Steve and some Bishops have promoted this movie? Well, why would they (and we) not? This is the story of heroes of the Catholic Faith…the martyrs of our Church! With the whole HHS Mandate in the current news, this film makes it debut at a perfect time! Viva Cristo Rey!
//Like many faith-based productions//
What a trite and overused expression or idea.
I stand with Adolfo: “It’s a good but flawed film. I stand by both sentences”
It was an enjoyable piece of theater, but, in my opinion, the tension between “I will never fight. Our Lord is the Prince of Peace!” and the ensuing violence was never really explored. As such, I did feel like the violence was indulged and glorified. I would suggest that the movie “The Mission” did a far better job of examining this tension.
My favourite part of the movie was the beginning section with Peter O’Toole. Simply superb. Those few minutes preached the Gospel more clearly and was infinitely more inspiring to me than the bloodbath which followed.
‘For Greater Glory’ was a decent film. Not a great film. It lacked I felt in how it told it’s story. Minus a few scenes i didn’t think it was all that stirring or moving. It is an important film at an important time but given the chance I would probably go see Avengers again or perhaps re-watch Braveheart which is on the par a similar style of a film as ‘For Greater Glory’, although less historically accurate but more entertaining. Both have great and similar speech’s by the main stars. Both are persecuted by the local establishment. I wouldn’t say avoid FGG but I wouldn’t enthusasically say ‘Run out and See it.’. I would advise waiting for it on DVD and renting from Redbox, Netflix or the Library. I wanted to like it more but the story, although important, did not excite me at all.
David, not to start a side bar thread, but since you cast some doubt on whether or not there is even such a thing as a just war, I recommend familiarizing yourself with Catholic teaching on just war and legitimate defense. A good place to start is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2307-17. Jesus the Prince of Peace singled out the Roman centurion’s comparison of faith with the military chain of command (Matthew 8:5-13) as an example of faith “greater than in all Israel.” Further, our Lord did not shy away from analogizing the cost of discipleship to a king preparing for war (Luke 14:31-33) or recommending that His disciples arm themselves (“Let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one” per Luke 22:36.)
The whole New Testament (the Old even more so) is replete with teaching images drawn from a military context. Thus, II Cor. 10:3-4 (“weapons of our warfare”), Eph. 6:10-17 (“Put on the full armor of God “), I Tim. 1:18 (“Fight the good fight”), and II Tim. 2:3-4 (”...a good soldier of Jesus Christ”). St. Paul eagerly accepted the help of Roman military escorts and guards in order to protect his life (Acts 23:12-33; 28:16), and referred to government officials who use the sword to punish evildoers as “ministers of God” (Rom. 13:4). Pacifism works better in theory than in practice.
Praise God and all his angels for cops and armies.
With the recent dearth of good movies to see lately, I’m delighted to be calling Friday date night! I was so inspired by a book that I read on the life of Miguel Agustin Pro, that I named my fourth born after him—he is one of my “go to” family friends in heaven. I felt encouraged by this review unlike the reviews for TBD (which I couldn’t bring myself to watch after five minutes.) I hope this movie inspires Mexicans, who are seeing their great country with so much beautiful potential, being destroyed from the inside out again…And Steven, it would be great if you did the Catholic version of “rotten tomatoes” (which I rely on far too much—those percentages they post are so to the point). Maybe get your wife to help out with reviewing the chick movies. Viva Cristo Rey!
This sounds so much like the events that occurred in the Vendee regions of Western France in 1794 during the French Revolution. Republican French Troops (anti-Catholic and anti-aristocratic) swept through the Vendee region after a successful rebellion of peasants defending their Catholic faith and priests (the new government ordered all faithful priests to the pope to be kicked out and replaced by government clergy, Church property was siezed by the government, and bishops were forbidden to communicate with Rome). The result was the massacare of Catholic peasants and priests by government troops that many scholars consider to be the first modern genocide. Now that would be an interesting movie!
If I ever make it to Heaven (a big “if”) and if I am allowed to choose my own corner of it, I would like to spend eternity in the company of the crusaders, the Vendeans, the chouans, the Cristeros and the Spanish requetes, under the stern gaze of Saint George and Saint Joan of Arc. Just a wish… Viva Cristo Rey!
Why could someone compare the Cristero Wars to the crusades is beyond me. In the crusades, the Muslims were defending from the Christians who have invaded their homelands.
astran:
I’m not sure I follow you, friend. You’re objecting to my phrase “Like many faith-based productions”? What if I had said “Like many New York indie films” or “Like many curry Westerns”? Is there something about the phrase “faith-based productions” that’s a problem, or is it comparing movies to other movies that are in some relevant ways similar that you don’t like?
Restless Pilgrim:
That’s me you’re quoting, not Adolpho. :-)
Sir Robert:
There actually is a recent film about the War of the Vendee. It’s from Navis Pictures, which makes faith-based productions starring children (in grown-up roles). I haven’t seen it.
Pepe:
The idea that the Crusades was about Muslims “defending” “their” land against Christian invaders lacks historical perspective. Per Anton Ego, it is the critic’s job to provide perspective, so please see the opening of my review of the recent Crusader drama Kingdom of Heaven (and the linked article at ChristianityToday.com).
Restless:
That’s true :)
I haven’t seen the movie yet so I can’t say boo about whether it’s good or bad. I was just confused by the review a little.
Oh, and it’s Adolfo. Pet peeve. ;)
Last thing I need to see is a heavy-handed partisan historical epic, even if it is less heavy-handed and less partisan than its fellows in the small, diseased pool that usually passes for the subgenre “Christian film.”
I’ve been reading Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory this week in anticipation of tonight’s opening. I am struck how the two works (in different medium) tell the same story from such different perspectives. One in the manner of a John Ford-style epic and the other from the gutter (albeit looking up à la Wilde).
I think the most controversial question has to be: why does Steven give the film a B+ at DecentFilms.com, and an A- at ReelFaith? :)
Ubiquitous: I have no quarrel with the content of your comments, but your tone seems to me unnecessarily violent.
All films preach some sort of message, and all films are flawed; but it seems like overtly Catholic films receive more than their share of critical wrath.
msb: Good looking out. I can think of a number of possible explanations for the rating discrepancy…but beyond the vagaries of this particular case my personal bottom line is that I don’t sweat ratings much; the review is what really matters.
David A: I don’t know if MOST faith-based productions get more than their share of critical venom (I’m not sure THERE BE DRAGONS was treated very unfairly by critics)—but I do think THIS film has gotten a bit of a raw deal. Ebert was one of the few who seemed to be trying to be fair, but I think he ultimately sold it short for non-critical reasons.
Re: Ebert’s review.
He really did, didn’t he? His objections to the film all seemed to be based on his discomfort with the “myopic” view of the filmmakers. I found that odd coming from him since he’s pretty fair about things like that (he gave PotC 5 stars).
Mr. Greydanus: Sorry if that seemed violent. Let me put it this way: I already say “Christmas with a Capital C.” I have no desire to go through that again, especially if it’s a Catholic version.
.
What happened to “The Mission”? “The Passion of the Christ”? Even “The Decalogue” strikes me as a more Catholic film—- well, miniseries—- because it deals with the raw side of sin rather than treacly one-upmanship of suffering. I’ll let the Protestants pump out pablum. I expect better if film’s going to represent a better, more honest faith.
.
If there’s ever going to be an honest adaptation of that part of Mexican history, it’s going to be more like an adaptation of The Power and the Glory; at least, it should be one which acknowledges that anti-clericalism doesn’t grow in a vacuum, or infects so completely at all levels.
... I already saw “Christmas with a Capital C.” ...
Adolpho: At least Ebert credits the film with being well made, having goo production values, etc. Many of the harsher reviews didn’t even do that.
He seems to me to stumble over two things. First, although Ebert has a genuine appreciation for Catholic tradition on a number of levels, he seems to me to stumble at the idea of martyrdom. One might almost call it a martyrdom anti-fetish. I think it shows in what I take to be his wholly inadequate review of OF GODS AND MEN; it may even be a factor in his head-scratching review of THE MISSION. Any movie that celebrates a teenager accepting torture and death because he won’t say “Death to Cristo Rey” has at best an uphill battle with Ebert, if there’s even a fighting chance at all.
Then there’s the historical context of Mexico in the 1920s, which involved what was fundamentally a state war specifically on the Catholic Church in a society that was overwhelmingly if not monolithically Catholic. That’s not to say that adherents of other religions weren’t affected or involved, but it’s just not anybody else’s story, and there’s no basis in the film for Ebert challenging the Catholic characters for somehow denying religious freedom to non-Catholics.
Ubiquitous: Thanks, that’s much better said.
Your point about “Christmas with a capital C” is well taken, and no one would like to see more films in the mold of THE MISSION than I. This film isn’t that. In a way it’s more BRAVEHEART in spirit, not with respect to spectacular battle scenes (the action is more Western epic, and few of the action scenes are particularly well done, though thee are a couple) nor with respect to pseudo-historical mythology (the film sticks closer to the real outline of history), but in its appropriation of history AS SAGA, a topic C. S. Lewis touches on in THE FOUR LOVES in the chapter on “Likings and Loves for the Sub-human.”
It’s not a searching exploration of the historical record, or a frank cross-examination of both sides. That kind of movie is potentially more powerful to me, but I respect an appreciate the kind of movie FOR GREATER GLORY is too.
FWIW, while it could be a better movie in a number of respects, there’s nothing here like the lame comedy of the Magi in THE NATIVITY STORY, and the negotiations of Calles and Morrow are far more interesting than any of TNS’s political intrigues with the two Herods, etc.
What connects the two films is that to my mind they are both films worth advocating in part because they are both films that try to fill a gap in the cinematic record, to do something that needs doing and hasn’t been done.
I admit that after a number of Christmas season viewings THE NATIVITY STORY’s flaws detract more from my enjoyment of the film than they did at first. Right now I might say FOR GREATER GLORY is a more interesting film, though obviously on a less needful topic. And for what it’s worth I’ve already seen it twice.
Not being competent to consider Ebert’s biases—- I’ll take your word for it—- we should consider films which are history-as-saga. Because Catholicism is supposed to be about universals, and especially universal truth, it’s above appropriating history as saga. This sort of film—- putting aside this particular film for the moment—- only makes us look tribal.
.
History-as-saga filmmaking could damage, proportionate to its thankfully small influence, our credibility. Are we really so desperate for excuses to make ourselves feel good that we’ll throw our money towards a production which intends precisely that? At least, that’ll be how it looks. Oh, and there’s always: “So you had to pull from an obscure point of history to make yourselves look good? You bunch of hypocrites. I’m going to watch THE BORGIAS to see how things really are around Catholics.” Honesty, even in storytelling, is the best policy.
.
A triumphal tone excludes those who need to see it and confirms our status as a quirky, self-contained, self-aggrandizing subculture with no interest in actually reaching outside our parishes. Christian filmmakers must stop consistently underrating the value of presentation in shooting or subtlety in storytelling. It isn’t that Catholicism portrayed honestly or well prevents audiences coming to the movies or critics from liking them. It’s the twee preachiness. For that matter, this, rather than a personal religiousity, is probably what drives most folks away from movies with rabid anti-religious themes—- but nobody tell the producers of THE LEDGE.
.
Illustration of the above points: Do you know someone other than Catholics or Critics you think would see this film? Or anyone but a Christian who would even entertain the idea? If not, this movie may be doing its job, but it’s doing the wrong job. If I want to feel good for an afternoon, I’ll go watch THE AVENGERS.
.
Besides: Between this and THERE BE DRAGONS, we’ve pretty much saturated the market on Cristeros War films. Chances that we’ll get to see more than one more major feature in the next twenty years would already be low, notwithstanding one hack effort and one saga with a target audience.
Ubiquitous: I commend Lewis’s essay to you. Beyond that, I will just note that I am aware of only one Cristero War film, this one. There Be Dragons was set amid the Spanish Civil War, on a different continent and in a different decade. (I would be happy for another Spanish Civil War film that actually had a clue about the Spanish Civil War to offer viewers.)
Well, just goes to show: Better to keep your mouth closed ...
“For Greater Glory” was one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. I did not know very much about this war, but I left at the end asking God to bless those who made this film and asking Him for the courage to die for my faith if He calls me to it.
Ubiquitous: Which is not to say you don’t have a point. Cheers.
Oh, I didn’t mean to accuse you.
“... and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Divvied up that quote at the wrong point.
I’ll check out THE FOUR LOVES. I tried reading it once and found it not very readable, but presumably that was my fault the first time. I’ll try it again.
Shirley J. Schuiltz: Thanks for writing. I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Ubiquitous: No worries. I understood your winsomely self-deprecating comment the first time. Cheers.
I thought FGF was a very good movie that inspired me to want to learn more about the Cristeros War and the events leading up.
I do wonder why no mention was made of Fr. (Blessed) Miguel Pro, who famously shouted, “Viva Cristo Rey!” while being martyred by a firing squad during the war in 1927.
This film reminded me of the horror of war, but that sometimes there is no other option. It also made wonder if I would have the courage that young Jose (Blessed) Sanchez showed when he refused to deny his faith and was murdered because of it.
The movie also reminds me that religious freedom can be taken away by those in authority.
Mike Sweeney: Yes, the omission of Blessed Miguel Pro is one of the more curious choices the filmmakers made.
It’s true that I felt that There Be Dragons did itself no favors including just enough of St. Josemaría Escrivá to make me wish there were more, and I wouldn’t want For Greater Glory to make a similar mistake with Blessed Miguel Pro.
But I think a few vignettes on Pro, perhaps comparable to the presence of Anacleto Gonzalez Flores, would not have been out of place.
I believe that during the credits they actually showed Father Pro’s martyrdom. I didn’t realize it had been filmed. I wrote a review of the film tonight over at the Aquinas and More blog.
Yes, father Pro’s martyrdom is shown during the credits and if you watch closely you can see his verbal shout, “Viva Cristo Rey!” in the film just before his execution.
I don’t understand the negative reactions to the film. I went to see it with my family and friends and at the end of the movie left the movie house totally stunned by what we had watch. The Cristero Revolution was not news to me because I teach Church History and know about this dark period of the history of the Church in Mexico. What I did not know is that many Mexicans, through this film, are finding out the truth for the first time. To those that state that somehow as Catholics we should not glorify violence, I understand their concerns, but I don’t think the Cristeros were glorifying violence. The movie and history clearly showed Catholics had no choice but to defend their faith. The same happened at the Vendee in France during the French Revolution and the same happened to Christians when radical Muslims closed the holy places to Christian pilgrimages and would not allow us to come into Jerusalem. What about Spaniard Catholics in 1936? What were they supposed to do against evil forces bent on the destruction of the Church?
At the present moment our religious freedom is being threatened by the Federal government and we can still use peaceful means to resist their encroachment of religious freedom, but what would happen to us, as Catholics, if the Federal Government were to decide to force us to go against our consciences the way Plutarco Elías Calles forced Catholics to see it his way and his way only?
Eva Longoria——-I heard her say when coming home from a film festival that she was eager to get home to start campaigning for Barack Obama. I wouldn’t pay a penny to see her in anything. Boo to Eva Longoria.
I was moved to tears as were my friends while watching this true and tragic story no one wants the world to know about.My grandparents left Mexico in the early 1920’s.They used to speak to me of the persecution of the church in Mexico.My grandfarher always said the day was coming when Mexico would pay a high price for all that has happened to the church.That day has come grandfather.Jesus told Peter you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church.Altough many perils will come against my church my church will stand.Viva Christo Rey!Viva La Virgen De Guadalupe!
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.