The following essay by Father Robert Barron, rector of Mundelein Seminary, appeared July 31 on Real Clear Religion.
Who would have thought that Woody Allen, who twenty years after separating from his longtime girlfriend to notoriously marry her adopted daughter, would emerge as a defender of what can only be called traditional morality?
And yet, I find that conclusion unavoidable after viewing the writer-director’s most recent offering, To Rome With Love. This film is the latest in a series of Woody Allen movies — Match Point, Vicky Christina, Barcelona, Midnight in Paris — celebrating great European cities, and it shares with the last of those three a certain whimsical surrealism.
To Rome With Love presents a number of story lines, none of which interweave at the narrative level, but all of which share a thematic motif, namely, the need to resist those things that would tempt us away from real love. The funniest and most bizarre of Allen’s tales has to do with a very ordinary man, Leopoldo, played by the wonderful Italian character actor Roberto Benigni, who one day inexplicably finds himself the center of intense media attention.
As he makes his way to his car, Leopoldo is mobbed by photographers and reporters peppering him with questions about his breakfast preferences and his favorite shaving cream. Everywhere he goes, he is recognized and lionized. Women suddenly appear, offering themselves for his sexual gratification. When he asks one of his colleagues why this is happening, the answer comes: “You’re famous for being famous.”
Now at one level, of course, this is a parody of our “breaking news,” celebrity obsessed, Kardashian culture. But Allen uses this little fantasy to make another deeper observation.
Though put off by many aspects of his “fame,” Leopoldo also becomes addicted to it.
When another very ordinary figure suddenly attracts the media spotlight, Leopoldo, lamenting his lost fame, dances on one foot in the middle of a busy intersection just to get people to notice him once more. At this point, the poor man’s wife intervenes, and Leopoldo realizes that his notoriety, superficial and evanescent, is no match for the affection of his wife and children.
Another farcical tale has to do with Milly and Antonio, a newly-wed couple from the Italian countryside who have ventured into Rome for their honeymoon. Looking for a hairdresser, Milly gets hopelessly lost and finds herself on the set of a movie starring one of her favorite actors.
In short order, the leading-man charms her, romances her and leads her back to his hotel room. But before he can complete his seduction, they are held up at gunpoint by a thief who manages to chase the frightened actor away. Dazzled by his looks and by the “excitement” he represents, Milly then gives in and makes love to the thief.
Meanwhile, in a case of mistaken identity, the abandoned Antonio meets Anna, a voluptuous prostitute played by Allen favorite Penelope Cruz. Despite his embarrassment and protestations, Antonio gives in to Anna’s charms and allows himself to be seduced.
Both covered in shame, Milly and Antonio eventually make their way back to their honeymoon hotel suite and admit to one another that they would like to return to their home in the country and raise a family….
To read entire posting, click here.
I admire Father Barron greatly, but for once in my life I have gained the courage to disagree with a priest, no matter how admirable. I feel that Thomas Aquinas could say it better and did say it better. I cannot imagine any world religion considering honoring Woody Allen as a doctor of their faith, nor could I conceive, no matter how many more morality vignettes he inserts into his future films, of any religious group whatsoever agreeing to establish a Woody Allen College.
Just because the ending is ok, does not mean that we should sit through the rest of the garbage.
Yes, who would have thought that Woody Allen could provide such edifying, uplifting and wholesome entertainment for the masses, particularly young Catholics!
As usual, Fr Barron shares his insights with elegance and compassion. I much admire his temperate restraint in assessing character in his artistic judgment. I confess that I was not a fan of ‘Midnight in Paris” not because I found Allen’s personal morals objectionable but because I feel he’s completely lost his artistic edge. Like so many people in the arts, they don’t want to give up the business and hubbub of performing to their adoring fans even though they have nothing more to say. They may believe they’re being heroic or ever-dynamic (the show must go on, going out with my boots on et al) when if people would just be honest they might see they’re actually damaging their earliest and best work, ala Gloria Swansen in ‘Sunset Blvd’. I thought Mid. In Paris was smaltzy and made me feel claustrophobic like I was viewing life in a musty closet. Clint Eastwood on the other hand, must have a portrait corrupting a closet somewhere,ala Dorian Grey’. Ha! Anyway, I think it’s wonderful how Fr. Barron can enable us to view the world from a St.Thomasian lens. His World on Fire website chats are like intellectual oases of serenity and discerment. I hope his commitments at Mundelein Sem. don’t limit them!
Woody Allen as St. Thomas Aquinas is a disgusting thought, demeaning to St. Thomas and everyone who appreciates St. Thomas’ writings. The only character in that movie worth a darn was the character of Allen’s long suffering wife, putting up with his stupidities and annoying personality traits; whom we would have to assume never strayed, but doesn’t get recognized for her faithfulness. What else is new?
Why are we to even consider this as having a positive (I doubt it though) aspect? This movie is rated “R”. End of discussion
Maryanne, I agree with you, but I think his intention may have been finding common ground with Church teaching and apparently he went overboard? no one should be star struck when assessing the artistic and moral merits of any work of art. I should have used the word ugly perhaps rather than smaltzy? Nothing ugly would pass muster with St. Thomas I would imagine since beauty is a way of exemplifying Truth.
With all due respect I can’t help but wonder why Fr. Barron would even bother with this Woody Allen garbage…
God bless and always protect and guide Father Barron and the rest of us, too. Shouldn’t he, and each of us, start seeing the danger in films such as this? Shouldn’t he, and us, in fact, curtail our movie-going? After all, even the USCCB rates this film as “L,” which stands for “limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.” Not only that, but the USCCB reviewer writes that the movie is “likely to prove too spicy an offering even for most grownups.” That reviewer adds, “The film contains a benign view of adultery and nonmarital sex, much sexual innuendo, as well as some uses of profanity and of rough language.”
I am with all the others who have commented on ‘why did Fr Barrone feel he had to comment on the likes of what Woody Allan puts out?’ I would never ever spend one red dime on anything that man has ever put out. I put him on the same plane as Hugh Hefnner in that they both do the work of the devil.
Thank you Fr. for the review as nicely written as a movie critic. Though love triumphed in the end the characters went through experiencing the temptations and sin by being lured by someone or something, no different then Adam and Eve, Sin is sin, except today it can be called mistakes, character defects, excuses, (fill in your own). What Woody Allen could have done to make this worthy of Father’s review in comparing to Thomas Aquinas and what Thomas said of the Happy Life is to direct them to go to confession. That is what I felt I needed to do after seeing this film.
I never liked Woody Allen, so why even bother watching any movies he’s in or anything about the man.
Abeca, in his early days he was really a very funny guy! Brilliant, actually. He wasn’t obsessed with sex and boring intrigues with his cast like he is now. He should have stuck with playing his clarinet, at which he greatly excels