Although I am no fan of Johnny Depp as a public figure, --and his attraction as a sex symbol is quite beyond me--as an actor he is pretty damn good. Especially in some dark films: From Hell, which I am watching now; a version of Jack the Ripper with royal and Masonic intrigue. The Libertine, in which he played the self-destructive Restoration Earl of Rochester. And The Ninth Gate, a tale of bibliophilia and Satanism. I have watched all these films more than twice, with pleasure.
And he was pretty amusing in the pirate films, too. No small trick to play so fey and still a randy woman-chaser.
Two free associations:
A. It's funny how, in very Protestant countries like England, Scotland and America, where the superstitious rites of Romish Popery are condemned as elitism and idolatry, the secret organization of Freemasonry, with its hierarchy, rites and clothing and ceremonies, has thrived.
B. And how wise previous civilizations were who enjoyed seeing actors play, but never imagined them to be "celebrities" who could pontificate on politics and culture, and instead thought of them not too differently from prostitutes. Why do we give such status to people whose gift lies merely in making believe they are other people? Apparently their finest performances are in making us believe they are more than actors.
1 comment:
Good blogging! ... Maybe to see the RCatholic Church whole one must see it both as RCatholics see it and as Protestants see it (coincidence of opposites). Presumably the same is true of Western Christianity too (seeing it both as a Western Christian sees it and as an Eastern Orthodox or, better, a Coptic Christian). ... But here's a question that apparently doesn't occur much: what exactly or even vaguely are Protestant "churches"? Considering the good and bad achievements of Protestant Christianity, Protestants and their institutions must somehow be something or other. I wonder how serious RCatholics sincerely see Protestants and Protestant "churches" besides as individuals and groups that claim to be Christian but have the effrontery or obtuseness to dismiss the charisma and claims of "the" Church. Presumably as "church" our groups don't seem like much (except maybe in music) -- but what exact sort of "not much"? ... I guess an Eastern Orthodox Christian's impression of Protestantism/s would not be that enlightening, since (I guess) they have spent no time encountering us, having to take our assertions seriously. In contrast, RCatholics have (I gather) tended rather to shy away from a direct encounter with Paul's letters lest "protestant" conclusions be drawn. (Maybe EOrthodox shy away from a direct encounter with the Bible tout court lest everything be thrown into too much clear relief.) ... In any case, Protestants have a definite conflicted, contradictory sense of the RCC: as "Romish Popery" and so on, but also as maintaining the counsels of perfection, as having something to do with the power of the keys given to Peter ("They're the Pope's"), besides having had a strong foregound presentation of institution that impresses any outside observer. ... But have the Masons actually thriven more in Protestant lands? The RCC seems more 'paranoid' about Masons within "the" Church. I wonder if this vigilance occurs because of the borad similarities in terms of "hierarchy, rites and clothing and ceremonies." To secularness or Protestant experience, a fancy temple either fascinates and inspires awe or seems absurd: either way Sunday worship at Knox Presbyterian or, forgive me, St Anselm's Anglican, isn't threaten'd. ...
Post a Comment