Maybe I'm a bit behind with this, but I was very interested to find Barbara Nicolosi's comments on the release of this new movie about St. Thérèse of Lisieux. She basically thinks it was a colossal waste of time and money, because the story and the acting are weak.
I'm very glad I didn't sink any money into this project. It's one thing to trust in God for the success of the project, but I thought that a famous Saint said we are supposed to pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything depended on us. Stated differently, God's grace works through our efforts, not in their stead. Trying to undertake such a large and important project, without the necessary skills, is irresponsible at best and scandalous at worst.
[Via Catholic Light]
I actually saw the movie.
I cannot say if it was a colossal waste of time and money, because I don't know what time or what money were expended on it, nor do I know WHOSE time and money were expended, and they would be the only real judges of that.
Well, actually, I suppose 7.50 of my money WAS spent on it, and that I do not consider a waste.
Was it a great movie?
No.
Was it even a good movie? No.
(But it was not a bad movie, which is rarer than it ought to be.)
Technically it was, in many respects, amateurish, and much of the acting was clumsy. (There were also some lovely, albeit minor, acting performances and moments.)
But I remind myself that I have happily spent considerably more time and more money on children's religious pageants, amateur theatricals, and earnestly sung college choral concerts, never considering them a waste because they were not as good as they could have been.
And it was as well made as, better than, really, too much that finds it way onto television.
Could a fine cinematic work have brought Therese's story to more people who were not otherwise familiar with it?
Probably. (Though how many, in this country at least, without a previous interest in or knowledge of the Little Flower, saw the marvelous Alain Cavaliere [sp?] film? Few, I imagine.)
Could this movie have been better if its creators had taken the advice of those with more experience?
Indubitably.
But unless the makers deceived their backers in some way, I don't see any more "scandal" in it than in a mediocre college production of Murder in the Cathedral.
I went to see it with an eye toward making it, when it becomes available, part of a program of "popular" movies about saints, for some school groups, and it is at least as plausibly useful as the big screen epic starring Michael Rennie and Anthony Quinn about Junipero Serra that I just sat through. (The name escapes me.)
The film was not at all a waste of time. In fact, it was beautiful, meaningful, and reasonably well done. Big name actors and special effects are frankly overrated.
True, modern movies don't attract huge audiences without all the Hollywood glamour and glitz. Yet a film doesn't need to attract huge audiences to be profoundly influential. If it inspires one small saint somewhere -- one little flower -- it will have done more than the largest Hollywood budget.
Barb Nicolosi needs to choose her side.
I finally got the opportunity to see the movie at a local theater. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw.
Yes, the movie was not as slick as one might expect of a typical Hollywood production; and yes, it did give the sense that it was a series of connected scenes, rather than a continuous story, but overall it was very effective.
I thought the characters were credible, the acting was good, and the overall story was inspiring and got the message across.
If it were to come out on DVD, I would certainly buy it.