As part of our promotional efforts for The Wedding Routine, we’ve launched a Goodreads Giveaway. One hundred lucky readers will win a free e-book version of this uplifting romantic comedy. Entering is easy and free! Just follow this link to Goodreads and sign up. In the first hour of the giveaway, more than 100 readers have entered! The contest runs for three weeks, and winners will have their downloads in time for Christmas.
Brighten your holiday season with this delightful tale of a struggling dance instructor who has all the right moves for wedding choreography, but can’t find the rhythm in her own romantic life. Comedic actress Laura Orrico calls The Wedding Routine, “real, raw and heartwarmingly funny.” Comedian Michael Pritchard calls Kevin Rush “a brilliant writer.”
Kevin Rush is the author of The Lance and the Veil, an adventure in the time of Christ, and Earthquake Weather, a novel for Catholic teens. He drew on his love of classic films and his years of experience studying Ballroom, Swing, Hustle, and Latin Rhythm dancing to write an engaging romance in the spirit of an old Bing Crosby Christmas movie. If you don’t want to wait for the chance of an e-book, the paperback version is available now. Just click the image below.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. When you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, the website receives a small commission at no extra charge to you. These commission support the website and my writing. Thank you for your support.
Author Kevin Rush serves up a heartwarming romantic comedy just in time for Christmas
If you’re looking for a fun and uplifting read during the holiday season, you’ve just found it. Here’s the description from the back cover:
To Have and To Hold…for the Next Two Minutes!
Celia Cleary is a champion ballroom dancer who makes her meager living choreographing wedding dances. But when her uncle, a Catholic priest, implores her to “Help these couples commit to their marriage,” Celia is adamant. “I am not anyone to be giving relationship advice.” Now, with her love life in tatters, her studio on the brink of bankruptcy, and her three Christmas wedding couples barely on speaking terms, Celia must reassess her mission. Her business has been all about the two-minute routine: a picture-perfect image to cherish forever. But maybe forever needs a little bit more.
As always, Kevin Rush delivers unsparing reality, rapier wit, and a Christian heart that ensures an emotional payoff. Funny and heartwarming, yet grounded in the bittersweet angst of single life, The Wedding Routine is an uplifting tale of love for Christmas and any time of the year.
“The Wedding Routine is real, raw and heartwarmingly funny. In the “song and dance” of life, this lovely story teaches how to lead with your heart. It showcases how helping people not only benefits those receiving, but is therapeutic for those who give.”
— Laura Orrico, TV and Film Actress and President of Laura Orrico Public Relations, LLC
The Wedding Routine is available right now in paperback at Amazon. There should be no supply chain problems, because the books are printed in the good ol’ USA. If you prefer a Kindle edition, you’ll have to wait a bit, because we’re running a Goodreads Giveaway for the e-book format. You can take a chance on the Giveaway starting Sunday 11/28 at noon. The Giveaway will end a week before Christmas, so this lovely story will help you get into the holiday spirit.
Independent authors need your support!
As an independent author, I’ve got no publisher, distribution or promotion machine behind me. I rely heavily on word of mouth and social media postings. If you agree there’s a place in our culture for this kind of literature, and you want to help me reach my audience, here are a few steps you can take.
It’s the season of giving, so why not buy a few copies to give to the readers in your life?
Share this post and future promo posts on social media.
Get the word out to friends who might be interested, especially avid readers and book club members.
Go to Goodreads and enter the Giveaway, even if you’re going to buy a paperback
While at Goodreads, mark The Wedding Routine “Want to Read”
Once you’ve read the book, leave a review on Amazon and/or Goodreads. Positive reviews are like gold to independent authors.
Thank you for your generous support during this busy Christmas season.
I hope that reading The Wedding Routine will make your holidays a little brighter, funnier, and heartfelt. Given what we’ve all been through for the last 20 months, we can use the laughter, the tears and the irrepressible optimism this book delivers.
Disclaimer: Links in this article might be affiliate links. When you click on a affiliate link and make a purchase, the website gets a small commission at no additional charge to you. These commissions support the website and my creative efforts. Thank you for your support.
Principals collaborate for 2001: A Space Odyssey; director smears writer of Starship Troopers. By Kevin Rush
Boldly enigmatic, notoriously inscrutable, and featuring a grandiose fusion of classical music and cinematic images, Stanley Kubrick’s dazzling science fiction epic, 2001: A Space Odyssey has mesmerized and confounded audiences for decades. Released in 1968, 2001 was largely ignored at Oscar time. But today, the American Film Institute ranks it as the greatest science fiction film of all time.
2001 began as a collaboration between producer/director Kubrick and the famed sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke. The plot is drawn from Clarke’s 1951 short story, The Sentinel of Eternity, and deals with the essential theme of his 1953 novel, Childhood’s End, wherein extraterrestrial beings nudge along the final evolution of humankind. Childhood’s End solidified Clarke’s reputation, and he was eventually ranked as one of the ‘Big Three’ sci-fi writers of his generation, along with Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein. But with 2001, Kubrick and Clarke worked together to pen the screenplay. Clarke did not begin work on the novel, or the ‘novelization,’ until the film was already in the can. Yet, the success of the film, and the subsequent book, led to three more literary installments, as well as a movie sequel, 2010: the Year We Make Contact.
2001’s story is structured in three parts, starting in the prehistoric world of man-apes on the brink of starvation, because they lack the tools to survive in their hostile environment. One day, a strange, black monolith appears in their territory, then emits a piercing tone that agitates the man-apes. Soon after, their leader conceives of using the bleached bone of a fallen animal as a weapon. The man-apes then hunt, vanquish their enemies, and ensure the survival of their species. Fast-forward three million years, which passes in the toss of a bone and the blink of an eye, and the evolved man-apes, now fully human and capable of space flight, have found an identical monolith on the moon. Triggered by the light of the sun, the monolith sends a signal into space, and the curious humans dispatch a space ship to find the source.
Thus begins the second story segment, aboard the spaceship Discovery, nominally piloted by two astronauts, but actually under the control of a supercomputer, the HAL 9000. In a twist that mirrors the evolutionary jump of the man-apes, HAL imagines he must kill to survive. It’s the up to a surviving astronaut, played by Canadian actor Keir Dullea, to take the ship back from HAL and continue the mission. (At the time of his casting, Dullea seemed on the brink of stardom. But even though he gave a strong performance, 2001 did not propel his career to celestial heights. In fact, he soon retreated in obscurity. Thus was coined the Hollywood aphorism, “Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow.”)
The third segment follows Dullea’s character as he traces the signal to a moon of Saturn, on which an elder of the galaxy lies prone in a queen-sized bed in a hotel room decked out like a giant chess board, from which he mystically transforms Dullea into a giant, galactic fetus which drifts slowly back to Earth.
Although Clarke once said, “If you understand ‘2001’ completely, we failed,” he was concerned that the film was too hard to follow, and set out in his novelization to provide clearer explanations for the action . The final effect is the loss of the visual and aural wonder of Kubrick’s film, for which Clarke’s pedestrian prose is a poor substitute. Reading 2001 reminded me why I’ve only dabbled in Clarke’s writings, rather than devouring them. While his ideas are fascinating and intellectually stimulating, his storytelling doesn’t stir passion. His characters, all nice, conventional, bland folks, lack depth. And, while Clarke’s plots delve into the rich mysteries at the center of the universe, there’s no struggle between good and evil, no conflict of vice and virtue.
I also find Clarke’s atheistic vision deflating. If there is a supreme force in Clarke’s universe, it’s not a Creator God, but an evolved intelligence. This reminds me of a conversation I had once with an irreligious friend, who said the stumbling block for him was this question: If God created everything, what created God? That’s a mystery my religion doesn’t seek to answer, and the mantra that God ‘always was and always will be’ is unsatisfying to the analytical mind. But even less satisfying is the notion of human destiny being one part random evolution and one part alien manipulation. Clarke’s premise begs the question, ‘Who manipulated the first aliens?’ If no one, then how did they make their evolutionary jump? And if they could make it all on their own, why shouldn’t we be given the same freedom?
Ultimately, there’s little to be gleaned from Clarke’s book that’s not in the film. Clarke redresses a great wrong in the first sequence: the monolith is not the black slab the film’s art directors constructed, but the crystal prism Kubrick and Clarke had envisioned. But that tidbit is hardly worth slogging through what amounts to a mostly dull viewing guide for the movie. My recommendation for anyone who wants to understand the film is to forget the book. Just keep watching this magnificent movie until your own evolutionary switch flips and everything starts to click. If you want to go deeper, you can always pick up one of the sequels.
I must confess I didn’t see the 1997 version of Starship Troopers when it was first released, even though I had enjoyed director Paul Verhoeven’s previous sci-fi actioner Robocop. I skipped Troopers mostly because the trailer made it look like two hours of mindless bed-hopping and bug-zapping and because The Puppet Masters, the 1994 film of a Robert A. Heinlein novel, had been a ridiculous disappointment not worth the price of admission. Starship Troopers was popular enough to spawn a few sequels, but no one has ever seriously suggested it’s a great, or even a very good, film. Having seen it recently on cable, I’d call it a dull, noisy, directionless mess. The novel, however, is regarded as a science fiction classic. So, how do we explain that disconnect?
First, some context. Robert A. Heinlein is often called the Dean of American Science Fiction, having had a prolific career in which he established many of the sci-fi tropes that have become mainstays of the genre. A left-wing Democrat early in his career, Heinlein gravitated towards libertarianism and infused much of his writing with the politics of individualism. Some of his themes, such as plural marriage in his classic, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, created significant controversy. Yet, like most radicals, Heinlein was intensely interested in the edification of youth. He wrote a series of juvenile novels for Charles Scribner’s Sons that combined sci-fi with moral instruction (e.g., Red Planet, Starman Jones, The Star Beast). Starship Troopers was supposed to fit into that Scribner series, but the publisher rejected the book, and Heinlein took it to Putnam.
Thus, anyone picking up Troopers should understand it’s a YA book, meant to inculcate civic virtue in young readers. Thus, there is much inartful, “on the nose” dialogue that does not sound the way people actually talk. There are lectures galore from high school teachers and military superiors. And there is abundant moral reasoning that is sensible and provocative, including an ardent, well-reasoned defense of corporal punishment. Perhaps the best way to describe Troopers is as a dissertation on duty, played out against an interstellar war against marauding arachnids.
Unfortunately, Verhoeven did not give Heinlein’s views a fair airing. In fact, his film seems determined to undermine the principles Heinlein sought to promote. For example, the society of Heinlein’s Troopers is multi-ethnic, encompassing all of a united Earth. Yet, Verhoeven’s cast is almost uniformly white, including Nordic beauty Denise Richards as the Latina Carmen Ibanez and Casper Van Dein (as Caucasian as that name would suggest) as the tale’s narrator/protagonist, Johnny Rico, who is a Filipino in the book. Critics have noted that Verhoeven intended to depict Earth as a utopian Nazi Germany—Because the military, duh—which is a lazy, myopic calumny against military service that is far too common among contemporary Hollywood elites.
Almost always, Hollywood gets center-right politics deliberately wrong, as perverse payback for the industry’s completely reasonable response to the Soviet Union’s determined attempts to commandeer the American dream machine. Carrying an unquenchable torch for “the blacklist,” Hollywood Leftists gleefully portray anyone who believes in individual liberty as a fascist. This despite the obvious fact that fascism is a collectivist ideology that subverts individual identity by demanding subservience to an all-powerful leader. Y’know, like Communism. As for Heinlein’s novel, collectivism (could be Fascism or Communism) is the enemy, as depicted by the hive-mind of the bugs attempting to destroy humanity. Far from being fascists, the Troopers are volunteers—free to opt out at any moment—who risk all, not for an ideology, but for the people they love.
Starship Troopers is worth reading if only so that Heinlein’s ideas, which are worthy of consideration, can come through unfiltered and undistorted. Verhoeven’s film smears Heinlein, and in doing so contributes to what is currently the dominant deceitful narrative of the political Left: that America is an imperialist nation driven by white supremacy. People who want the truth should read the book.
Disclaimer: Links in the article may be affiliate links. If you click on the link and make a purchase, the author gets a slight commission, at no extra cost to you. These commissions help support the operation of this website. Thank you.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, please look at some of our other pieces examining the books behind the moves, here, here, and here…
Bizarre animal, mineral, and human behavior in The Birds and Picnic at Hanging Rock. By Kevin Rush
Halloween is finally in the rearview mirror, but we can still talk about eerie goings on that capture our cinephile imaginations. Today, two haunting tales of enigmatic terror.
Tippi Hedren was billed as the “new Grace Kelley.”
In this droll, long-winded trailer, Alfred Hitchcock sets up the premise of his 1963 film, The Birds. We’ve feasted on them since the beginning of time, and now they’re set on revenge. Chickens coming home to roost, one might say. Of course, that’s just conjecture, since none of the angry avians are of the speaking variety. Where’s a magpie when you need him? Maybe we shouldn’t have killed that mockingbird.
Hitchcock’s last great film was a first for his leading lady, Tippi Hedren. Since Princess Grace had retired from pictures in 1956, Hitchcock had run through a gamut of blonde actresses, earnestly searching for a suitable replacement. Doris Day, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint and Janet Leigh gamely faced various perils, but were not invited back. Then Hitchcock spotted Hedren in a soda commercial and signed her to a seven-year contract. Melanie Daniels was Hedren’s first credited role at 33, well past the debutante age, especially for a Hollywood starlet. She would have a long career, but would only make one more film with Hitchcock, Marnie in 1964.
The Birds employed various techniques to get the attack scenes right, including hand-puppets, mechanical birds and live, trained birds, reportedly fed whisky-soaked wheat to make them docile. The birds’ flapping made traditional blue-screen filming impossible, so the company had to employ a sodium vapor process to do the composites. The only studio equipped to manage the process was Disney, so a deal was struck to do filming there. The decision paid off, as The Birds was nominated for the Special Effects Oscar, but lost to the overpriced box office dud, Cleopatra. It was the last Oscar nomination for a Hitchcock film.
The source for The Birds was not a novel, but a short story by Daphne du Maurier, whose novel Rebecca had inspired Hitchcock’s only Best Picture Oscar-winner. The story is set in a coastal village in England and concerns the efforts of a laborer to save his wife and two young children from the inexplicable attacks. Cut off from the rest of the world, they seek the means to survive on their own. The story is chilling, and had caused a stir when it was released in 1955, sparking TV and radio adaptations. Hitchcock immediately purchased the film rights, though he didn’t consider making the movie until a bizarre seabird attack on the coast of California revived his interest.
Though she signed a seven-year contract, Hedren would only make one more film with Hitchcock.
The story has no characters in common with the film. And Hitchcock moves the setting to Northern California, no doubt to appeal to American audiences and to capitalize on any free publicity that references to the seabird attack might generate. Hitchcock’s film also departs from du Maurier’s story in his suggestion of the birds’ revenge motive. In du Maurier’s story, townsfolk note the bitterly cold weather as a cause for strange migration patterns. Something has gone on in the arctic, and it’s suggested the Russians might be behind it. Written during the Cold War, du Maurier’s story could be seen as a paranoid fantasy or a warning about Communist aggression. Could they actually turn nature against us?
Hitchcock went out of his way to make his film apolitical: the fault, if any, lies with all of humanity, the way we treat the planet and the lesser species in it. Of course, today, that angle is thoroughly politicized…with noticeable undertones of Communism. Or maybe that’s just this writer’s paranoid fantasy. At forty pages, du Maurier’s story is worth a read on a cold, windy night.
Theatrical trailer for Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)
On St. Valentine’s Day, 1900, students from a girls’ school in Victoria, Australia enjoy an annual field trip to an odd rock formation, where two of the girls and a teacher mysteriously vanish. The fallout from that event and its effects on the school and various characters involved in search and recovery form the basis for Peter Weir’s 1975 film Picnic at Hanging Rock.
That picture put the Australian director on the map and set him up for stellar success in the 1980s with hits such as Gallipoli, Witnessand Dead Poets Society. In Hanging Rock, Weir, who has expressed his preference for the mystery over its solutions, paints a picture of a repressed society where man is so artificially separated from nature that nature itself revolts to reclaim its own.
From its ethereal opening, infused with the primitive, otherworldly notes of a tin whistle, Weir goes out on a limb to suggest a paranormal explanation for the disappearances at the eponymous volcanic formation. The result is a very ‘70s cinematic experience that tends to overshadow the human drama of those left behind.
By contrast, Joan Lindsay’s 1967 novel (the author’s first at the age of 70!) is more restrained. Part reportage, part comedy of manners, part social criticism, and part procedural mystery, Lindsay’s story unfolds deftly and patiently. (Lindsay is much more patient in the telling than I was in the reading, devouring several chapters at a time.) Yet, roiling below the surface is a suspicion that something evil this way has come. Is it black fate or human frailty that brings cascading tragedy? Lindsay knows better than to intrude on her readers’ internal debate. Artful and delicious throughout, it’s a novel well worth discovering.
Disclaimer: This post may contain affiliate links. When you click on the link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Author Kevin Rush reflects on a favorite book of his adolescence
After my rant on another space against what Halloween has become, I thought I’d revisit what Halloween once was. A kid’s day of campy fright and copious candy? Of course, there was that, but there was also a sense of horror, closer to its original meaning. The word has Latin roots, stemming from the verb “to bristle,” as in hair standing on end, due to dread—and get this—veneration and religious awe. This is what separates classic horror from conventional slasher films. Horror is not just the fear of temporal harm or torment. It’s the dread of a supernatural force that attacks us on the spiritual level.
For me, nothing I’ve ever seen or read captures that definition so completely as Bram Stoker’s celebrated horror novel, Dracula. The horror Stoker depicts isn’t simply creepy or scary, it’s cosmically consequential. Deranged murderers wielding machetes or chainsaws are frightening, but they cannot touch their victims beyond the grave. Mourners can bury them believing they’ll rest in peace. But Stoker’s novel is horrifying, because he threatens the notion of eternal rest. Stoker creates a world of perverse religious veneration, where the Count is a false god, collecting souls as well as strewing corpses. Dracula is whom Jesus warned us to fear in Matthew 10:28: “…do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
I first read Dracula the summer after sixth grade. I was proud of myself for tackling such a huge book and the elevated language of Victorian England. It was corny for sure, but the melodrama was seductive. I also loved the form; Dracula is an epistolary novel whose story unfolds through diary passages and letters, depicting the points of view of various characters. As a kid who imagined he might someday write books, this model, artificial as it was, intrigued me. And gaining comprehensive vampirical knowledge from an authoritative source was pretty cool, too. Regarding Drac himself, what grabbed me most was not the relentless evil of the villain, but that all hope in overcoming that evil lay in the sacred instruments of the Catholic faith.
I decided to re-read Dracula to see what I’d think about it 50 years later. I found flaws in plotting and characterizations that I hadn’t noticed at 12 years old, and was much less patient with Van Helsing’s hugger-muggery and the lengthy, lugubrious passages reciting the characters’ inner turmoil. But bright as ever was the ardent hope that—through the instruments of faith, including the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist—these outmatched characters could triumph over a Prince of Darkness.
The story begins with Jonathon Harker in Transylvania on business. When the old innkeeper learns he’s headed for Castle Dracula, on the Eve of St. George’s Day, when “all the evil things of the world will have full sway,” she places a Rosary around Harker’s neck “for your mother’s sake.” The peasants cross themselves with dread and mutter words he takes to mean Satan, hell, witch, were-wolf and vampire. Later, as a guest in Dracula’s castle, Harker cuts himself shaving. His blood incites lust the Count cannot control. If not for the crucifix hanging from his neck, his host would have made short work of him.
It’s worth emphasizing that the crosses in Dracula are not the bare Protestant variety we see in the movies. These bear the corpus of Christ, which makes them, to Harker’s enlightened Church-of-England mind, “a symbol of idolatry.” But Stoker goes further in employing the Body of Christ, actually using the Eucharist as a defense and barrier against the Un-dead. Van Helsing, a Catholic Dutchman, crumples a host into a wad of dough to make putty to seal a vampire’s tomb. He gives his team of vampire hunters a piece of the host to guard their bodies. He also plants consecrated wafers in the crates of soil Dracula has imported, so the vampire cannot retreat to them for rest. This may seem like desecration, but Van Helsing says he has “an indulgence” for this necessary work.
Details of the story illustrate that Count Dracula poses a much greater threat than your garden variety homicidal maniac. The mad-house inmate Renfield devours insects alive because he craves life, but firmly denies any interest in consuming “souls.” That’s the purview of the twisted one he calls his “Lord and Master.”
Professor Van Helsing explains “When [the Un-dead] become such, there comes the curse of immortality; they cannot die but must go on age after age adding new victims and multiplying evils of the world.” This curse is the mirror opposite of the blessing of eternal life given the saints who intercede in this world for the cause of holiness. A victim’s soul is imprisoned unless, through “true death,” it can be set free. Catholics can understand “true death” as death to sin, the conquest of which leads to eternal life. Afterwards, “Instead of working wickedness by night and growing more debased in the assimilation of it by day, [the victim] shall take her place with the other Angels.”
Yet, even before death, a soul under the sway of a vampire is “unclean.”
Yet, even before death, a soul under the sway of a vampire is “unclean.” Mina Harker is brutally violated and, through no fault of her own, placed in immortal jeopardy. A touch of the sacred host to her forehead burns, leaving a shaming scar. In our current culture, this unfairness would prompt ceremonial book burning. But Stoker is willing to write for a world that is not always fair, and which requires heroic action, rather than student walkouts, to right an obvious wrong. To save a soul in jeopardy, we must place our own souls in jeopardy. Life doesn’t get more consequentially Christian than that.
As the Catholic Van Helsing explains, “Till then we bear our Cross, as His Son did in obedience to His will. It may be that we are chosen instruments of His good pleasure, and that we ascend to His bidding as that other through stripes and shames; through doubts and fears, and all that makes the difference between God and man.”
Though rarely recognized as such, Dracula is one of the great Catholic novels in the English language. I got severe pushback on that statement from someone whose opinion I respect. He asserted that Dracula does not edify, but at best encourages a superstitious faith. But that’s only true if we start to believe in vampires. Stoker is hardly encouraging the reader to take Van Helsing’s prescriptions literally. But taken as a metaphor, the Dracula tale strips away the mundane reality that clouds our vision and serves up the existential truth of human existence: we are in a life and death (undeath) struggle of good versus evil. In this way, Bram Stoker’s Dracula serves the true purpose of horror: to scare us straight and put us on the earnest path toward heroic virtue and perhaps even holiness.
Great news: Get started with NAD for 15 percent off!
Vitality Boost from Jinfiniti Precision Medicine
I’ve written several columns on my blog about the wonders of NAD, and how it’s turned my health around. Now you can get started with Vitality Boost for 15 percent off the standard price by using my offer code KevinRush15 at checkout. Just follow this link: Jinfiniti!
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Help author Kevin Rush launch his next book by marking it “Want to Read” on your Goodreads account.
The Wedding Routine is a romantic comedy about Celia Cleary, a young ballroom dance champion from New Jersey, who makes her living choreographing wedding dances. Her business is failing, and her own romantic life is out of step, until she falls for a handsome French chef, who, much to her dismay, resolutely refuses to dance. Quick witted humor, well-drawn, relatable characters and the warm Catholic spirit of an old Bing Crosby movie combine for a smart, enjoyable, and uplifting read. But to get this book to the public, the author needs your help.
Also by Kevin Rush
Independent authors face an uphill battle getting their books to their intended audiences. That hill is even steeper for Catholic authors hoping to tilt the cultural axis back towards positive values, virtue, and decency. But there are tools at our disposal, and a powerful tool is Goodreads.com.
Owned by Amazon.com, Goodreads is a forum used by 125 million readers to find their next book. When a book trends on Goodreads, it gets noticed. So, how do we make it trend? You can help by following this link to The Wedding Routine and marking it “Want to Read.” You can also ask me a question about the book. When enough Goodreads members do this, the website includes the book in its internal promotions and emails, which generates valuable free publicity.
YA novel by Kevin Rush
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting more about the book, including how you can enter a Goodreads Giveaway contest to win a free copy.
Please take a few seconds right now to visit Goodreads and mark The Wedding Routine as “Want to Read.” Thanks so much for your support.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Twisted psychology and dark humor in The Talented Mr. Ripley and Fight Club. By Kevin Rush.
If you’ve ever gotten into a roommate situation you’ve regretted, you can probably appreciate this week’s two books. In each, a new acquaintance appears mysteriously, moves in and creates mayhem. Sure, there are plenty of bad iterations of this basic plot—I’m looking at you, Single White Female—but our featured authors masterfully elevate their tales with haunting portrayals of human psychology at the breaking point.
Patricia Highsmith, whom we’ve discussed before, began her writing career authoring “real life” comic books, but gained prominence after her modestly successful first novel, Strangers on a Train, (1950) caught the attention of Alfred Hitchcock, who quickly turned it into a solid thriller in 1951. In Strangers, Highsmith gave readers a glimpse into the mind of a creepy sociopath with ambiguous sexuality. Highsmith penned The Talented Mr. Ripley in 1955, again portraying a homicidal sociopath, but this time making his homosexuality more overt and audaciously placing him in the center of an antihero drama as the protagonist.
French filmmaker René Clément was first to bring Ripley to the screen as Plein Soleil in 1960, starring 25-year-old Alain Delon, who went on to have a very good career. It was also the screen debut of 20-year-old singer-actress Marie Laforêt, who later scored pop hits in France covering Bob Dylan’s Blowin’ in the Wind and The Rolling Stones’ Paint it Black. Although the title means Broad Daylight, an apt descriptor for a brazen murder in the sunny Mediterranean, the film was released in America as Purple Noon.
Director Clément made several choices that turned what might have been a great film into only a serviceable crime drama. First, he cast French actors to play Americans, so the feeling of ex-pats in voluntary exile was lost. Clément also took many liberties with the plot; the story concludes with a nifty twist that is nevertheless 180 degrees from where Highsmith’s book ends. Clément does direct Delon’s portrayal of Tom Ripley to be enigmatic and self-involved, but in choosing to drop Tom’s homosexuality in favor of a heterosexual love triangle, he dilutes much of Tom’s motivation for his crimes.
American audiences are more familiar with Anthony Minghella’s 1999 version, The Talented Mr. Ripley, with Matt Damon in the title role. The strong cast also included Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. More faithful to Highsmith’s novel, the film was moderately successful, but did not generate sufficient excitement for a Damon-as-Ripley franchise. Still, of Highsmith’s four subsequent Ripley books, two have garnered film adaptations and, at this writing, a Ripley TV series is in preproduction.
Ripley was a daring novel in its time. Despite a wealth of mainstream homosexual writers and a gay literary subculture featuring prominent homosexual characters, overt homosexuality was still very much taboo in mainstream fiction. Gore Vidal’s third novel, The City and the Pillar caused something of a scandal in 1948, by presenting a loving homosexual relationship as natural. In that respect, Ripley represents a step backward; homosexuality is again taboo. But Tom Ripley is the central figure, and Highsmith invites us to root for him, in spite his crimes.
Yet, in a post-Stonewall, post-Angels-in-America, post-Obergefell world, is Mr. Ripley still relevant? If this were an age where reasonable minds were allowed to disagree, readers could debate the validity of the implied nexus of homosexuality, narcissism, and sociopathy manifest in Tom Ripley. Today, surely, there will be voices in the Wokeratti calling Highsmith’s novel a dangerous slur and demanding that Ripley be cancelled. On the other hand, readers willing to accept Tom Ripley as Highsmith’s attempt at a unique, multilayered character, rather than a blunt, artless stereotype, are in for a treat.
This is a superbly crafted novel with tension throughout. It is horror on a grotesquely human level, as the author invites you into the mind of a sociopath, and entices you to pull for him. The reader, against his own will, finds himself emotionally invested in Ripley, and hoping for his best possible outcome.
If you’ve seen the 1999 film starring Edward Norton and Brad Pitt, you know I’m breaking the first two rules, but Fight Club, a bitter, shocking and often hilarious satire of maleness unmoored from positive masculinity, cries out for discussion. Directed by David Fincher, the movie got mixed reviews for its combination of tongue-in-cheek philosophizing and brutal violence but has proved popular with viewers. I haven’t seen the film since it first came out, but I remember enjoying it immensely until the ludicrous ending left me totally deflated. Shortly thereafter, many people, including some of my high school students, told me the book was much better. I declined to read it until this summer, specifically for this blog.
If you’ve read this far, you’re probably wondering whether—if you’ve seen the movie and already know who Tyler Durden is—there will be enough left from the bizarre characters and twisty-turny plot to hold your interest.
My answer is an enthusiastic yes. If you like a novel that grabs you by the throat and does not let go until you have feverishly devoured the last page, this book is for you. Stylistically, there’s much to admire in its art and construction: the staccato stream of consciousness, the jittery neurosis that pulses in every line, and layer upon layer of complications building like an anxiety dream you cannot awaken from. All these elements lead me to conclude that if Joseph Heller and Jack Kerouac had had a lovechild that they whipped with an electrical cord, he’d have grown up to be Chuck Palahniuk. But Fight Club is also a very timely novel that taps into millennial dysfunction. If you were disappointed by the movie’s ending, be assured the novel’s conclusion is much more satisfying. Finally, the book is short enough to tackle in a weekend, so there’s really no excuse not to dive in. Just don’t tell anyone where you heard about it.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you
Why it’s more important than ever to honor the North American martyrs
In my childhood, priests were heroes, and the Jesuits were the mightiest among them. I recall my first-grade teacher, a Sister of St. Joseph, telling us, “If you saw one of the Fathers walking on the sidewalk with an angel beside him, you should say hello to Father first.” In fourth grade, I was tasked, along with a classmate, with writing a play on the life of St. Isaac Jogues for our American history class. I was awestruck by his willingness to suffer such cruel torture for the sake of the Gospel. And I was proud that a member of my family, my father’s cousin, was serving as a Jesuit missionary in Hiroshima, Japan. I wanted to study with the Jesuits, to be molded by them.
Well, the ensuing decades have not been kind to my early impressions. Widespread corruption, political machinations, and none-dare-call-it-heresy have scorched the bloom off the rose. But given that Tuesday, October 19 is the Feast of St. Isaac Jogues and Companions, I decided to drive up to The Shrine of the North American Martyrs for a few hours of prayer and reflection on those eight men whose lives so perfectly exemplified Our Savior’s command to “pick up your cross and follow me.”
The Shrine, built on the grounds of the Mohawk village of Ossernenon, has a Coliseum Church built in the round. Its brick exterior resembles a small college football stadium, while the rustic interior is decked out in timber in imitation of frontier forts. The square Sanctuary has altars on four sides dedicated to three Jesuits—the priest Jogues, and the laymen Rene Goupil and Jean de Lalande—who were killed in the vicinity, and St. Kateri Tekakwitha, a Mohawk maiden, who was born in the village. The grounds, with memorials to the martyrs and paths for walking the Stations of the Cross and the Seven Sorrows of Mary provided ample opportunity for reflection. The old awe returned.
In The American Jesuits, a History, Raymond A. Schroth. S.J. writes that Isaac Jogues, a native of Orleans, France had entered the Jesuit novitiate in Rouen at 17. Though “small, delicate, sharp-eyed and fine featured,” Jogues passionately sought the most rigorous vocation: preaching “simply to the ‘savages’ of the New World.” Fr. Schroth describes how Jogues, at 29, arrived in French Canada:
“On August 14, 1636, young Fr. Jogues gazed up the [St. Lawrence] river in awe as a flotilla of Algonkian canoes heaved into sight. The savages brandished 28 scalps from their poles…. They had two prisoners—an Iroquois brave standing tall, proud, and naked in the canoe, and a native woman. As they pulled into the landing, the native women, many of whom had thrown off their clothes to swim out to the boats, surrounded the native prisoner, beat him with clubs, ropes, and chains, stabbed him with burning sticks, and crushed his fingers in their teeth. One who cut off his thumb had tried to force him to swallow it. When he failed to choke it down, she cooked it for the children to eat.”
Jogues had been forewarned of savage practices. The missionary Paul Le Jeune, S.J. had written in 1632 describing how captors inflicted “all the cruelty that the devil can suggest” on prisoners, culminating in cannibalism. Le Jeune warned that if the Iroquois captured his brother missionaries, “we would be obliged to suffer this ordeal.”
Jogues’ ordeal began on August 2, 1642, when on a return journey from Quebec, a force of Iroquois overwhelmed his Huron escort. Jogues had his chance to escape, but seeing Goupil captured, he surrendered rather than abandon his young companion. For three weeks, the Iroquois “paraded their 22 captives [naked] through the countryside,” stopping at various villages for rounds of torture. Sensing that Jogues was the leader, they abused him particularly. Natives “hacked off his left thumb and chewed his fingers to the bone.” (Jogues would later have to get special dispensation from the Pope to say Mass, since priests were only allowed to touch the consecrated host with thumb and forefinger.) Jogues and Goupil eventually found themselves in the Mohawk village of Ossernenon, basically enslaved, but treated kindly by “some women.”
Goupil met his fate when he imprudently made the sign of a cross over a child, which an elder took to be a curse. Jogues then witnessed a hatchet splitting his friend’s head. Living largely on corn meal because meat in the village was offered to the devil before consumption, Jogues wasted away. However, he spent abundant time in prayer and reconciled himself to captivity, since his ministrations were a comfort to many, and he had managed to baptize “more than 60 persons.” Then, informed on August 18, 1643, of a plot to burn him alive, Jogues escaped and returned to France.
For most of even the holiest men, that would have been enough. But in less than two years, Jogues was back in New France. Again, he was captured, again with a lay Jesuit companion, Jean de Lalande, and brought to Ossernenon. One of the clans called for his death. They lured him to a lodge, promising to listen to him, but struck his head with a tomahawk as soon as he stepped through the door. Both Jesuits were decapitated, and their heads placed on display.
It’s easy to argue that Jogues was imprudent. His own superiors urged him to stay among the docile natives, where his labors could bear abundant fruit. But in risking all to reach out to the hostile tribes, Jogues embodied Christ’s sacrifice as Paul describes in Romans 5: 6-8:
“Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.”
Fast forward some 240 years, and a different definition of Jesuit martyrdom begins to emerge. On November 16, 1989, a force led by Lieutenant Ricardo Espinoza, acting on orders from Colonel René Emilio Ponce, chief of staff of the Armed Forces of El Salvador, executed six Jesuit priests. They also killed two women witnesses, then tried to make the attack look like a Communist reprisal. Forces on the Left, with whom the priests were more than friendly, suddenly found religion, charging the Death Squads with the unthinkable crime of priest killing. The story went out that the Jesuits had been killed, because of their advocacy for the poor. They were martyrs. But not so fast.
The war in El Salvador had no good guys. Establishment forces were propping up a ruthless oligarchy that cruelly subjugated and exploited the poor. On the other hand, the insurgents were Communists supported by the Soviet Union looking to enslave the nation under Marxism. But instead of declaring a pox on both their houses and calling each side to the truth of the Gospel, the Jesuit intellectuals under Ignacio Ellacuría, president of the University of Central America in San Salvador, embraced the Communists. Somehow they had missed Divini Redemptoris, the 1937 encyclical by Pope Pius XI in which he declared “Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.” Did Ellacuría et al. also overlook Communism’s 20th century’s global death toll? Or did they believe with characteristic Jesuit hubris that they could use an intrinsically evil system for the greater glory of God?
In adopting Liberation Theology, a twisted dogma that perverts Catholic social teaching and subordinates salvation through Christ to economic achievements, Ellacuría and comrades acted not as priests but apparatchiks, lending legitimacy to the Communist insurgency. It’s as though Jogues had gone over to the Iroquois. They corrupted the UCA to pump out Communist propaganda. They abandoned their roles as shepherds and peacemakers to exacerbate tensions in the ongoing war, all the time imagining their black robes made them bulletproof.
That’s not to say the Jesuits were legitimate military targets, and only a regime cribbing the Francisco Franco playbook for Communist annihilation would have dared attack them. Ultimately, the priests were victims of a war crime. They may even have been martyrs to “The Revolution.” But suggesting they are martyrs to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is cheap propaganda that taints the legacy of genuine martyrs like Jogues whom we must continue to hold in the highest esteem.
Since 1989, the downward spiral of the Society of Jesus has only accelerated. We now have a Jesuit pope who embraces every far-Left initiative from assorted dastards dedicated to a pantheon of anti-Christian causes, including abortion on demand, euthanasia, and sterilization. Having forgotten the lesson of Fr. Jogues, the Pope joins hands with pinstriped neo-paganists who would not only bite his hand, but gnaw his fingers to the bone. Meanwhile, formerly vaunted Jesuit institutions cover up crucifixes so as not to offend pro-abort politicians and corrupt their students with Critical Race Theory, a Communist doctrine so pernicious it makes Liberation Theology look downright Thomistic. And a periodical acting as the organ for Jesuits in the United States deigns to publish a turgid, ill-reasoned and historically illiterate apologia, entitled The Catholic Case for Communism.
In light of these circumstances, it’s crucial that we remember and celebrate the lives and sacrifices of the North American martyrs, who are the antidote to and the eyewash for the corrupting campaigns within the Society of Jesus today to bend the church towards the material world and hand out martyrs’ crowns where pity is the more profound response.
This summer I also had occasion to visit the National Shrine of Elizabeth Ann Seton, which I comment on here. Below is suggested reading for Catholics of all ages on St. Isaac Jogues and other American martyrs.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Supernatural terror from The Exorcist and Frankenstein. By Kevin Rush.
We’re past the middle of October, so it’s a ghoulishly good time to look at horror films. Not that I’m a big fan of what Halloween has become. What had been a fun kid’s holiday has, in recent decades, metastasized into an off-putting celebration of adult perversity. Hollywood continues to turn out “horror” films, but gone are the good scares, replaced by stomach-churning, slow torture. Evil in all its banality that fails to deliver chills. So, this column is dedicated to those days when horror was entertaining and scary, rather than desensitizing and addictive. That last point is important, because Halloween was originally practiced as a warning against demons prowling the earth for the ruin of souls. Thus, it was good to be scared. Today, the darkness has become too seductive, and that’s not good, as our first film ably demonstrates.
In The Exorcist, a preteen girl starts to experience weird physical and mental phenomena after dabbling with a Ouija board. The unexplainable symptoms escalate quickly to life-threatening levels, forcing her distraught mother to seek out a Catholic priest willing to perform an exorcism. The 1973 film by William Friedkin set a new standard for horror with green projectile vomiting, the bloody and obscene use of a crucifix, and the type of head rotation you don’t see in Yoga class. The film shocked audiences, and might be blamed for Hollywood’s subsequent downward spiral into torture porn, except that it had a great story (allegedly based in reality) of unprepared humanity facing calculated supernatural terror. A well-crafted film, The Exorcist was considered the front-runner for the Best Picture Oscar in the spring of 1974. However, the Academy went with a safer choice, The Sting, in what was considered a stunning upset. To date, no horror film has ever won Best Picture, despite what The Hollywood Reporter says about The Silence of the Lambs being a horror film. (It’s not!) But if you’ve seen the movie, and you know what Fr. Damien’s mother is currently up to, should you read the book?
Before making its way to the silver screen, The Exorcist had been a cultural phenomenon, a runaway bestseller, topping The New York Times Bestseller List for 12 weeks from July 25 to October 10. William Peter Blatty’s graphic novel (and by that I mean luridly detailed, not illustrated), inspired by a true incident from 1947, breathed supernatural urgency back into a flaccid post-Vatican II Catholic Church, which had thrown out the Redeeming baby with the medieval bathwater and was on the verge of becoming The Rotary Club with wafers. Having thoroughly researched Satanism and demonic possession, Blatty pulled no punches in depicting the malicious evil of mankind’s original and most deadly adversary. Suddenly, Satan was real again, prowling the world to devour human souls, and the obsolete rites of the Holy Catholic Church ministered by the thinning ranks of aged, hyper-orthodox priests were our last line of defense.
Book II of William Peter Blatty’s Exorcist series
But, beyond having met its moment in time, is The Exorcist a literary work of lasting impact? Maybe not, but it’s a taut thriller combining supernatural creepiness with the step-by-step deduction of a police procedural. The narrative of the book delves more deeply into the practices of Satanism and the metaphysics of possession, as well as the interior life of the characters, especially the conflicted modernist priest, Fr. Damien, who reluctantly accepts the possibility of actual demonic possession. One criticism of the film was that the special effects were over-the-top, eliciting reactions that took the audience, at least momentarily, out of the story. That’s not a problem in the novel, since you’re never distracted by a plastic mold of Linda Blair’s head or wondering if that shade of green is even possible. The book’s characterizations are ample, even with the secondary characters, and the plot twists are plentiful. This is a very absorbing, fast-paced novel that rushes to a very satisfying conclusion. So, yes, there’s much to be gained by going beyond the film and cracking open the book.
Frankenstein — The undisputed King of the Movie Monsters (not you, Godzilla), Henry Frankenstein’s creation looms large over the pantheon of horror. Since Boris Karloff’s iconic performance in 1931, Mary Shelley’s tale of horror has been shot countless times for film and television. But does our concept of Frankenstein, two centuries after the novel’s publication, comport with the creature and the story as Mary Shelley first revealed it? Well, if it did, there’d be no point to reading the book, would there?
Novel cover deceptively based on Karloff’s creature.
In the novel, written in 1818, there is no medieval castle retrofitted with a laboratory. Likewise, no chains hoisting a surgical table upward into the thundering sky so lightning can re-animate a gruesome cadaver stitched together from motley parts of recently deceased corpses. There’s no hunchback assistant, no Fritz or Igor, or even Eyegore, no graverobbing, no Abby Normal brain. Here, good Victor Frankenstein, relying on alchemy, crafts his monster in his college dorm room using “chemical materials” and “chemical instruments.”
But, you ask, did the movies get the look of the Monster right? That’s hard to say. Ms. Shelley provides little of the physical description of her monster other than “huge and hideous.” But he is not slow and lumbering, like Karloff. He moves swiftly and with agility. In fact, he can keep pace with Frankenstein as he tours Europe by carriage and sail. (It’s not clear how he’d fare in the Age of Steam.) And apparently, though huge and hideous, the Monster can traverse Europe largely undetected by townsfolk, while keeping close tabs on his creator, who the monster has demanded must make him suitable bride, so he doesn’t have to live in torturous isolation.
We know this because the Monster speaks. And not in grunts or monosyllables. Shelley’s monster is as eloquent as any Knight Royale in Mad King George’s Court. How he learned to speak is part of a narrative which relies heavily on willful suspension of disbelief, as do many plot twists which depend on ludicrous coincidences, against which happening the odds are astronomical! If you liked that last rhetorical flourish, you’ll enjoy the high-toned narrative seeped in the melodrama of the Romantic Age. Shelley’s narration is full of breast-beating and weeping, not to mention characters collapsing with hysterical fevers that incapacitate them for months on end. Who knew men in the Age of Byron were so delicate? Shelley sets the melodra-meter at a constant 10, occasionally turning it up to 11.
But is it readable, you beg me answer? I have to say it took me a while to get into, because the main story was slow to open, and the artificiality of the dialogue was a bit overwhelming. But eventually, the sheer force of the narrative wore me down and I got swept up in the story, accelerating my reading to the finish.
I can recommend reading Frankenstein for several reasons. First, it’s good to know where things come from. Frankenstein is an enduring legend, so it’s fun and helpful to understand the form of its origin. It’s also good to remember, in this age of stale remakes, that original works can be improved upon. Probably what saved the book from obscurity in the first decades of its publication where numerous stage adaptations that etched the story into the public consciousness. Elements added by outsiders, particularly the screenwriter, set designer and makeup artist of the classic 1931 Universal film, may not have been faithful, but they had an astonishing impact. In later decades, various film and TV treatments have repeatedly brought something new to the legend’s basic framework. Thus for hundreds of years, Frankenstein has remained a seminal tale for sparking human imagination. Finally, it’s good practice every so often to read elevated language, just to stretch our comprehension and vocabulary, and to appreciate how stylized language adds to the escapist value of a story.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Ladd and Wayne craft icons in Shane and The Searchers. By Kevin Rush.
The Western is the archetypal American story. Its roots go back at least to the early 19th century and James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales. In those five novels, Cooper laid out the rules that future writers would assiduously follow: the unyielding land, the Noble Savage and his ruthless counterpart, and the frontiersman, whose identity is so closely tied to a changing landscape that once he tames the land, he finds he can no longer inhabit it. Drawing on existential struggles with nature and against our own human nature, Westerns gained popularity the world over. In Hollywood, they have made an indelible impact that has bled into other film genres as well. I’ve watched Western movies and TV shows all my life, but I’ve read very few Western novels. Today I look at two which served as source material for two of the greatest Western films ever made: Shane and The Searchers.
Shane: Mysterious stranger rights wrongs and moves on
Theatrical trailer for Shane.
Nominated for six Academy Awards, the classic 1953 film, starring Alan Ladd as the eponymous gunslinger, is thought by many to be a perfect western movie. This is largely thanks to Director George Stevens’ relentless tinkering in the editing room which delayed the film’s release for two years. Originally intended as a B picture, Shane benefited from Stevens’ meticulous, one might say obsessive, perfectionism, which ballooned the budget and forced the studio to promote the film as a major release. Thus, a classic was born.
An Oscar winner for cinematography in 1954, Shane is beautifully shot on location in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in breath-taking color. The solid cast includes Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, Brandon De Wilde (who scored a Best Supporting Actor nomination for a performance given at the tender age of nine), Edgar Buchanan, Elisha Cook Jr., and Jack Palance (also nominated for Best Supporting Actor).
I tend to be more critical than most about the casting of Ladd. He might squint and set his jaw like Randolph Scott or Gary Cooper, but his stature was no more imposing than Mickey Rooney’s. In the book, Shane is described as a slender man, not tall like the boy’s father, played to perfection by Van Heflin. But neither was Shane a shrimp. Shane is a man whose intensity and lithe animal reflexes make up for his spare frame. He’s also described as dark haired, unlike the blondish Ladd. Physical dimensions aside, Ladd does capture the essence of Shane as rendered in the novel, so I’m not going to be too critical. I just think there were better choices, such as Montgomery Clift, who unfortunately wasn’t interested. Clift passed on the role, forcing Stevens to settle for Ladd, who exploited the opportunity to forge his signature role.
Stevens also had to coax Jean Arthur out of retirement. He had directed her in The More the Merrier (1943), for which Arthur received her only Academy Award nomination, for Best Actress. She agreed to play the mother, Marian, even though at fifty, she was well past the character’s age. That isn’t an issue for me. I’ve always enjoyed Jean Arthur, and she gives a fine performance, looking very much like a care-worn wife and mother of the Plains. Sadly, Arthur immediately went back into retirement, emerging only for an episode of Gunsmoke in 1965 and a short-lived 1966 TV program, The Jean Arthur Show.
I found the novel Shane in the YA section of my local public library, where it had sat, judging from the paperback binding, unread since its purchase. Appropriate shelving, since author Jack Schaefer dedicates the work:
To Carl
For my first son
My first book
The fact that it hadn’t been read strikes me as a sad. Although Schaefer’s novel doesn’t break any new ground—his hero is cut from the Natty Bumpo mold, hewn from the frontier and destined to move West once the evil forces are thwarted and the area becomes too civilized—the book is eminently readable.
Click image to order Shane
The action sequences mix edge-of-the-seat suspense with abrupt and brutal violence that is vivid, but not gratuitous. The characters are well-drawn and multi-layered. It’s an engrossing, quick read. But should you bother, if you’ve seen Stevens’ film? I would say yes, because of the extra depth given the characters.
In true YA form, the narrator of Shane is a boy, named Bob Starrett, but called Joey in the movie. Well, that’s not quite accurate; the narrator is the mature Bob Starrett recalling the drama of his youth. Bob is an observant and imaginative lad, but there is much going on in the triangular relationship between the father, Joe, his wife, Marian, and Shane than exists in the movie, and much of it goes over the head of the juvenile witness. I don’t want to spoil anything, but let’s just say, its heavy stuff for a YA book.
My only complaint is that the elegiac descriptions of Shane are often over the top, beyond a boy’s hero worship. Reading certain passages, I was aware that Schaefer was consciously trying to create an iconic, one-name legend, and maybe working too hard at it. But, he obviously succeeded, so maybe I should keep that criticism, like my misgivings about Alan Ladd, to myself.
The Searchers: Relentless pursuit challenges the human soul
Theatrical trailer for John Ford’s The Searchers
Asked to name his three favorite directors, Orson Wells famously responded, “John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford.” But while other gifted auteurs might expound on his artistry, Ford summed up his craft in three simple words: “I make westerns.” Born John Martin Feeney in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, in 1894, John Ford had already collected four Best Director Oscars by the time he made The Searchers. Only one, 1939’s Stagecoach, had been a western. But two of them, the aforementioned Stagecoach and 1952’s The Quiet Man, had starred John Wayne. So the 1956 re-pairing of Ford and Wayne in an epic western based on a recent popular novel was big news in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, The Academy did not get the memo. The Searchers was shut out of the 1957 Oscars, denied even a single nomination. Not that it was a banner year. George Stevens won Best Director for Giant, a film that has not held up nearly as well, and the Best Picture Winner was Around the World in 80 Days, which seems to have been shot in real time. Yul Brynner took home the Best Actor trophy for The King and I. Wayne would wait 12 more years for the recognition his turn as Ethan Edwards could easily have earned.
The snub mystified those involved, including Wayne who thought “Ethan Edwards was probably the most fascinating character I ever played in a John Ford Western.” Ford commented stoically that it “was a good picture. It made a lot of money and that’s the ultimate end.”
But today, The Searchers is generally viewed as one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, Western ever made. More than a chase story, its narrative of relentless pursuit plumbs the depths of the human soul, exposing ugliness we’d prefer to keep hidden before stumbling upon the redemption we desperately need. Its tough subject matter, starkly depicted, may have made too many demands on audiences in its time. The hero’s all-consuming hatred of the Indians was discordant ten years after the desegregation of baseball and immediately after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, when enlightened minds were waking up to racial injustice, or at least denying they played any role in it. The comic hijinks, at times bidding us to laugh at abject cruelty, didn’t seem to nest well within the framework of a tragic tale. Yet, with the passage of time, a classic has emerged, a legend laced with ambiguities that keep calling us back for further examination.
I had seen The Searchers often on TV, in black and white and carved up for commercials, but never appreciated its greatness until college, when I saw a full-color, uncut version on the (reasonably) big screen. Though not a perfect film, with various parts seeming to struggle against the whole, The Searchers is an eloquent, complex and often enigmatic masterpiece. But even though Ford is the chief architect of the film (he discarded much of screenwriter Frank Nugent’s exposition-heavy dialogue), the lion’s share of the credit should go to the novelist Alan LeMay.
LeMay began his career as a journalist, but was soon able to make his fiction writing sell. A descendant of plains pioneers, LeMay wrote tales of the American West. After a divorce and remarriage, with three growing children, LeMay decided to go where the money was for writers: Hollywood. He arrived fortuitously in the wake of Stagecoach, which sparked a revival in the Western genre, and went to work as a story consultant for the sumptuously entertaining, yet oft-abusive Cecil B. DeMille. After his contract with DeMille expired, LeMay freelanced, eking out a living that careened from comfortable to destitute, never breaking out of the B-Movie rut, and always searching for the elusive next job that would elevate his stature. After more than a decade, he vented his frustration, declaring, “All I want of this business and this town is out of it.”
LeMay decided to go back to novel writing. He recalled hearing the legend of Cynthia Ann Parker, a young Texas girl kidnapped by Comanches in 1836 and rescued in 1860, after she’d lived as a spouse to the chief who had abducted her, borne him children, and adapted completely to Comanche life. LeMay plunged into meticulous research of the Parker story, discovering how the girl’s uncle had stubbornly and fruitlessly tracked her for years over countless miles of barren wilderness. LeMay changed various elements of the Parker history, such as setting his story after the Civil War. Focusing on the relatives’ quest to restore their family and exact justice, LeMay called his book The Searchers.
A few differences between the book and film are worth noting. The book’s narrative unfolds through the eyes of Martin Pauley, who is the central character. The uncle is Amos Edwards, not Ethan. Ford’s team changed the name to avoid any association with the popular Amos ‘n’ Andy radio show. The epic fight between Martin and Charlie McCorry does not take place before a scheduled wedding.
Parts were rewritten and enhanced to fit the talents of John Ford’s stock acting company: Ward Bond’s character is not a preacher in the book, and Hank Worden’s role as Mose Harper is a distillation of two characters. Both roles were tailored to the talents and personalities of the actors, and are less important to the book. The cameo given to John Wayne’s son Patrick does not come from the book.
The novel was a commercial success, selling more than 14,000 hardcover editions and garnering $50,000 from Reader’s Digest for serialization. The movie rights went for $60,000, the highest sum paid that year. But has the book held up?
I can say unequivocally that I loved it. LeMay’s prose is simple, but powerful. His characters are genuine and multifaceted. His narrative is well paced (perhaps better paced than the film), suspenseful, and utterly haunting. What stands out most for me is the way the land itself becomes a character, a relentless force to be reckoned with, compelling the characters to go beyond the physical and emotional limits of human existence. A worse enemy than any band of savages, the cruel and uncaring land must be mastered. In such a context, simply enduring is an act of redemptive heroism.
LeMay is also unsparing in his criticism of well-intentioned but ineffectual federal government peace policies that do little more than fatten hostiles up during the winter so they can resume raiding white settlements in the spring, summer and fall. As Indian policy is transferred from the gentle incompetence of the Society of Friends to the iron fist of the U.S. Cavalry, the narrative races to its conclusion.
That conclusion is less patently restorative and naively hopeful than in the film; LeMay opts for an uneasy ambiguity, which more closely resembles his source material. The fate of the uncle is also different. In Ford’s final tableau, the rescued Debbie is ushered into the Jorgensen home, and Ethan stands alone outside. Having poured out his essence in the search, Ethan has no place in the reunion. As the iconic Western hero, he cannot live in a tamed land. The fate of Amos in the novel is more tangible and its irony is more immediately dramatic.
Finally, I’m happy to say the book is an enjoyable read; it’s 272 pages are less than you’d expect for an onscreen epic, and they go by very quickly. Altogether, The Searchers is an engrossing experience for any fan of the film.
I can also heartily recommend the extensive examination of the saga from historical event to classic film, written by Glenn Frankel. The Searchers: The Making of an American Legend is a well-researched, thoughtful and thorough account, starting with the tragedy of Cynthia Ann Parker, including the life of her Comanche Chief son Quanah, and a behind-the-scenes tour of the Ford production. If you’re a serious fan of the movie, Frankel’s book is a treasure trove of information you’ll greatly appreciate.
Disclaimer: Links in this column may be affiliate links. If you click on an affiliate link, the author receives a small commission on purchases for a limited time at no additional cost to you. These commissions help ensure future posts. Thank you.
Recent Comments