Skip to main content

The Glass Menagerie

That was a TV movie? Sheesh. They don't make 'em like that anymore. No wonder Hepburn didn't win another Oscar; they don't do that for TV. If they did...yeah. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks Katharine Hepburn is overrated, but that person is obviously insane. [You like Tom Cruise. Why should anyone care what you think about acting?--ed.] I love Tom Cruise. He's the most absurdly underrated actor of all time, and nobody realizes it, because 1. He's been obscenely successful financially; 2. he's kind of a weirdo in some ways; and 3. he's also been a sex symbol, and people don't actually think you can be good at acting if you are sexy. It's still easier for guys, but it's still true.

Why do I think Tom is so good? He's never in the way. Whether he's carrying an action flick, or playing something of a second fiddle to an older/better actor (Rain Man, Days of Thunder), he does what he does. I haven't even seen Born on the Fourth of July, or Lions for Lambs yet. The Last Samurai is a great movie. A Few Good Men, same. His "B" movies are more watchable than anybody else's. Can we just cede the title of "Greatest "B" Movie of All Time" to Top Gun? You're not gonna put it up there with 12 Angry Men, or Citizen Kane, or even The Shawshank Redemption, but c'mon. Minority Report, any of the Mission: Impossible movies...you're not turning the channel if they come on. And if I'm biased toward people with severe disabilities, sue me.

Far and Away is even tolerable. I digress.

Everybody in The Glass Menagerie took turns being mesmerizing. What a story! I was in their lives; these felt like people I would know and like. It's cool to see the two guys who'd make or cement their names on the show "Law and Order" share the screen. Netflix needs to bring this one back.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un