There’s confusion and there’s confusion. And then there’s the mysterious case of the gay bishop. Who is ‘celibate’ anyway. So if he’s celibate, what possible difference does it make to anyone which form of sexual activity he chooses to abstain from? Its like a teetotaller saying gin is preferable to whisky.
Its fucking irrelevant.
In this case literally so. I sincerely hope. Because if the Bishop of Grantham is in fact telling porkie pies about his ‘celibacy’ or re-defining it in some Bill Clintonesque way, then he will certainly burn forevermore in the eternal hellfires of damnation! Otherwise known as being transferred to Peckham.
But assuming the Bish is an honest dude, what’s the problem?
The main one, of course, being that the Church, as in the institution, doesn’t like queers of any stripe. Though most gay men would NEVER wear stripes anyway; not with those shoes. The church has a bit of a problem with homosexuality generally in that even though it would appear that probably three quarters of all clergymen are gay, the church opposes gay marriage, gay ministers, gay anything. They live in a constant state of denial. And that’s just the Anglican Church; the Church of England. In the Catholic church the rate of gayness goes up radically, as does the stated opposition to all things homosexual. Go figure.
Odder still is that Nicholas Chamberlain is indeed Anglican. And in that church, forced celibacy was abolished in 1549 (I googled the Bishop of London himself for that little snippet). Probably when some mediaeval cassock-wearer who was horny as hell. Who knows?
Yet Bishops are indeed expected to take on the whole ‘poverty, chastity, obedience’ shtick as proof of their worthiness to wear purple.
More interesting, and certainly more heterosexual, is the new Woody Allen movie, Cafe Society.
Saw it last night. Its my duty to watch everything the great man (who himself is no stranger to sex scandals) produces.
Its a wonderful film. Stylish, beautiful to watch, funny and re-assuringly only 90 minutes long, it was great. Jesse Eisenberg played… well, he played Woody Allen; everyone plays Woody Allen in his films, that’s his rule. Woody himself narrates, then all the actors and actresses impersonate him as they read his words in his style, with his mannerisms. And its about love. In Hollywood in the 1930s. Kristen Stewart smoulders in her first attempt at love without vampires. Steve Carrell is great, Eisenberg pretty good himself. Its not ‘vintage Woody’ because he simply doesn’t do that any longer. But it is a lovely movie.
Happy Sunday
A xxxx
Apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play/
And I looooooved Vicky Christina Czechoslovakia.
And what you’re basically saying is: you didn’t like the film. That’s cool. Each to his/her own, even if they’re wrong. That’s a joke. There is no right, there is no wrong, there’s just movies. And like all art, some like it, some don’t. What a dull world it would otherwise be.
As for the Bish, I have all the time in the world for him. Its the Church that bothers me. Because I struggle with hypocritical individuals and more so with hypocritical institutions. I love gay Bishops. Not in a Keith Vaz way, but for their honesty and bravery. Neither of which they should need in a more accepting environment.
yeah, but other than that; did you like it???
Cafe Society was destroyed by Allen’s hubris. Why use the voice-over of an old geezer to engage the audience rather than a near clone of the Eisenberg character who at least exuded some self-doubt? And why comment on what the audience can see for themselves?
I really thought that the nadir was ‘Vicky Christina Barcelona’, but this one is worse.
The dialogue was stilted and prosaic thoughout. This film is as far away as it can be from the Allen master-pieces like ‘Zelig’, ‘Blue Jasmine’, ‘Interiors’ and ‘Another Woman’. In the best Allen films the dialogue fizzes with inadequate self-knowledge and attempts at self immolation.
Oh and by the way, the ‘Bish’ was a man who courageously followed his conscience and made life tolerable for thousands of his generation.
I couldn’t agree less with your review of ‘Cafe Society’. Woody Allen’s voice -over was the stilted voice of an old geezer (which he is) rather than the young alter ego of the Allen character commenting largely on himself and his angst. This ‘describing it while showing it’ device has been the model for several Allen films over the years.
I had hoped that he had grown out of it. It’s like telling people you’re slurping a pistachio cone while showing them that you really are actually slurping pistachio ice-cream. The very worst example of this was ‘Vicky Christina Argentina’ – a film riddled with superfluous voice-overs which added nothing to the plot or the dramatic tension.
Much of Allen’s best work like ‘Zelig’, ‘Blue Jasmine’, and ‘Another Woman’ was based on dialogue which fizzed with authenticity and self-immolation, the dialogue in this film was pedestrian and devoid of any inner life…. oh and by the way, I don’t agree with your comment on the Bishop. This was a brave man who followed his conscience.
Hi Andy
Talking of gay bishops, did you know that the Chief Rabbi suggested that we must learn to accept, include and hold our arms out to Jewish gays and lesbians .(JC a couple of weeks ago) . My words are definitely not the exact words of that weekly paper though my thinking is similar. This, to my mind, is a step forward for a Chief Rabbi of the United Synagoges of the U.K. and actually for all mankind. Trouble is, he said “…..Jewish gays and lesbians”. This spoilt it for me. Why on earth could he not have left out the word “Jewish” and said words like “……hold our arms out to all gays and lesbians”. This would definitely have been an enormous step forward. I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies.
Thanks for your review of Cafe Society. Definitely on our list as have been all Woody Allen movies. Must get someone to look after the dogs though. We rarely leave our two mini dachshund pooches for long, but that’s another story
Happy Sunday to you too
Shirley H xxxx