Guy Fawkes, Call Your Office

I'm ba-a-a-a-c-k.

I’m ba-a-a-a-c-k.

So by now you have no doubt read the New York Times‘s rationalization for reproducing a “work of art” (although the sneer quotes don’t quite convey the breadth and depth of my disdain) that depicted a Pope Benedict XVI made out of multi-colored condoms, when it wouldn’t print those Charlie Hebdo cover images, which were by any non-crazy person’s construal “news fit to print” given the carnage that ensued as a result of those images.

While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.

Comparable to literally murdering the “artist.”

Now, if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time you know that my being of the Protestant persuasion is the worst kept secret in the history of subterfuge, so you would think I don’t have dog in this fight. However, in these fraught times, we have to be able to identify who our enemies are.

And it’s not Pope (Emeritus) Benedict.

I love how Margaret Sullivan, the Times‘s public editor (gee, I hope that’s not a federal job), quotes a “jibe” by Matt Taibbi, as if any, again, non-crazy person could give a furtive fig newton what Matt Taibi, a writer for that paragon of journalistic integrity Rolling Stone, has to say on any subject under the sun, never mind theology and morals.

Agree or disagree with the Catholic Church on artificial contraception, but at least make an effort to understand why it holds to the position it does, and at least try and imagine an alternate universe in which everyone is not be bullied into holding the exact same opinion as that of groupthink mainstream-media hacks.

And the last time I checked, the Catholic Church is a voluntary association. Don’t believe what it teaches? Leave. Become an Episcopalian. You get a nice dose of liturgy, clerics in fancy gowns and big hats, and a “teaching authority” that dispenses free knee pads every time Baal farts a new human right.

And unlike in atheist kingdoms, Rome will not build a wall to keep you in.

Now that we’ve gotten all our ecumenical blither-blathers out of the way, let’s take a trip back in time when the Catholic Church did react to assaults on its dignity in a way that was somewhat analogous to what happened in Paris last year.

It was a dark and stormy night, early November 1605, when Guy (code name “Guido”) Fawkes and his gang of co-conspirators were caught attempting to blow up via a hefty glop of gunpowder King James I of England, his Privy Council, and the House of Lords during the opening of Parliament.

Fawkes & Co. were aggrieved Catholics who were a tad disappointed at James’s failure to restore Catholics’ status within England and rescind penalties against those who refused to join the state church. Who the bad guys were here all depends on which side of the Reformation divide you’re on.

To Catholics, the Crown had destroyed the centuries’-old faith of English Christians, stolen Church property, left without succor the poor who had relied on the ministrations of the monasteries, and deprived Catholic English subjects basic rights they had enjoyed alongside their now Anglican neighbors.

To Protestants, Catholicism in the realm was a rival authority, and Catholics potentially, if not actually, disloyal subjects. Mary Tudor had executed more than 300 faithful Protestants. Pope Pius V had excommunicated Elizabeth I and “released all her subjects from any allegiance to her.” Throw in a failed full-frontal invasion by Catholic Spain, and several lesser plots by Catholic clergy to assassinate Elizabeth’s successor, James, and you have the Catholic-as-terrorist in the minds of many.

That was then, when Rome could at least make the argument that the nation it was attempting to “subordinate” had been, and remained to a great degree, especially in the north, Catholic, whereas this is now, when Islam has no such claim in, for example, France. In fact, the last time a Charlie confronted a Muslim invasion, it was Martel and it was the eighth century.

It’s a sign of the lunatic times we live in that the Guy Fawkes “identity” has been coopted by Anonymous, that group of radical anarchist/leftist hackers who bring down websites with distributed denial-of-service attacks and expose private data in their war against…well, whatever they decide to war against between pizza runs. The getup is thanks to Alan Moore’s V of Vendetta, in which a vigilante antihero fights for social justice wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, this in a near-future, dystopian, and fascistic England. (Presumably Guy Fawkes because the National Front–type dictatorship in the novel has taken control of the Church of England and persecutes not only non-Christians but also less-than-compliant non-CofEers.)

So the symbol of “reactionary theocratic repression” has been assimilated by the paranoid and loony left.

What if traditional or conservative Catholics decided they just weren’t going to take it anymore, here in the U.S. of A.? What if they took back their mask? (After all, doesn’t God wear a mask as he administers justice in the world?)

What if they decided to … take action whenever Catholic doctrine or dignitaries were mocked?

What if the New York Times were given as much reason to fear Catholics as they do Muslims (even as they denounce such fears as Islamophobia)?

I’m not saying that this should happen or that it would be a good thing. I’m a Protestant for what I believe are good reasons. I don’t view the Reformation as a tragedy of history but a necessity of common sense and better theology. I don’t want one unified ecclesiastical superstructure for the same reason I believe the state should be small, limited, and divided constitutionally so that neither the Executive, the Legislative, nor the Judicial branch has overweening power, power tending to corrupt and all that. (By the way, that’s not an original idea of mine, although I’m flattered that you’d think so. That was actually an American ideal until quite recently.)

So forget the revolution. They’re always noisy and expensive and the worst people end up getting the corner office.

But a pro-Catholic V for … St. Vincent (pick one) would make at least for a fun thought experiment, no? Or would that be a kind of microaggression?

Come on, there has to be a Catholic artist of talent who could mock up an anti-Mooreish work, one in which a kind of latter-day Zorro comes to the aid of the Little Sisters of the Poor or Catholic hospitals forced to perform abortions or Catholic schoolgirls who are told they can’t say their rosary on a public school bus, a daring caped Fawkes who “visits” journalists and writers who believe Catholics do not belong on the Supreme Court or in the Armed Forces and should not teach in public schools.

If for no other reason than it would piss off all the right people.

You know, so long as he leaves the Lutherans alone. Cause it was kinda my idea …

Posted in Miserable Rotten Communist Overlords, Our Only Hope Is in Out of Space, Vengeance Is Mine Sayeth Kevin | 1 Comment

A Second Strange Preview: Steve Jobs

My guess is that the secondary story line, about Lisa, Jobs’s daughter, whom Jobs had rejected, denied having even fathered, is somehow a parallel to, or the catalyst for, the primary story line, which is to say that Jobs “accidentally” fathered Lisa, but intentionally fathered the Lisa, which accidentally gave birth to Macintosh, the project Jobs was forced onto after he was kicked off of the Lisa, which died soon after the release of the Apple Macintosh in 1984, which revolutionized personal computing.

Jobs eventually acknowledged, and was reconciled to, Lisa, obviously. And she is now a very very rich woman. So there’s that.

BTW: The “first” strange preview can be found here.

Oh, and did you recognize Kate Winslet?

Posted in A Strange Preview, I Know You Think I Don't Know What You're Really Saying, Yes but Do You Have a Receipt | 1 Comment

A Strange Preview: Creed

OK, what makes this so much more than just “Oh not another sequel!” is that, while the characters are still Stallone’s, Creed was written and directed by Ryan Coogler, responsible for the much celebrated Fruitvale Station.

This will prove the final final chapter in the Rocky saga. I remember the day my father and I went to see the original, at the Five Towns Theatre on the eastern end of Queens. We walked out into the midday sun knowing we had just witnessed something both familiar and totally original, a story about a lovable pug who loses the big fight, and yet you are left elated, because he had accomplished what he had set out to do, which is more than what most people can accomplish with their lives.

And I remember the day my father and I stood on line outside the Loews New York Twin on Second Avenue to see Rocky II, in a special preview, and then experiencing that shock of exuberance that swept through the theater when Adrian turns to Rocky in her hospital bed and says simply, “Win.”

And I remember our being sorta disappointed with Rocky III, and getting a kick out of Rocky IV, both of which we saw at our new go-to venue, the Sunrise Multiplex in Valley Stream. (Plenty of parking, and a decent pizza joint in the adjacent shopping mall.)

And I remember our not even bothering with Rocky V (finally watching it together on VHS from Leisure Video and going, “We didn’t miss much.”)

And I remember the day my name appeared on the same page as Stallone’s in the premiere issue of Sly, and wishing my father, who died way before his time, were still alive to see it.

And I predict I will no doubt lose it at some point while watching Creed.

Posted in A Strange Preview | Leave a comment

Do You Worship in a State-Approved Church?

180373cf8432139af46a02

So now that the call for pulling churches’ tax exemptions is gathering Internet speed, I wonder if future commissars will make a distinction between “bad” churches and “good” churches. The former would have their charitable status eradicated, while the latter would continue to enjoy the tax benefits of getting on History’s good side, and no negative stigma would be attached to flouting one’s membership in same.

A “bad” church, of course, would be one that remained impenitent and continued to believe, teach, and confess the historic Christian faith and uphold the moral code embedded in that faith (regardless of, and even because of, how many fail flawlessly to obey it).

Which is to say, Southern Baptist, confessional Lutheran and Reformed/Presbyterian, “continuing” and confessional Anglican, Assembly of God, and Eastern Orthodox ministers, pastors, and priests may very well have to have “the talk” with their members.

That talk will probably go something like this:

As we know from history, the early Christians were sent out into a world that demonstrated great hostility to their message. They had neither political nor social status or props to keep them afloat nor financial incentives to encourage generosity. They did have, however, the Word and the Sacraments and the Great Commission. And of course, each other.

These inducements, prompting great courage, hope, and perseverance in the face of all manner of persecution and marginalization, were enough. Within one century, a small band of outlaw Jews and the believers in their care had spread the Good News and established churches throughout the Near East, as far south as Africa, as far east as southern India, and into various parts of Europe.

Those who gave — of their time, money, goods — gave gratuitously, and could count on no immediate reward, certainly not from Rome’s tax assessors.

Are you made of the same stuff? Or should I say, are you filled with the same Spirit? Will you continue to give, to support this ministry, to support this minister, regardless of whether you can write it off at the end of the year? Are you willing to dig deeper to make up for the losses owing to the changes in the tax codes?

Or will you walk away, the doors of this church closed shut forever behind you?

Why are you here? For the music? You don’t have to come here for that. That’s what iTunes is for. To see familiar faces, catch up on the latest news? Throw a party. Take your friends to lunch.

Or is it for the Word and for the Sacraments? That you cannot find anywhere else. It doesn’t have to be this building — in fact, we may have to move. It doesn’t have to be with air conditioning that works all summer, or even at all. It may not have a dedicated fellowship hall or special space for children and teens. But it has to be somewhere, with someone standing in the pulpit and at the altar. It doesn’t have to be me. You may have to find a single minister, at least for the time being, or one who has a second source of income. In fact, every minister, every priest, may, like the Apostle Paul, have to go back to tent-making now and again to make ends meet.

But you will need someone, someone who has received a call to minister to you what only a called and ordained minister of the Word can.

In the coming weeks we will throw open our books to all members so you can see exactly what it takes to keep the lights on here, and what losing our tax-exempt status will mean for our budget.

But please know this: I will not harangue you every Sunday about how you’re not giving enough or doing enough. There will be no guilt trips or strange looks at those who don’t give at all, who have never given at all. You will either rise to this occasion or you will not. Perhaps you cannot.

God has not been displaced by this court, this culture, this country. He is still on his throne and Lord of that History that is so often spoken of as it if were as autonomous as the Western Self, a contradiction that very few of the elite and enlightened seem to grasp.

We all know that nothing can ultimately prevail against the Church, the Body of Christ. Not hell, not hate, not even our own moral failings. Christ died once and cannot die again. We died once, in the waters of baptism, and rose with him, our new lives kept safe with him, no matter what the short term brings.

Out of my distress I called on the LORD;
the LORD answered me and set me free.
The LORD is on my side; I will not fear.
What can man do to me?
The LORD is on my side as my helper;
I shall look in triumph on those who hate me.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in man.
It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in princes.

Or something to that effect. You can write your own version on your lunch hour tomorrow.

Roman Catholics will be in an interesting position. I wonder if Catholic Dems will force the IRS to make distinctions between “Francis” Catholics (good) and “Benedict” Catholics (bad). Yes, yes, you and I know there is no real difference when it comes to affirming all that. But we’re dealing with crazy people here, for whom theology, reason, tradition, legal and social precedent, First Amendment rights, separation of powers, etc., etc., are so many humorous asides in the keynote speech at the Annual Transhumanist and Euthanasia Dinner Dance.

In 1957, China established the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Assocation, “the only organisational body of Catholics in China officially recognised by the government of the People’s Republic of China, but [that] is not recognised by the Vatican. Experts consider it wrong to identify this institution of political control with the part of the Church in China that accepts or tolerates its control, some of whose bishops the Holy See recognizes as in full communion with it.

That quote is from Wiki. Here is something from the Cardinal Kung Foundation:

Bishop Andrew Tsien, Bishop of Hualian, Taiwan, explained that the objectives of the Patriotic Association are:

Short term: To substitute it for the true Roman Catholic church.

Long term: To eliminate religion in order to achieve a pure materialistic and autocratic society.

Catholics and other Christians, as well as Buddhists, Muslims, and other religious Chinese, have been and continue to be punished in far more extreme ways than just suffering hits to the wallet.

In his remark on the pastoral letter on women issued by the Patriotic Association’s Bishops Conference, Rev. Matthias Lu, Ph.D., S.TH.L., Director of the St. Thomas Aquinas Center in California, wrote:

“Its (the Patriotic Association’s) commitment is to manipulate the mass of the Catholic population in order to integrate them into the Socialist revolutionary movement by submitting them to the leadership of the Communist Party in all things.”

To accomplish this goal over the past 45 years, the Chinese government put tens of thousands of Roman Catholic faithful in jail for 10, 20, 30 or more years. Thousands perished in jail. Many were shot in public. All foreign missionaries were banished. As you are painfully aware, this persecution continues even today.

We are certainly not there in the United States, and it would be hysterical in the literal sense to assert we are, or anywhere close. But you don’t have to throw people in jail to destroy them, or at least marginalize them politically and socially. You can shutter their businesses and wrestle those mediating institutions that stand between the individual citizen and the Leviathan state—like churches—into desuetude.

Who would be the equivalent of the CPCA in the United States, given a pass by State functionaries and allowed to function, tax-exempt status intact? TEC? ELCA? The Moravians and the Quakers? UCC and American Baptists? The United Methodists may find themselves split between “good” and “bad,” with Hillary as a member of the former and George W. Bush a member of the latter.

Would the State have to make historically black churches exempt from persecution, for fear of a backlash from its base? (Not to mention the extraordinary good they do in their communities—but that may be seen as neither here nor there when it comes to political purity.) Would more traditional clergy be pushed out of those churches or be persuaded to focus on social-justice issues only?

This will all work out for the Church’s good in the long term, of course. The only reason History is allowed to run any course is for the sake of the Elect. That does not mean there will not be a lot of pain along the way. Purging and pruning guarantee it. But about how the story ends, there is no doubt.

Let’s just say we are definitely living in interesting times, as the Chinese curse goes.

Posted in A Strange Question | 9 Comments

‘The Overnighters’ Airs on PBS Tonight

The PBS series POV is airing the documentary The Overnighters tonight at 10 pm. Here is how they’re describing it:

A modern-day Grapes of Wrath, The Overnighters tells an electrifying story about the promise of redemption and the limits of compassion.

I reviewed the film here.

In short, a congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the focus of one North Dakota’s town’s efforts to assimilate a massive influx of would-be oil workers, none of whom have a clue as to where they will live, how much work is actually available, or what they will do if they fail to make enough money to feed themselves or even get back home. As one pastor attempts to open wide the doors of charity and compassion, the citizens become increasingly disturbed by the disruption to their community and the criminal backgrounds of some of these workers.

And then there’s a twist.

Here’s the trailer:

Watch it if you can. I will be curious as to your response.

Posted in A Strange Review | 1 Comment

On Refusing to Watch ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’

Oh the irony.

Oh the irony.

When I first saw the trailer for this, I thought: “What fun!”

And then it was released.

And then I read, I don’t remember where, that it featured a vicious and bigoted depiction of evangelical Christians — whose slaughter is seen as an act of perverse justice.

So fun it was not, especially in light of those Christians beheaded and crucified by ISIS butchers, the images of which were still emblazoned on my mental landscape.

I just stumbled upon this post by Maggie Gallagher, which was published back in February. I hope she won’t mind my quoting from it extensively. I think it is apropos for a couple of reasons: (1) Kingsman: The Secret Service is now available on VOD and promoted incessantly as “kick-ass” fun, and (2) the glee with which secular elites continue to raze Christian cultural markers, institutions, and businesses. This may very well turn into something far more Jihadi-like as their “social justice” tendrils begin choking the oxygen out of more brains.

From Gallagher’s post:

I don’t like that word “Christianaphobia.” The evil and disturbed progressive man who killed three Muslims last week did not hate Christians in particular; he hated God-lovers in general. As the New York Times reports:

Mr. Hicks appeared to have a deep dislike of all religion. On his Facebook page, nearly all of his posts expressed support for atheism, criticism of Christian conservatives, or both. Last month he posted a photograph that said, ‘Praying is pointless, useless, narcissistic, arrogant, and lazy.’

At her news conference, Hicks’s wife Karen felt the need to assert that her husband, while clearly a murderer, was not a bigot. As proof she offered that he supported abortion and gay marriage. (Note here the peculiar dominant cultural assumption that progressive views inoculate a person against all charges of bigotry or hatred by definition.)

The phenomenon emerging among the educated left-wing classes is better dubbed theomisia, or the hatred of God, and by extension God-lovers. …

It is also a good word to describe the hatred painstakingly indulged in and lovingly cultivated by the movie Kingsman in a way that I have never seen before from Hollywood. Stay with me a second.

Kingsman’s otherwise innocuous and comic plot involves a billionaire villain who decides that, to save Earth and mankind from global warming, he will depopulate the Earth. His plan is to offer the world a free cell phone containing a chip that can excite the hatred centers of the brain and remove inhibitions. Phones in hand, the earth’s people will slaughter one other, leaving only a handful of powerful and rich people whom our villain saves on his version of the Ark, a bunker in the snowy mountains.

Before our villain launches his plan to wipe out almost all of mankind, he decides to test his device on what appears to be a small Southern Baptist church, incongruously located close to London (maybe I missed something). Naturally, this congregation is identified as a hate group, a sort of fictional Westboro that hates gays, Jews, fornication, divorce, abortion, and black people, openly and generally.

But Kingsman dwells long, lovingly, and lasciviously on these Christians, with a cross and an altar behind them, hacking, shooting, and axing each other, while the hero (temporarily under the influence of the villain’s evil machine) joins even more efficiently in killing Christians and emerging unscathed. These are the only religious people in the movie, and the stage for their violent deaths is full of icons of ordinary Christianity — an altar, a cross, pews.

The violence is both voluptuous and visceral, and the audience is clearly meant to libidinously enjoy it, watching our suave hero massacre Christians with maximum blood and gore, our enjoyment made more complete and excusable by the fact that the villain’s machine made him do it.

Gallagher goes on to describe how a work of sociology she had just finished reading, So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? by George Yancey and David A. Williamson, recorded in chilling detail how some well-educated progressives indulge a sick preoccupation with inflicting pain on Christians, a blood lust resembling that of the Jihadis:

“I want them all to die in a fire,” said one man with a doctorate. “I would be in favor of establishing a state for them. . . . If not then sterilize them so they can’t breed more,” said a middle aged man with a master’s degree. “The only good Christian is a dead Christian,” said another under-45-year-old man with a doctorate. “I abhor them and I wish we could do away with them,” said a middle-aged woman with a master’s degree. “A tortuous death would be too good for them,” said a college-educated man between the ages of 36 and 45. “They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse,” said an elderly woman with a master’s degree.

Who was Hollywood entertaining with Kingsman’s groundbreaking displays of orgiastic pleasure in witnessing a Christian massacre? All the good people above, who would never, I am sure, commit violence against Christians, but for whom the idea of doing so gives a guilty pleasure.

If these living guardrails of History’s direction cannot realize their dream of seeing Christians die in large quantities, at the very least:

 “Restrict their ability to become judges, senators, representatives, member of Cabinet, military chief of staff and other powerful members of government,” said a man over 75 with a bachelor’s degree. “Should not be able to make decisions regarding the law, they should somehow have to be supervised if they are working with other people (drastic, I know),” said a woman under 45 with a master’s degree. “We should put in place mandatory extreme prison sentences for anyone or any group that attempts to take away civil liberties guaranteed by our constitution,” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. “Churches should not be allowed to provide orphanages and adoption programs,” said one elderly man with a doctorate. “I think we should restrict the indoctrination of children in religious dogma and ritual” said a middle-aged man with a master’s degree. Conservative Christians should “not be allowed to hold political office, be police etc., serve in the armed forces,” said another middle aged man with a doctorate.

Can anyone dismiss such scenarios as far-fetched anymore?

I wonder if the best and the brightest quoted above would have had the audacity to admit their psychopathological vision to the surviving members of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, whose witness has put to shame not only the gaggle of white supremacist sociopaths that still stalk the land but also the Christian-haters who would otherwise not associate themselves with their ilk — and, frankly, more than a few Christians, such as myself, who in light of such a massacre would obey Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek only after doing my damnedest to put a mortar shell in Dylann Roof’s.

Imagine: Roof actually began to reconsider his bloody agenda “because everyone was so nice to him” at the church he singled out as ground zero for the race war he hoped to ignite. This white stranger walks into Emanuel AME — a denomination formed in 1787 because white Methodist Episcopalians segregated black congregants and forbade black preachers from ministering to white members — and is almost deconverted from his false race-based faith by the sheer force of his soon-to-be victims’ good will.

Would those progressive citizens interviewed by Williamson and Yancey, well-indoctrinated in the virtue of tolerance no doubt, have cheered on Dylann Roof if his motive had been to kill Christians and not black folk? I can only believe that their desiccated imaginations picture Christian churches today as either all white or all stuck in 1787, as does Kingsman, it appears.

Or would those broad-minded elites have preferred a less haphazard, more systematic, and preferably publicly funded process of eradication?

(And will the workers tasked with rounding up Christians or cutting off their livelihoods be unionized? What do you think the minimum wage for such work will be? Will there be dental?)

I think it’s time for Christians and other non-crazy Americans to spend their entertainment dollars with even greater discretion.

Perhaps it’s also time for Christian websites (and those sympathetic to their concerns) to begin offering a new rating for films such as Kingsman — something like “Rated E for eliminationist.”

Posted in "Entertainment", Are You Out of Your Freaking Mind?, I'd Rather Burn the Money | 3 Comments

A Strange Preview: Stanley Kubrick’s ‘The Downslope’

Cotton candy for zombies.

Make it stop.

You read correctly. The late Stanley Kubrick will be reanimated to direct his original screenplay, which will star the late Clark Gable, William Holden, and Gary Cooper, although I may be mistaken about that. The director of such classics as Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Roller Boogie wrote The Downslope very early in his career.

Stanley Kubrick’s unproduced 1956 screenplay “The Downslope,” a historical drama set against the backdrop of the Civil War, is being developed as a feature film trilogy, with Marc Forster (“World War Z,” “Monster’s Ball”) attached to direct and produce the first installment. …

The story, which Kubrick developed with Civil War historian Shelby Foote, focuses on a series of bitter battles in the Shenandoah Valley between Union Gen. George Armstrong Custer and Confederate Col. John Singleton Mosby.

According to the announcement, Kubrick spent years researching and writing the film, creating meticulous maps and notes along the way. The revived project is said to have the blessing of the Kubrick family.

Of course, Steven Spielberg’s A.I. was also a Kubrick project developed postmortem, although Kubrick had given up on this project as early as 1995 and actually pursued Spielberg as substitute director. Spielberg turned him down at the time, only to take up the project in 1999 at the behest of Kubrick’s widow.

In any event, we all know how the film turned out. It has its fans, even a small library of revisionist criticism now hailing the thing as a masterpiece, but a more calamitous mismatch of sensibilities I can’t think of. If you haven’t seen it, imagine ET as directed by David Cronenberg, who was fired and replaced by Terry Gilliam, who was fired and replaced by Robert Wise.

I don’t have much hope for The Downslope, as Kubrick’s vision is never limited to the page but can only be realized by someone with his skill set for crafting meticulous visual set pieces, someone who can move a camera with a diamond cutter’s precision — in other words, only by Kubrick himself. Conjure up the impeccable composition; the deliberate, modulated footfalls and vocalizations of the actors; the use of classical music as counterpoint — how is Forster going to compete with what might have been?

I eagerly await Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon, directed by Joss Whedon, however.

 

Posted in A Strange Preview, Cinecitta | Leave a comment