FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Mark Wahlberg on the Faith
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

Wow, ole "Marky Mark" seems like the real deal. How totally refreshing to hear a Hollywood type talk like this Smile


Mark Wahlberg on Faith, Family, Hard Work, and What He Prays For



it would be nice if his career reflected his faith.

when i think of "ted" and "boogie nights" i dont think "devout christian"

.
Thanks Vox. I didn't know all those thinks about Mark Wahlberg.
(01-05-2014, 12:49 PM)Zea mays Wrote: [ -> ]it would be nice if his career reflected his faith.

when i think of "ted" and "boogie nights" i dont think "devout christian"

.

Agreed
(01-05-2014, 12:49 PM)Zea mays Wrote: [ -> ]it would be nice if his career reflected his faith.

when i think of "ted" and "boogie nights" i dont think "devout christian"

.

Unless the man has reformed his life; since I don't have audio, I can't listen to the clip, but I'm guessing this was a recent interview, whereas those movies were done some time ago.

Judge not...
(01-05-2014, 02:12 PM)Antonius Josephus Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2014, 12:49 PM)Zea mays Wrote: [ -> ]it would be nice if his career reflected his faith.

when i think of "ted" and "boogie nights" i dont think "devout christian"

.

Unless the man has reformed his life; since I don't have audio, I can't listen to the clip, but I'm guessing this was a recent interview, whereas those movies were done some time ago.

Judge not...

from what i understand he came back to the faith after almost killing a guy back in the late 80's. then had a child out of wedlock in the early 00's with his current wife.

judging the actions of a person as being sinful is not condemning a person and passing judgment

(01-05-2014, 02:27 PM)Zea mays Wrote: [ -> ]from what i understand he came back to the faith after almost killing a guy back in the late 80's. then had a child out of wedlock in the early 00's with his current wife.

judging the actions of a person as being sinful is not condemning a person and passing judgment

No, it isn't; I just get my hackles up when Trads sound/seem to sound uncharitable and fit into the ugly stereotypes that anti-Trad types create about us.

Even so, if he's reformed his life (again), it's best to not sound judgmental, even if only for the sake of not scandalizing the Faith. Nothing is worth that, and it's a sin in its own right. Call a spade a spade if and when he screws up again.
(01-05-2014, 02:12 PM)Antonius Josephus Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2014, 12:49 PM)Zea mays Wrote: [ -> ]it would be nice if his career reflected his faith.

when i think of "ted" and "boogie nights" i dont think "devout christian"

.

Unless the man has reformed his life; since I don't have audio, I can't listen to the clip, but I'm guessing this was a recent interview, whereas those movies were done some time ago.

Judge not...

Not only that, but "Boogie Nights" was cinematic greatness, IMO. It had nudity for sure, raw language, sex and very frank talk about sex, and definitely isn't meant for children, but it showed the porn business for what it is:  a pathetic business for pathetic people -- people who were human and also had some good qualities, but who were truly pathetic and lost. It was just so well-directed:  that scene at the drug dealer's house -- with "Sister Christian" playing in the background and those bang snaps exploding all the time -- is one of the most intense scenes I've ever seen on film -- whew!

I dunno.. I personally don't have issues with "raw language" (the taking of the Lord's Name in vain aside -- something that bothers me a LOT, especially when they use Our Lord's actual Holy Name -- e.g, "Jesus-H-f*(&^^%" type talk as opposed to "God-*").  At this point, it's how people in a lot of sub-cultures talk, and a script with dialogue that doesn't reflect reality can sound pretty silly to me (ha, I remember a 1980s-era movie called "Creator" -- which I can't vouch for or diss because it's been way too long since I've seen it -- that was edited for play on TV. They had to change "son of a bitch" to "son of a beast," putting the actor in a situation in which he had to run with great excitement through the streets, pretending to have gotten some great, life-changing news, yelling "son of of beeeeeeeeeeeeast!!!!!!!!!!"  It was just completely ridiculous.)

"Boogie Nights" could've been -- and should've been -- made without nudity, though. But at least in that movie, the nudity "made sense" and wasn't shown to operate on the lower passions, though I think nudity in film is almost always -- or likely is always -- gratuitous. At least, I can't think of any excuse for any off the top of my head. But the nudity and the sex were so un-erotic, so un-sexy, so "clinical," and all of that actually made one of the points I think the movie was trying to make. I still think it could've been made without that, but the movie wasn't "soft porn" or whatever.

I dunno... Life can be ugly. People can be ugly, or find themselves in ugly situations. Artistically dealing with all of it it realistically while not playing on viewers' concupiscence is, I imagine, a tricky thing. I just maintain that "Boogie Nights" doesn't play on concupiscence, isn't intended to entice folks into the porn world or a porn mentality (quite the opposite), in spite of a checklist in which "sex," "nudity," "vulgar language," "drug use" have tick marks next to them. At least it didn't for me, though, like with most anything else, YMMV.

I think having a "checklist approach" to movies (or much of anything else) is not really a good thing. It lacks subtlety and ends with things like, say, equating a scene of the Shoah, with the naked bodies of prisoners of the Third Reich all piled, dead, in a pit, with "9½ Weeks," though the former movie acts on the heart, and the latter on, um, other parts of the body (for most people and by the director's design. I'd guess). They both get the Nudity mark, but are totally different types of things. The checklist approach would put a great movie about the Crusades, for ex., on a par with "Natural Born Killers" because both would get X's next to "Violence." It all amounts to a sort of cinematic Zero Tolerance policy -- an approach which, when applied to schools, results in a kid getting the boot for eating a Pop-Tart in such a way that it ends up shaped like a gun, or another kid getting a "Sexual Predator" label following him around the rest of his life because he kissed a classmate in kindergarten. Unsubtle thought bugs me in general, really. It leads to a "dogmatic" (in the bad sense of the word), merciless, thoughtless, "letter of the law over the spirit and very purpose of the law" world I'd prefer not to live in. It's too "bureaucratic" and sterile. Me no likey. Context, meaning, and purpose mean a lot. And, bottom line, IMO, whether a particular work acts as a near occasion of sin for a given viewer (and all viewers are different) is the real issue.

ANYWAY, other than "Boogie Nights," I don't know anything about Wahlberg's films. At least none come to mind. But I have to put in a good word for "Boogie Nights," even though I'm guessing most trads -- most Catholics in general -- would vehemently disagree with me. It's been a long time since I've seen it, so I might be forgetting something that would make me regret defending it (!), but my memory of the movie makes me want to throw it a bone. Um, as it were. Har.

Natural Born Killers--now there's a horrible film.

Never saw Boogie Nights, though. I usually just watch one film a thousand times before I get tired of it (currently doing that with The Hobbit. I hope it did make the porn business look bad, but I'll just take your word for it Smile
People have religious conversion and change.  Shakespeare (Julius Caesar): " the evil lives after them; the good is oft interred in their bones."
Pages: 1 2