Author: Jim Vitale

Categories
Stories In Focus

House of Cards Returns with a Shocking Second Season

The smash hit political drama House of Cards came roaring back this year in its second season, continuing the story of Vice President Francis “Frank” Underwood’s lust for power.

The show takes it cue from Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Francis and his wife Claire do whatever is necessary to take control and gain power in Washington, D.C. The political drama has it all: violence, murder, sex, revenge, drug abuse, and political manipulation. The show is also an exposition of the relationships that occur outside the political realm. Relationships between characters blur from the Capitol Building to a small barbeque stand in the city, of which Frank is a frequent customer. All the characters have their demons and passions, leading their own lives to satisfy their own desires. But the many side-characters that exist in the show are merely pawns to Frank and Claire’s grand scheme to take control. And yet for all this excitement the show takes a very slow pace. Climaxes are slow to build and slow to diffuse.

In a way, House of Cards attempts to mimic real life. Unlike shows like 24, where the president is involved in gunfights and assassination attempts, House of Cards is more political, with gears slowly turning, plans slowly unraveling, paths crossing, and enemies slowly building ammunition. This is a show that takes patience, and pays off only a little at a time. Despite the plot’s sluggish unraveling, there are enough shocking scenes to keep the viewer asking for more. The first episode of Season 2 may be the most shocking thing you have ever seen on television. But you will have to experience that for yourself.

Courtesy of www.netflix.com
Courtesy of www.netflix.com

Season 2 picks up the show’s plot from where it left off at the end of Season 1. The first season follows Underwood’s ascension from Majority Whip in the House of Representatives to United States Vice President. At the end of Season 1, we are left wondering how characters will respond to Frank Underwood’s immoral behavior as well the fate of a number of characters whose lives hang in the balance. In Season 2, Underwood continues to strong-arm President Garret Walker to the chagrin of Raymond Tusk, the President’s billionaire best friend, in an effort to consolidate his influence within the White House. After Underwood wins over the president, Tusk seeks revenge by attacking the reputation of everybody Frank loves. Underwood is forced to control the damage of Tusk’s actions while still maintaining his own influence over President Walker and Congress.

The slow pace of House of Cards, has the advantage in allowing the viewer to see the development of each character. Francis, for example, is calculating, aware of his plan to seize power from the very beginning. He is ruthless, willing to do whatever it takes to further his own career. He plays whatever role he needs and there no limits to what he will do, and indeed, what he actually does. Claire is as calculating as her husband. She is Lady Macbeth, willing to sabotage anyone who stands in the way of her and her husband’s success. She is calm and seductive when she needs to be, but equally biting and harsh when the situation calls for it. Doug, Francis’ right-hand man, evokes a level of compassion that none of the other characters ever quite achieve. Among all of the backstabbing and power struggles, Doug appears to be the only one who is grappling with his own demons: alcoholism and sex. Yet his character is still guilty on some level in participating in his boss’s venomous power struggle and manipulation. Doug understands, however, that he is Frank’s pawn, and often tries to work that to his advantage.

But before you go and decide that all of this amoral power struggling is not for you, it is well worth noting the quality of the acting that Kevin Spacey, Robin Wright, Kate Mara, and the rest of the cast deliver. Spacey’s gentile southern accent will have you convinced that he was born with a southern drawl and raised to southern hospitality. The actors live into their characters so well, it will become hard for you to remember that these are actors, and not cogs in the political machine. If you decide to watch House of Cards for no other reason, do it for Spacey’s superb acting.

The show is not for the faint of heart, however. This is a Netflix original series, which means that it is barely regulated. The language is very strong, there are some instances of graphic violence, and some of the sex-scenes are borderline pornographic. Unlike Game of Thrones, however, there is no important information contained in those scenes of graphic sexuality so it is easy to skip them.

Categories
Stories In Focus

High Hopes for Bruce Springsteen’s New Album

We cannot say that Bruce Springsteen is at it again because, honestly, the man never stopped. On January 14th, 2014, the Boss released his 18th studio album. It was his 11th #1 album in the U.S., putting him in third place for most hit albums ever. Previously, Springsteen had success with albums such as Born to Run (1975), The River (1980), Born in the U.S.A. (1984), and The Rising (2002) to name a few. Springsteen is famous for his immensely poetic song lyrics, for representing the “working man,” and for performing concerts upwards of four hours without once stopping to take a break.

Courtesy of www.rollingstone.com
Courtesy of www.rollingstone.com

But for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, it is not just about making hit albums and staying afloat. With so many old rock bands attempting to revive themselves these days, it is easy to write him off as just another nostalgic, fuddy-duddy who should put his guitar away and enjoy his wealth and fame. No, for Springsteen, new music is about spreading his gospel. In an interview with Jon Stewart in Rolling Stone, Springsteen said, “It’s never going to be wrapped up. You’re never going to hear anything called an E Street Band farewell tour – that’s never going to exist. It just goes until it stops, and then it keeps going.” For Springsteen, it is about the music, the message of hope it represents, and the joy it delivers.

High Hopes does not shy away from its heritage. If you listen to it alongside Born to Run (1975), you will notice some major differences. First of all, the folk sound that Springsteen adopted during The Seeger Sessions (2006), has continued to influence his work in subsequent albums. Wrecking Ball (2012) is probably the best example of this. Another major difference is that the E Street Band has sadly had to replace the legendary sax-player Clarence Clemons who passed away just before Wrecking Ball was released. Although the loss of Clemons is noticeable, Springsteen chose his replacement well: Clarence’s nephew, Jake Clemons. In addition, the E Street Band has added the legendary skills of Tom Morello, guitarist from Rage Against the Machine, to its inventory.

The album High Hopes is a conglomeration of songs that Springsteen has been writing since the turn of the century. Most of the songs are ones that did not make the cut on previous albums, and a few are songs that have been revamped for this album specifically. “The Ghost of Tom Joad” and “American Skin (41 Shots)” are songs that have been revamped, taking their original acoustic sound and transforming them into proper hard rock ‘n’ roll. “Tom Joad” specifically features solos from Tom Morello, and vocals from producer and songwriter, Phil Spector.

Other songs that previously did not make the cut are the rock ballad, “Frankie Fell in Love,” the jumpy “Just Like Fire Would,” and the stark, grimy, ode to the mafia, “Harry’s Place.” “The Wall,” which features organ music from another deceased band member, Danny Federici, depicts the grief of one standing at the Vietnam War Memorial. “This is Your Sword,” and “Heaven’s Wall” take on the feel of gospel tunes and reflect the message of hope found there, while “Down in the Hole” and “Hunter of Invisible Game,” are heavy laden with sorrow and nostalgia.

Most notably, High Hopes starts and ends with two cover songs, something never before heard on a Springsteen studio album. The Havelinas’ full-blast “High Hopes,” and Suicide’s restrained “Dream Baby Dream” reflect the E Street Band’s ethos: hope in the face of adversity, faith in the face of doubt, and acceptance for all who struggle through this life.

High Hopes is by no means Springsteen’s best work, and with his band on tour so often, it is not hard to see why. Bruce and the E Street band have come to focus more on their performances and less on their recordings. Ultimately, nothing will ever live up to Born to Run, or Born in the U.S.A., but what the Boss has created here with High Hopes is something special. It is a reminder of hope in hard times, and it is, for all intents and purposes, just some really great music. For a man his age and a career that long, it is a marvel that he can continue to produce such high quality music. And for that I say, keep the albums coming, and keep the shows long!

 

Categories
Opinions

A New Old Ecclesiology, Part 2

Last week I discussed my work as an intern at a local church and the idea of a reimagined ecclesiology. I examined the need for the church to stop tricking people into its doors, to become less like a weekly commitment and more like a way of life. Here I would like to continue this discussion by examining some issues I have seen and what to be careful of when viewing the church as “family.”

churchOne of the most pressing issues I have encountered at the church is the sheer lack of time parishioners spend in the church community. I see this as an issue particularly with the youth. These children are in the most formative years of their lives and yet they are only spending an hour or two a week with the church community. These young men and women, girls and boys, are bombarded with new ideas and pressured to conform to their world at every moment.

So how are we, the church, supposed to influence, shape, form and support our youth, indeed our adults as well, if we are only together an hour or two every seven days? We cannot expect a good sermon to last a week, to be formative enough to counteract everything our culture throws at us. The church cannot be only a weekly commitment, it has to be a haven, a safe place to return to after work each day, a safe place to relax at the end of a long week, a safe place to mourn, rejoice, worship and engage local and global issues. The church should be like returning to the comforts of one’s own home.

This is not to say that the church should not challenge. Families challenge. In our safest places we can be, rather we should be, challenged constructively. Of course we see this in Jesus: he is both our greatest comfort and our greatest challenge. The church should be a place where, although we are comfortable, we are able to exchange ideas, challenge each other to grow and question each other’s beliefs. All the while we should be reaffirming each other as children of God.

The forces of culture, politics, and social experiences influencing us on a daily basis should be countered by a church that does the same. I find as a youth director that it is extremely difficult to effectively counter what my students have experienced the past week with what we as a church wish to instill in their hearts. They have seen way more of the world in 6 days than I could show them of the church in one. For example, regularly I watch as healthy young women agonize over their weight, developing major insecurities because they have been told by their society that they are supposed to be skinny.

Now, I do not wish to sound like we should brainwash our parishioners. If you have seen the documentary Jesus Camp, know that I am not advocating anything of the sort. Indeed I believe that our culture does teach some healthy ideas, but the job of the church should be to act as a social filter. The church should be a place where parishioners sort out the wheat from the chaff; a place where men and women, young and adult, can abandon their insecurities and learn to find God in the places where they least expect him.

The whole idea of viewing the church as a family is to see that “secular” actions like hanging out, watching football, and playing cards and “Christian” actions like worship, word and sacrament can begin to find a place together. I am not advocating that we play cards in the middle of worship time, but I am advocating that Christians stop viewing church as a weekly commitment and start viewing it as the community in which they live out all aspects of their lives, the way a family member exists as part of a family.

Now I realize that the imagery of a “family” is flawed. There are plenty of broken families, and the idea of what a “traditional Christian family” should be is so elusive that employing it as a metaphor is almost useless. Here I define family as a group of people in which unconditional love thrives, a group of people who take care of their own and genuinely care for each other, a group of people who take the time to help form and shape, challenge and support each other, a group that is willing to spend time with each other.  Of course, there are plenty of families who do all these things and manage to be very inhospitable to those “outside” the family. So perhaps it is best to define the church as an “Open Family,” a group that takes care of its own, lives in community with each other, takes its relationships with extreme sincerity and has open doors to any and all who desire to enter. That is what the church should be.

Categories
Opinions

A New Old Ecclesiology

This past summer and current school year, I have been given the opportunity to work at a local church, assisting with youth and adult ministries. So far the experience has been a good one, but it has got me thinking about the nature of “the church” and its role in society. Ultimately I believe the church as it stands is in dire need of re-imaging lest it slip further and further to the periphery of Western society.

The re-churchimaging of the church is not a matter of being relevant. It is not about trying to make your church as appealing as possible to the outsider in order to draw her in. This, unfortunately, is what many churches are resorting to these days. I see churches that meet in bars, advertising a nice cold pint while you talk about the moral issues of the day. I see churches where worship is akin to a rock concert. And of course there are the 15,000 person mega-churches where the 45-minute sermon reigns supreme. All the while the idea of sacrament has all but vanished from many of these institutions. We are a collection of individuals appealing to individuals.

These attempts at a new church experience ultimately fail. After a while the new tactic stops attracting people and the church is left to find a new way to pull people in. If I were a member of one of these churches I would be infuriated because so much effort is spent on drawing people in that those who are already in the church are left to struggle their way on their own. Thus we are left with spiritually malnourished congregations and rapidly declining numbers in almost every one of the near 40,000 denominations.

So what do we do? Well, many have suggested that we have to start over, abandon our current traditions and become like the first century church. But the problem does not necessarily lie within our traditions; indeed I believe some of the answers are found exactly there. The solution is found in Jesus’ view of the family. For most they are familiar passages (Luke 14:26, Mark 3:31-35): Jesus repels his biological family and says that his followers are his real family. He even goes as far as to say that those who want to follow him must hate their family, turn and follow him.

I don’t think Jesus really means that we should hate our families; I think rather that he is emphasizing the importance of the church as a family. This is what we need to embody for the church to survive in our culture. I do not mean the church should be a family in the sense that we all feel close to one another only every Sunday when we gather. The term “family” does not mean simply that we have to tolerate each other. Reimagining the church as a family means that we meet like a family, interact like a family, care for each other like a family. It means that instead of church being a once-a-week thing, it is a lifestyle, founded on the sacraments. As Dean Jordan stated in chapel on Monday, church is not about the individual experience, it is about existing as a corporate body. The church should be a refuge against the anti-gospel veins in our culture, supplementing them with the words of Christ.

This is where my work at the local church comes in. They are a church that is on the right track. Worship is only every Sunday. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated every Sunday without exception and the church is grounded in the notion that we meet Our Savior every time we eat the bread and drink the wine. But the church does not stop there. Every other day of the week, the church is busy with parishioners coming and going, tending not only to the building but also to each other. The church building is a hub for all that is going on in the church community. People help supply each other with food, tools, service. It is not a group of people who are cordial to each other on Sundays. It is a group of people who live together, work together, play together and depend upon each other. That is what the church must be.