Mass Appeal

Spoiler alert An older and popular priest confronts his own conscience and motives in his need to be accepted and popular to his congregation, when a seminary student who is uncompromisingly honest runs into prejudice and rejection by those in charge at the seminary. When he is told that this young man, whose emotional embracing of what Christianity stands for, will be kicked out of the seminary, and prevented from becoming a priest if possible by that seminary; the older priest finds his courage, and desire to be a better man and a better priest. He becomes willing to expose himself, and risk all he has worked for, not to save, but just to stand up for truth and goodness.My spouse became immediately negative once the story line mentioned the possibility of homosexuality in two of the students in the seminary, subsequently discharged for "possible" not proven activities. Please don't confuse the topics in this film. Though homosexuality is broached, this is not a film about that, or whether it is right or wrong. This is a story about the need to be real. To offer who you really are, as a means to stand for God.At points I felt that the film needed more fleshing out, but given the time restraints...people's attention span...and that this was a thoughtful movie without sex, crime or violence to keep the audience's attention...it was completed well enough so that I did not feel let down by the completion...except to wonder what would happen to the characters in the future.Jack Lemmon is always good...and always Jack Lemmon in all his films. I don't recall the actor playing opposite him as the seminary student but he was believable except when he was to express unreasonable emotionalism. This may have been the fault of the writers, or the actor, or director...it took away from the story line and the attention became, "Why is this smart guy acting so stupid?" Which did not fit with the character. If there was a book that inspired this film, then maybe it was explained better in the book.It was a good film for Christians to watch. It asked some hard questions and gave some good answers back. For instance why does the Catholic church say that women can not become priests? The older priest says that the Catholic Church's stance is, because priests should be in the image of Christ.As the seminarian points out, that when Christ was crucified, only John was at the foot of the cross with Jesus's mother Mary, Mary Magdaline, and another woman. And it was the women at the tomb of Christ, facing the Roman soldiers. (he didn't mention that the rest of the disciples were cowering in the "upper room") It was the women giving comfort and participating in Christ's suffering at the cross, at peril to their lives. So the seminarian asks were not the women more than the men actually demonstrating the "image of Christ" in themselves.A side note....I have heard it argued as a reason that women are not supported in becoming clergy in the Catholic or Orthodox Christian churches, that one reason is that the "spirit of God" must enter that person, and Jesus was male, God is talked of as being male, and so being in a female body would be wrong. AND the Hebrew stance that when a woman menstruates they are unclean; so they could not preform their office as preist or behind the curtains where is the place of the holy.So.to this argument I say, Mary, a woman, had God enter her, she carried God within her. God is not defiled by a woman's blood, which comes forth abundantly during birth.It seems to me that there is a tendency to try to follow "some" Hebrew prescriptions of traditions, and to ignore Jesus yet again.. Jesus taught there were no women or men, Jews or gentiles that came to Heaven, but all were as one in God. Jesus attached the Jews for following "man's" traditions instead of God's teachings. If circumcision, which was a cornerstone of the covenant between the Jews and God, can be discarded; then the difference between men and women, which was not made as great a focus in the Hebrew religion, can surely be discarded also.We have to understand, now that more people are able to understand, now that more people read and have access to the printed Bible...that there are more sources that can be studied now to make what was said and done by Christ and his disciples clearer. Now we have the resources to see that many of the translated words in the King James Bible were translated badly and gave the wrong ideas.For instance, where did we get the idea of heaven as a place with streets of gold, rivers of honey, palaces, all of us young and healthy again?The word Heaven is another name for God. No name can by itself encompass well enough a description of God, and so many names are given to describe aspects of such an immense concept. One of which is Heaven. To die, does not mean going to a paradise, but to be IN paradise as you die INTO God...or reunite with God.The words in the Bible that suggest a woman should not speak in church, IF translated back actually said that the "silly" should not speak in church. This meant, talk that was of this world, of food, clothes, children, business... should not be spoken of in God's house. But, "silly" was translated into "women."So, I think this film is a good film to watch to at least facilitate discussion of something more meaty than "did we have a good time at the films today?"

I saw this film a long time ago and it is just as good as I remembered it. The film quality of it was good, too. I recommend this.

I have to believe that many priests are confronted with the same choice that Father Farley (played so well by the great Jack Lemmon): to offer the people a mild and easily accepted Gospel, which insures that he will be beloved in the parish; or to preach a more difficult sermon, one that challenges the people to really examine their lives and their commitment to Christ, as the risk of being a pariah. It cannot be an easy choice and one feels compassion for both Father Farley, who has chosen the former, and Deacon Mark Dolson, a young seminarian, who continues to pursue the latter course.What is beautiful about this movie is the fact that both Farley and Dolson learn from one another, are inspired by one another, and each calls the other to be his best self. In a time when priests often are subjects of scorn and ridicule, are the butt of jokes and attacks, this movie celebrates the priesthood by showing a young man, hoping to be a priest and an older priest, both trying to do their very best to serve God and His Church.

Lately I returned to this film after having seen it in a theater during its original release (1984). I found it straight down the middle: neither a great movie nor a poor one. The two leads (elder Lemmon, young Ivanek) play almost to stereotype, though not quite. Lemmon's senior priest fits a little too snugly the actor's own screen persona, but one senses that the priest played by Lemmon has basically tailored his pulpit manner to that of the comedian's stylized glibness. Ivanek''s character never comes into proper focus: he is honest to a fault, tactless, awkward, searching, tormented—but the character itself is out of focus, because it is a young man who hasn't arrived at mature clarity. Always dependable Charles Durning is cast as a heavy with no redeeming qualities. Glenn Jordan's direction is uninspired: he does little to stage the scenes beyond the play on which it is based. Likewise, Bill Conti's music is rather on-the-nose. All that said, the movie raises some important issues about the church and its ministry, which can be translated into other professions and services. And the main characters do grow and change across ninety minutes. I would suggest renting and viewing before purchasing, if for no reason other than that Universal's Vault series is a no frills reproduction that does not come cheap.

No worries! All's good.JasmineElkhart Public Library, Acquisitions

Mass Appeal is a fine film which tackles some very controversial issues. To avoid spoiling any of the plot, I shall briefly state that it goes far beyond the young-versus-old dichotomy which one might assume from reading a standard description. Rather than taking one side or the other, the viewer should find themself sympathizing with both of the main characters whilst recognizing the flaws of each. Thus one is presented with a duality of forces trying to adapt and influence in a difficult time both morally and spiritually.This duality is also present in the film's approach to Roman Catholic theology and doctrine. As with other mainstream films of this era which deal with such subject matter, it seems to support the Vatican II idea of change while also criticizing the Vatican II approach of appealing to the masses...no pun intended.

Ich hatte den Film schon als VHS-Kassette. Es ist einer der wenigen amerikanischen Filme, in der die Charaktere sehr einfühlsam dargestellt werden. Es ist ein berührender, menschlicher Film.

Well acted and presented, authentic and real