Month: December 2023

Recently I have been exposed to Hallmark Channel Christmas movies. I say exposed to, not watched. They have been on in the background while I have done other things. However, my exposure was enough to gain a significant appreciation for these feats of cinematic wonder. There is more going on here than meets the eye.

I am sure that most of you know that the Hallmark Channel is the premier purveyor of Christmas content. Hallmark’s “Countdown to Christmas” began on October 20 and runs through December 21. This year’s festive bonanza includes 31 film premiers and nine original “Miracles of Christmas” movies and mysteries. You get more  streaming content on “Hallmark Movies Now”, with such features as never-before-seen scenes from previous holiday hits, like 2022’s “Three Wise Men and a Baby” (the Director’s cut?).

I know that some traditionalists will gripe about a countdown to Christmas starting before Thanksgiving. But give Hallmark credit. They not only could care less what you think, they are rubbing it in your faces by starting the countdown in mid-October. As Ovid once said, “The bold adventurer succeeds the best.”

The fact that Hallmark has come up with so many new films in the midst of strikes by both writers and actors must be viewed as a holiday miracle in and of itself. I know certain cynics will respond that the plot lines and on-screen talent in these movies are so similar that all Hallmark needed was one scab writer locked in a shabby hotel room and a directory for the Model Alliance to pull this off. But I don’t think that’s giving Hallmark enough credit. For us peons the Christmas countdown may start in mid-October, but for them it commences year after year on December 26.

In fact, they do use more than one writer. I know, I checked it out (unless the one writer they have is using pseudonyms like the blacklisted Hollywood Ten, which is possible). These annual movies are a huge employment boon for Hollywood talent. To get them all done Hallmark employs hundreds of directors, camera operators, editors, make-up artists, gaffers, grips and best boys. And while I doubt if they’re the best paying jobs in the business, I am pretty sure that there is no truth to the rumor that these movie magic worker bees are being paid minimum wage and a buy one, get one free coupon for seasonal greeting cards.

Let’s not forget the musicians and musical composers. It does seem that there was only one score composed for use in all these films, but the composer who wrote that score is doing just fine. Plus, a host of violinists are needed to bring this misty-eyed music to life. There is also the inevitable penultimate scene when it appears that the would-be lovers are not going to unite despite their mutual infatuation, and a melancholy acoustic folk song or two is inserted to bring the pathos home. Let’s face it, these troubadours aren’t finding many other outlets for their plaintive musings.

Then there are the on-screen thespians. Granted, only certain types need apply. For men, casting is clearly done at gyms all over Los Angeles. If you don’t have bulging pecs and a Fabio face with the hair to match, you’re out of luck. The women are all attractive, but in a wholesome, small town girl kind of way. No Jessica Rabbit’s for these films. Even the mononymous named “Rikki” (think Cher), in the classic “Catch a Christmas Star” is more Molly Ringwald than Madonna.

Of course, it takes more than romantic leads to make a Christmas movie. You need the wise old Grandma or Grandpa to impart shrewd words of advice like “Follow your heart dear”, or “Don’t eat the fruitcake”. And there is the inevitable obnoxious precocious kid sister or brother to propel the action and provide comic relief through a well-aimed but prescient barb. Mix in a cuddly puppy or two and you are sure to have unbridled enchantment.

Hallmark movies also have much to teach. For example, apparently minor royalty is alive and well in Europe. There appear to be enough rich princes and princesses to fulfill the dreams of a slew of provincial boys and girls. How else can you explain “A Royal Queens Christmas”, “A Royal Christmas”, “A Royal Runaway Romance”, “A Royal Winter” and let’s not forget “A Royal Corgi Christmas”. Apparently, all these young royals are bored with their jet setting lifestyle and just want to settle down in a quaint American town with a wholesome milk fed lad or lass. Who knew.

You can also see the world through Hallmark. Whether it’s “A Merry Scottish Christmas”, “Joyeux Noel”, My Norwegian Holiday”, “A Heidelberg Holiday” or, my hometown favorite, “Miracle in Bethlehem, Pa.”, you will experience Christmas throughout the globe. Not to worry. No matter where Hallmark takes you everyone speaks English, even the French, with or without British accent. In fact, the same is true of the plethora of minor royalty as well. Plus, all these diverse people and places have pretty much the same good old American holiday traditions (unless you count that Scottish Christmas Haggis). How convenient can you get.

There is also plenty of diversity. Among the 164 Christmas movies streaming on the Hallmark Channel, at least 3 or 4 star Black actors, 2 or 3 celebrate those eight crazy days of Hanukkah, and there are even gays couples thrown in here or there. There are also crime thrillers (“Mystery on Mistletoe Lane”), reunited families (“My Southern Family Christmas”), and cats rather than dogs (“The Nine Kittens of Christmas”). A true plethora of human, and animal, experience.

But what really makes Hallmark movies special is their ability to wring tears from even a cold-hearted Scrooge. I dare you to stay dry-eyed when tabloid Journalist Charlotte learns that the reclusive Count she fell for in “A Not so Royal Christmas” is really a gardener, or when, despite his lying ways, they reunite, and he is made a real Count by the King of Sorhagen. Not even a small-hearted Grinch could avoid misting up during “A Prince for Christmas” when upstate New York diner waitress Emma realizes that the “David” she is smitten with is really the engaged Prince Duncan of Balemont, or when Duncan rejects his arranged marriage to settle with Emma.

I could go on and on, but I’ve already wasted too much time writing this. “Undercover Holiday” is coming on soon, followed by “#XMAS”, and I need to get to the store to restock on tissues. They’re not for me, of course. Remember, I don’t actually watch these films. Still, somebody might need them. Just saying.          

I have been thinking a lot about the Pope lately. More specifically, I have been thinking about his death.

I find it odd to be thinking about the Pope. After all, I am not Catholic. Nor have I ever given the reigning Pope much thought before. In my lifetime there was Pope John, then Pope John Paul, then Pope John Paul George (Sorry. A blatant theft of an Eddie Izzard joke I couldn’t resist). Basically, they all blended together, and seemed to have little to say about the world I lived in or the issues confronting that world.

But Pope Francis has been different. He has thrown himself in where angels have previously feared to tread. Most recently, he went to Dubai for an international conference on climate change despite a mild flu and lung inflammation. He didn’t need to go. He’s 87. He could have just issued a supportive statement, and no one would have thought less of him. But he sees climate issues as within his purview, and serious enough that the extra weight of his physical presence was necessary.

Of course, this is not the first time that Pope Francis has waded into waters that many consider treacherous. While the Pope has not overturned the Church’s stance on marriage within the Church, he has endorsed civil unions for same sex couples. He also continues to emphasize that homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself, different than any other sex outside of marriage. He has also made clear that to the extent homosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin, it is no worse than any other sin. In fact, it’s clear that he views other sins, such as lack of charity to others, as much, much worse.

He has also significantly expanded the permissible role of women in the Church. Women still cannot be ordained as priests, but they can administer communion and serve at the altar. He also appointed women to Vatican posts previously held only by men, including a high position in the bishop’s synod, which helps decide Catholic rules.   

Obviously, I would like to see Pope Francis go even farther on these and other issues, but his willingness to address such matters with compassion and in a spirit of inclusion is refreshing. He has stretched the Catholic Church in ways I never thought possible. In doing so he has largely rewritten and broadened the discussion around the role of the Church. At last the Church seems like it is engaging with the world as it is, not as it may wish it were.

This refocus has not been without controversy. Traditionalist elements within the Catholic Church hierarchy bristle at these changes, as do many of the lay people. Critics have been vocal, including Bishops and Cardinals. Many do not want to see the Church back down from what they see as the moral high ground. Others see issues such as climate change as outside of the appropriate Papal scope.

There is irony here. Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy was attacked for being a Catholic on grounds that he would be beholden to put the pronouncements of the Pope over his constitutional oath. It was a silly argument, but it did reflect a view of Papal authority that saw a Pope’s positions as more than more than mere suggestions.

You also hear very little these days about Papal infallibility. Frankly, that has always been a fraught topic. It was not a tenet of the Church until the mid-1800’s. Even then it only applied in very limited circumstances. Yet, it had a cache beyond its actual application, and seemed to permeate everything a Pope did. My sense is that this cache has disappeared as more people got nervous about this Pope’s predilections. Now it seems like many view the Pope’s authority as to be heeded only if they agree with it.

And that is why I have been thinking about the Pope’s death. He is 87, and not in great health. His successor will be chosen by the College of Cardinals (Go Big Red!!!). It is impossible for me to gauge the temperature of that group, but I have no doubt that many of its members would like to pull back on the social activism of Francis, and are inclined to elect a more priggish, supercilious Church representative.

World trends suggest that this is a real possibility. Netherlands, of all places, looks like it will have a far-right Prime Minister. Argentina just elected a self-styled anarcho-capitalist to shape its government. Closer to home, it’s far from certain that the United States won’t head in that same direction in 2024.

Many Catholics have embraced the worldwide culture wars. Others have welcomed aggressive stances around immigration. They would no doubt applaud a Pope that reminds them less often about the need for love in dealing with homosexuals, refugees and migrants. It would be much more convenient if the Pope limited his outreach to more traditional evangelism.

My sense is that the Pope’s stance on homosexuality is especially troubling to much of his flock. This issue remains a touchstone for many, though heaven knows why. These people would like a Pope that reinforces their view that homosexuals belong in the seventh level of Dante’s hell. His willingness to elevate their own sins above the supposed abomination of homosexuality does not sit well.

The conclave of Cardinals will have to decide the future of the Church amid this general worldwide turmoil, and the matching turmoil within the Church itself. Some candidates will undoubtedly present themselves as a tonic to the relatively activist Church of Francis. They will claim that they, and not the progressives, are in keeping with the mood of the faithful. I have no doubt that the internal debates will be brutal.

At the end of the day, I won’t have much of a stake in the inevitable white smoke of a new Papal coronation. Still, the loss of a strong moral voice when we need such voices would be disheartening. Maybe Francis isn’t my Pope, or the Pope I would choose, but at least he is a visible and vocal advocate for inclusion, benevolence, and love, and we can use all that type of advocacy we can get. So, Francis, as another moral paragon once said, “Live Long and Prosper”.