Odd. (Does that word even have any relevance anymore Dave? Do you continue to use it merely for habit's sake?)
Sure, I really did think about that film most of the day, then came home to find it playing on late nite TV. It was likely playing precisely at the same time while 100 miles away a young man was making foolish choices.
"Lillies of the Field" I just will never understand why it's not an Easter programming staple.
I hate top ten lists about subjective things. Art is subjective. Art is though a marriage of asthetic and technique, and the informed can observe with honesty about technique.
Technique-wise, "Lillies" belongs aside "Casablanca" and "Mockingbird." There's not a scene in the film that doesn't drive the narrative. So what's the "Lillies" narrative Dave? And get through it without tears.
Well anybody who's never seen it is poorer for that lack. You've got Poitier playing Homer Smith (first and only time a black lead in a film has been named Homer) and he's in search of redemption but doesn't know it.
You've got this crusty old German nun with the faith of a child. There's a power dynamic between she and Homer, playing out all through the film. It's a kind of love movie, just the same as "Guarding Tess" is really.
Mother Superior takes for granted, just the same as those neophyte Christian children did in the hot water bottle story, God's gonna send somebody to build the "shappel."
Homer finds his way again, his redemption, in doing what he didn't think he was sent to do. Along the way, there's loads of stuff to enjoy, ponder on, observe.
So OK Dave? I get that it's a very well made movie, but why is it an Easter movie?
Because consider the interactions possible between the Creator and humans are clearly delineated in that film. You live your little life. You must eat and use the bathroom every day. Is that all you think is going on, really? Trust me, there's a lot more going on than that.
See, that's exactly the message of Easter.