Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Father Stu: A Flawed Story of Redemption
I cannot express how much I hated the new movie Father Stu, at least up to a point. Up to that point, I really hated it. I emailed friends how much I hated it. I railed at my wife and children how much I hated it. I shouted down the hallway how much I hated it. Down the stairs, too. I would have shouted from the rooftops if I had a way up.
I thanked my Guardian Angel that my plan for watching it with neighbors and children were, for technological reasons, dashed. Did I tell you I hated it, at least up to a point? Let me explain.
Like you, I noticed the movie because they are advertising everywhere, on practically all Catholic websites. We went to see the Tom Holland movie Uncharted recently (don’t bother), and they showed the trailer for Father Stu. My 16-year-old daughter turned to me and said something like, “Isn’t that against the law?” meaning, how did Hollywood let such a Catholic movie get produced? We looked forward to seeing it.
One of the things that crossed my mind was that at long last we were going to get something other than the usual, sappy, badly made “Christian” movie, the ones that I cannot stand. Here was Mark Wahlberg, Mel Gibson, and it was being released by a major studio.
The Catholic PR group was sending around promotional emails, and I responded. They kindly sent me a link so I could review it. I noted it was rated R. They said it was because of language. And language, oh boy, the language. Today we are used to a few f-bombs, but I was not prepared for the quite blunt vulgarity. I will get to that in a minute.
Father Stu is the unlikely story of a foul-mouthed, drunken ruffian who finds God through a woman and becomes the most unlikely of priests. What hit me sideways were two things: first, the relentless vulgarity; second, how badly much of it was written.
I will start with the unlikely dialogue that does not have the feel of reality but rather of a Hollywood screenwriter, and not a very good one at that.
The Wahlberg character is sitting in a bar next to a boozy blond. Wahlberg gazes up at a deer head mounted on the wall. The dialogue goes this way:
Woman: “Best kind of date. Bedroom eyes, keeps her mouth shut.”
Wahlberg: “I like a woman who prefers to say who she is.”
Woman: “Who do you want me to be?”
Wahlberg: “I want a menu; I go to a restaurant.”
Woman: “Sometimes I need help getting out of character.”
Stranger sitting nearby: “She’d f*ck that elk [it’s a deer], if it had a d*ck and a dollar.”
Wahlberg punches him and says, “A real man earns a win on his own damn merits.”
This is not only vulgar but patently phony. No one talks this way. It is phony, filmy patter.
At one point, Wahlberg is getting drunk in a bar. He falls into a conversation with a hippy-looking guy—turns out he is Jesus. Wahlberg looks him up and down and says, “I’d f*ck you up if you weren’t f*cked up already.”
Jesus says, “Someone beat you to it.” Get it?
Jesus tells the Wahlberg character, “Life’s going to give you a gut full of reasons to be angry, kid. You only need one to be grateful.”
Wahlberg says, “That’s the most f*cked ratio since the number of marshmallows in Lucky Charms.”
It is at least remotely possible that such a retort could come from the real Stu Long, who had a college degree in English, but never from the Wahlberg character. It is just a cringy thing the writer/director thought sounded witty.
This part of the movie is full of such unlikely dialogue, things folks never say in real life.
The Wahlberg character gets a job working the meat counter at a grocery store so that he can meet people in the movie industry. A-huh. In comes a comely Carmen, the doe-eyed Mexican love interest.
Wahlberg shouts at her, “I got beef.”
She gives him a meaningful look and says, “I can see that.”
She is looking for fish.
He says, “You can find fish in a can, and you can let me take you to dinner.”
“I don’t like being told my choices.”
“How about I take you fishing, we compromise.”
She walks away.
He says, “I didn’t catch your name.”
She says, “Not much of a fisherman then are you.”
Do real people have such corny, snappy dialogue?
The first half of the movie is full of such unlikely and even cringy dialogue.
And then there is the Catholic illiteracy. I will just mention a few points.
In order to get Carmen, a faithful Catholic, Wahlberg decides to get baptized. So, he goes to classes that Carmen teaches. The class is for little children. They all have ashes on their heads, so we know it’s Ash Wednesday, and they are talking about what they are going to give up for Lent. Wahlberg says he’s going to give up alcohol. A little boy says his dad is “giving up porn.” Wahlberg says the boy’s mom ought to give up “sex, because [porn] and sex are the same thing.”
When it comes time to get baptized, in Church, Wahlberg slowly pulls off his shirt. Yes, he pulls off his shirt, in Church…to get baptized. The camera pans lovingly over Wahlberg’s pumped-up frame, he leans down and gets baptized. Carmen is beaming. Have you ever seen anyone in a Catholic Church take off their shirt for baptism? Me neither. The writer/director, first-timer Rosalind Ross, loves Wahlberg’s body. In not one but two scenes she lovingly shows him in his skivvies. Why? You figure it out.
And then the language.
These days, you get used to a few f-bombs in the movies. The children know not to use them. No one in our Catholic crowd uses them. It is a sorry state that you hear f-bombs everywhere, but everyone knows everyday usage is wrong. Still, you get used to a few of them in the movies. What you don’t get used to is so very many of them. In this movie, f-bombs are relentless—from the Wahlberg character, from his mom, his dad, all the time. And not just f-bombs.
Consider the scene where the Wahlberg character is in the hospital and learns about the disease that will waste all his muscles and make him an invalid. The doctor tells him he will need help with everything. Wahlberg says, “You mean like taking a sh*t?” Then he tells the doctor to “take this sh*t out of my d*ck.” I had to watch this a few times to figure out he was talking about a catheter.
There is more. In the scene where he is talking to Jesus, Wahlberg says, “You want to have a big d*ck contest, bro?”
Jesus says, “I know how big your d*ck is, son.”
At one point, he must tell his mother that he has this disease. Foul-mouthed creature that she is, she says that he ought to ask God for a cure and “you can be his bitch.”
It was up to this point that I was railing against this movie to all who would listen. I had not yet finished it. After watching the rest of it, I became truly conflicted because the third and final act was quite good and quite moving.
Stu enters the seminary. He is a changed man and inspirational. His disease is wasting him. He walks with crutches. He can hardly feed himself. There is a scene where he and another seminarian, his nemesis, speak to inmates at a prison. Clearly, his nemesis cannot speak to these men. He loses them almost immediately. Stu pipes up. “You guys get one phone call a week. You can’t call your wife. She has another man. You can’t call your kids. They hate you. Only one you can call is God. He will never give up on you, and you should never give up on yourself.”
The problem is that Stu is crippled. Cripples can’t be priests. The seminary rector, played by uncredited British actor Malcolm McDowell, kicks him out. Stu enters a dark night of the soul. He comes to realize that his suffering is a gift from God. He comes to accept it. His father, played by Mel Gibson, becomes a changed man, too. He takes Stu back to Montana to care for him.
And then one day his father takes him to Church where he is surprised with ordination to the priesthood. His bishop has given in. Stu delivers a deeply moving sermon about his suffering, which brings his father to a 12-step program and to baptism. He even dances with his now reconciled wife.
Stu is assigned to the Big Sky Care Facility, an assisted living center. Outside the facility, the lines form down the block of people wanting to confess to him.
There is a lot of muck in this movie to get to this payoff. But there was a lot of muck Stu had to walk through on his way to the priesthood. This was the arc of his life, at least in the movie version. All the nastiness in the beginning makes sense given where he ends up: a holy priest changing lives. I hated this movie until the end when it kind of made sense.
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 34 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Amazing they got there, but that seems to fit Walburg.
To many writers today don’t understand life, they have not lived. They know movies and shows, but not life. It is like the journalists who went to school, instead of being average people, they are now the elite.
Thank you for sharing.
Amen.
I loved your review. I have no intention to watch it in the theaters. I was mixed with all the vulgarity. But if I can watch it on a download cheaply I might commit to it. Thanks.
I can assure you the real Stu didn’t take off his shirt to get baptized (but you already knew that) He attended RCIA with at friend of mine at Holy Angels Church (my parish) in Arcadia CA.
I haven’t seen the movie yet (nor has my friend). But it’s Mark Wahlberg, so I will.
I read your review in Crisis Magazine – could not believe it was that bad! Worse than bad……shame on both Mel Gibson and Mark Wahlburg – both good Catholics in their own eyes! Hollywood and the movie industry has gone to the dogs. I thought the book Father Elijah by O’Brien would make a really good movie – and once upon a time I thought Mel Gibson could do it – not now.
Thank you for posting this…much appreciated…
An alternate view, that references Ruse’s review:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/father-stu-a-beautiful-story-of-redemption
David Hahn, the author of the Crisis Magazine review, and I saw the same movie. Not sure what Ruse watched.
I have not yet seen the movie. I read both reviews, and find the titles of both interesting. Even before reading the second one, I was wondering about the title here: “A Flawed Story of Redemption.” It seems to me that a movie that points up, cinematically, how vile Stuart’s life was before he found his way is exactly what makes it an excellent story of redemption. Even the OP acknowledges the break between the gritty first part of the film and the uplifting final part. Without that extreme differentiation, it sounds to me as if “Fr. Stu’s” story would have had far less impact on both men who reviewed it.
Thanks. It’s stuff like this in movies that drives me crazy. I understand creative license and all that, along with a director’s urge to increase eye candy. But when an event actually happened in real life, you’d think some adult in the room might say, “Let’s keep this scene a little closer to the original.” Ugh.
Maybe they were competing with the baptism scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding?
My tolerance for extreme vulgarity in movies is pretty low, especially if it’s paired with bad writing. Not sure whether my wife and I will eventually watch this or not.
Re: vulgarity in movies generally, it seems so discordant much of the time. It’s such laziness on a writer’s part to assume the “f” word was the casual go-to expletive even among the rabble. I realize it’s an old word, but has it always been right there on the tip of every English-speaker’s tongue?
I’m somewhat culturally challenged, so I’ve not seen that movie. But I have heard Orthodox baptism applicants are…umm…less encumbered by their apparel, no?
This makes sense, but if @austinruse is correct about the script-writing, then I would imagine that a better script would have done a better job at showing the extreme differentiation. Just my two cents.
I haven’t been to any orthodox baptisms, so I can’t speak to that. I think Hollywood just can’t resist showing off a hot bod when it’s available.
Did I get the quotes wrong? You know, Jesus telling Stu “I know the size of your dick?”
Thanks. I was thinking of linking that myself. I hope Front Seat sees it.
Oh that is so so crass. I can’t believe a writer actually wrote it and an actor went along with it.
I haven’t seen it. The Jesus quote and the shirtless baptism are enough for me to not make the effort to see it.
I have not seen the movie. However … as someone who is surrounded by sons as they grew up, and now as they’re adults, and all their buddies, and having had occasion to look at my husband’s work text thread … ahem ..
I’m reminded of many years ago, sitting around the dinner table with brothers, husband, father, discussing the movie Stand By Me. All in the family were Stephen King fans, and had rushed to see the movie.
My mother: I refuse to believe 13 year old boys curse that much.
Father, husband, brothers: quietly staring at dinner plate
Mark Wahlberg had a rough life, even spending time in jail (prison?). I always enjoy him most when he is playing a character close to himself, a la The Fighter. I can totally see Mark Wahlberg going along with that line, and can even conjure up some context where it makes sense. And BTW, if you were Jesus, having a convo with Mark Wahlberg as a young man, reciting The Sermon on the Mount probably wouldn’t have made much impact. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the priest who took the young Mark Wahlberg under his wing had some real rough edges.
Sounds like something Lori Lightfoot would say.
I was in in the Navy for over 5 years and have spent most of the time since then working in the oil field and industrial areas. The f word and other expletives are used constantly. I used and use this kind of language frequently in that setting. I don’t use it often at home but you may very well hear it if I drop something on my foot or I am working on a recalcitrant lawnmower in the garage much like Ralphie’s father from “A Christmas Story”. It never occured to me to call myself or my co-workers rabble because of this use of language. Vulgarity is quite common in many places and I agree really doesn’t belong at the dinner table, grocery store, or church but I would suggest even if you prefer other methods of communication, that its use is quite common and doesn’t at this time necessarily suggest that those using are a rabble.
In another life I worked in a plywood mill. The boys were smarter and more clever than most of us might imagine. I heard plenty of “snappy dialogue” that would fit into the script of the film.
I haven’t seen the movie, and I have no plans to do so. There can be danger for all Catholics to try and define and refine their Catholic beliefs to conform the Church to what they want to believe. The danger is no different for non-Catholic Christians. We have a President who is what I call a cultural Catholic.
I suspect that Father Stu’s story could have been told without “The Goodfellas” school of scriptwriting.
One of the Brothers at my high school grew-up on the wrong side of the tracks. He was not very tall, at least compared to the juniors and seniors in his classroom. He had been a Golden Gloves boxer and came from the barrio. He was a quiet man with a subtle sense of humor. We never heard him use the language that you might hear in a Robert De Niro gangster film, whether inside, or outside the classroom.
Sorry—I don’t think I made the point well. I was referring more generally to its use in movies, even outside the modern context. I was wondering whether the “f” word was commonly used in the 17th and 18th centuries. Or even in the 1950s. Obviously, it’s extremely common in more modern times. Sorry for the confusion.
Perhaps our learned members will weight in on this. My hunch is that much of what we think of as “polite and refined” emerged out of a far more universal coarse language.
Tell me you haven’t read Chaucer without telling me you never read Chaucer.
I can believe that.
Oh I could see my 13 year old self making that very comment. But to put it in a movie is crass. It’s gratuitous.