Bringing Balance to the Themes

Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi

1983

D: Richard Marquand

**********

 

 

         Due to its high volume of cool sci-fi vehicles and stuff blowing up, this was my favorite Star Wars entry as a little kid. However, like most people I matured to the point of preferring Empire Strikes Back while adopting more of a typical Gen-X ambivalence toward its immediate successor. The movie has its flaws, but it is still a classic and one of the best threequels from Hollywood. Besides, I have some thoughts I assume are original and I need to round out my Michael Carter tetralogy.

          The movie begins with Darth Vader’s (David Prowse, v. James Earl Jones) visiting the incomplete second Death Star in order to inform Moff Jerjerrod (Michael Pennington) that he is here to speed up the work on the station for Emperor Palpatine’s (Ian McDiarmid) arrival. Here we see Vader’s underappreciated dry wit when he implies that he will “find new ways to motivate” the men by utilizing synergy on their tracheas while Jerjerrod silently regrets the decision to waste so much manpower by having a bunch of people stand in formation for the dark lord. Pennington, a stage actor whose primary involvement in film is this movie, is solid as a vulnerable everyman bureaucrat willing to go along with atrocities. This characterization is so explicit that it probably exacerbated public obliviousness to the more subtle depiction thereof in Grand Moff Tarkin, but that’s a contrarian rant for another day.

          We now return to our roots as we return to Tatooine, where our band of heroes plan to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford) from Jabba the Hutt (Himself). It’s a good thing this character was never shown to us in a previous movie, because he was effectively built up offscreen until being revealed as the disgusting slug that he was. A foul-tempered, licentious, gluttonous, cruel person, he’s a villain without any admirable qualities to find perversely attractive. He perfectly combines murder with animal cruelty with the rancor in a way more subtle than what we got in other movies. One wonders how he could effectively run a criminal organization while being so irrational. His business practices involve disproportionate punishment (wasting money on a bounty!) of his best employee for uncontrollable circumstances, continuing to do so despite the man’s joining a dangerous military junta, and then continuously making the dumbest decisions as Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) continues to foil him to the point of death. Then again, many people in power push their luck too hard. We need more villains who are victims of their own egomaniacal stupidity.

          Accompanying Jabba is his lackey Bib Fortuna (Michael Carter, v. Eric Bauersfeld), a wannabe mastermind who secretly plans to overthrow Jabba despite being an idiot.

          This initial arc establishes the development of Luke’s character. Having since accepted the reality of Anakin’s fate, he has become darker both in attitude and coiffure. He wears all black, and comes off as a true badass as he calmly tells Jabba that he will kill him if he refuses his generous bargain for Solo’s freedom (this is after asking politely). It might be easy for one to criticize this arc as far too coincidence-dependent; Luke’s complex plan is dependent on Jabba’s taking every chance to make the most irrational petty decision at every turn, even to the point of forfeiting C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) and R2-D2’s (Kenny Baker) freedom in the event of the crime lord’s actually accepting the deal like a reasonable person. 

           This is a good example in which themes are actually a prime motivator for storytelling, despite popular rumors to the contrary. In addition to tying up the loose end of Han’s absence, the Tatooine arc is meant to establish Luke’s abilities and expertise, albeit in hyperbolic way. This hyperbole is justified in that it was earned through hardship in the previous two movies, and serves to context for the rest of the movie’s plot. While Luke conquers an enemy through cunning and force (and some swashbuckling swinging), his future battle is far greater, against fare more powerful villains, and cannot be solved through brute force. The hyperbole serves this role. Also, said themes are valid adding nuance to the heroics without invalidating them; they do not involve prickly quasi-feminists who are supposedly right despite what we see in the plot.         

        Some minor disappointments are that Luke should have demonstrated his strength with a more climactic battle with Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch), who did not have any established vendetta with Han at the time. Also, the reunion between Han and the redeemed Lando (Billy Dee Williams) could have been a little more compelling.

          When Luke returns to Dagobah to complete his training, Yoda (Frank Oz) deems him skilled enough to face Vader. Yoda confirms that Vader is Anakin, and justifies his obfuscation by claiming that Luke was not ready to know yet. After the Master’s conveniently timed death, Luke encounters Obi-Wan’s (Alec Guiness) ghost. Addressing him as “Obi-Wan” (this is important) he confronts him over the lie. Obi-Wan admits that he spoke metaphorically for his own sake while being reluctant to admit his past to Luke. It’s somewhat questionable for a wise master to send a faithful follower to hell for no better reason than his not feeling like clarifying a metaphor, but that’s apparently the way the Real Christians tell me I’m supposed to interpret John 6. After this struggle session, Obi-Wan doubles down on the original plan to goad Luke into killing his own father for the common good.

         Many might question the nobility of the Jedi when they hide this truth from our hero and use him as a tool, but I would argue this is intentional. Despite their good intentions, the Jedi are not infallible to say the least, and this is an instance in which the Prequels reinforce the original trilogy. Their stubbornness and myopia was one of the contributions to the crisis: they were the quasi-theological enforcers of a corrupt system that was failing the galaxy and drove it to fascism. While Return of the Jedi is often derided as simplistic, it perfectly follows up on the subversion of Empire and provides the necessary reconstruction on its own terms. It acknowledges and completes the themes of the trilogy’s climax, and emphasizes the importance of an optimistic third act.

          What follows is the confrontation between Luke and Vader on the second Death Star, which is cinema at its finest. The visuals of the throne room are gothic and atmospheric, and the interactions are poignant. Vader has evolved into a tragic character here. Upon the his arrival, the Emperor has dashed his apprentice’s hopes of overthrowing him by announcing his knowledge of the his search for Luke.  At this exact moment Vader gives up (you can hear the defeat in his voice), accepting his fate to pass the torch to his son for Palpatine’s benefit. Vader’s love for Luke, still twisted as it is in Empire, is expressed by his attempts to get him to accept the transition and his willingness to sacrifice himself, if only to buy time for his son. He has no illusions of Luke’s winning in the long run.

 

You have your moments, TVTropes. Not many of them, but you do have them.

David Prowse’s body language enhances the pathos as does James Earl Jones’ (RIP) voice acting; Vader actually manages a look of shock behind a mask when he realizes his attempts to push Luke to the breaking point went a little too far and triggers the most gloriously emotional lightsaber fight in the series. 

         Ian McDiarmid is brilliant as an evil mastermind, but Palpatine’s plan to corrupt Luke fails. Luke eventually overcomes his rage and displays mercy toward his father. When an enraged Palpatine attempts to kill Luke, Vader overcomes his struggle and kills Palpatine to save his son, even though it costs his life.  The Force Lightning scene is a genuinely intense moment for adults; Gen-Xers who fixate on the Ewoks as evidence that this is movie is nothing but fluff have no idea what it was like to watch that when you were five. The act of familial love overcomes the Sith while discrediting the Jedi’s well-meaning rejection of humanity, thus bringing balance to the Force. Anakin's (Sebastian Shaw) death is a great scene. If you want to know why he wanted to see Luke with his own eyes, it's because he always experienced the world through technological filter. It was like a parent's seeing the birth of a child after only seeing ultrasounds.

          A sad symptom of our post-Christian society is the common complaint that Vader was redeemed to easily, which operates under a system of proportional karma. 

          Contrary to Gen-X consensus, Luke’s arc solidified as deeper than that of Han’s, but the latter does have some worthwhile characterization. After Luke reveals that Leia (Carrie Fisher) is his sister and that Vader is their father, Han temporarily mistakes her struggle for a love triangle. Despite momentarily being hurt, he still comforts her and expresses willingness to back off if her heart belongs to Luke. Han would never deny his love her agency out of pure possessiveness to the point of inspiring me to create an OC for the sole purpose of deconstructing a disappointing story. 

           Leia momentarily acts as the damsel in the first act, but she later acts as the royalty who ends up being a bridge between the good guys and the Ewoks, representing the feminine ideal that is universal in theology. The Ewoks are primitives, but they prove adaptable allies due to their natual skills. Despite their paganism (they repeat a plot point from the Han Solo Adventures by attempting to sacrifice Han & Co. while worshipping a droid) there is hope for them, and they are swayed by the good guys’ message. 3PO fulfills his role as the bard by being the storyteller of the saga for them up to this point. I would have still preferred to see them fight the Imperials with more modern means; that did get a little cartoonish.

          A more annoying theme is the typical Boomer misunderstanding of Vietnam. Lucas admitted to inspiration from the Viet Cong’s “beating” the US, ignoring that the Cong were using AK-47’s, not sticks. More relevantly, the war was lost not militarily, but because of lack of support from home as a result of press and public opinion. This is obviously not something the Empire would have to worry about.

        Some would understandably question the Empire's obsession with making giant murder-moons, even when after it is proven to be a losing tactic. This could be explained by the Sith's being a literal death cult and that the Death Star is an act of human sacrifice. A more mundane explanation is that the Clone Wars taught the galaxy that civilian bombing is the most effective ways to win wars in the same way World War II did. Most experts nowadays are of the consensus that it is ontologically impossible to win a war unless you are willing to murder as many enemy civilians as possible. The latter would probably be more in line with Lucas' intent. 

         One of the biggest nagging problems I have with the movie is the logistics of the Battle of Endor. This arguably crosses the line as the dodgy rationalizations for this battle are essential to the story. The Rebels are determined to destroy a second Death Star, and now even more so because the Emperor himself is supervising its construction, based on the testimony of our Greatest Ally, the Bothans. Many Bothans died for this information, which raises an important question: if this intelligence breach blew up to the point of people's getting killed, then it implies that the Empire might know what the Rebels know, and that the Emperor would cancel his trip. Maybe those Bothans just exaggerated their sacrifice, and it makes sense that they are later revealed to be a race of untrustworthy douchebags. 

         Even more absurdly, the Rebels, for no good reason, have made the decision to bring their entire fleet to the Death Star, containing their entire leadership structure. Considering that they only need lightspeed capable fighters to penetrate the station and (maybe) a small command ship, this is a needless play into the Emperor’s hands. His trap is entirely dependent upon this nonsensical tactic. 

        Another absurdity is that the shield must be shut down from the ground (hence the Ewoks), and that a ground tea must infiltrate the forest moon in a stolen Imperial shuttle using old codes. This only succeeds due to the Empire’s having obscenely stupid OPSEC, and I'm pretty sure that Star Trek made an intentional dig at it in one episode. Vader’s wherewithal makes this known and forces the confrontation between him and Luke. Despite the popular interpretation of his personality, he’s pretty chill about the whole thing.

Star Trek literally did this to Star Wars

        Upon showing up, the Rebel fleet is boxed in by the Imperials. In one of the worst examples of people's forgetting that space is three-dimensional, the Imperial fleet only blocks one axis of exit and the battle occurs over a single general plane (I assume they're too close to Endor to escape to light speed). Still, the Battle is a brilliant display of practical effects and contains what is possibly my favorite shot in the franchise. 

          The Death Star is blown up, the Imperials defeated, and the heroes celebrate a great satisfactory party of pure joy.

          The film’s story is enhanced its production. Special Effects are excellent, Alan Hume’s cinematography is underrated, and John Williams’ score is obviously phenomenal. The action is fun. The cast includes Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, Warwick Davis as Wicket, Tim Rose as Ackbar, Kenneth Colley as Piett, and Denis Lawson as Wedge . Return of the Jedi loses a star due to its logical flaws in regards to the Battle of Endor, but it’s an instance in which the themes work together to make a great film, provided the themes are earnest and reinforce the story. Not sure if it would have been better if Irvin Kershner had not made the foolish decision to direct Never Say Never Again, but he could have done worse.

QUOTES: 

Southern Chic and Sunsetting the Concord

The Bonfire of the Vanities

1990

D: Brian DePalma

**********

 

 

         This film had expectations to live up to, to say the least. Tom Wolfe’s 1987 classic is a masterpiece of narrative and political commentary, demonstrating that the woke movement was always lurking in the shadows of modern society before it blew up around 2008, and naturally the movie adaptation was destined to fall short of its expectations. Indeed, The Bonfire of the Vanities was panned upon its release, and there’s even a famous TCM podcast covering its infamously hectic production. However, if not for one insufferably bad performance, I would indulge in an instinct for soft contrarianism by asserting that it was a decent movie whose worst crime was not being as good as a great book. This movie also manages to be a case study in both the weakness and strengths of cinema as a medium.

      The story involves millionaire bond trader Sherman McCoy who while, meeting with his mistress Maria Ruskin, is cornered by a couple of thugs in the ghetto while driving. In a scene that foreshadows the willful legal blind spot toward the dilemma faced by motorists when they are being mobbed in the their cars, McCoy evasively drives off and accidentally checks one with the rear corner of his Mercedes, rendering him somewhat less scholarly than he was before. Jaded liberal lawyer Larry Kramer, itching for the ideological prestige of prosecuting the “Great White Defendant,” leads a trumped-up show trial against him. It was actually impressive that Hollywood was willing to make such a movie, let a lone stay mostly faithful to its themes.

         The most transparently controversial aspect of the movie was its casting. Sherman McCoy, despite his handsomeness and physicality, is a sleazy, flawed, individualistic, and morally weak man who lacks his self-assigned fortitude. Such a role would be perfect for Brad Pitt or George Clooney, but our creators for some stupid reason decided to cast Tom Hanks, who is practically lovability personified. The rationale for this is that they wanted people to see the human side of Sherman McCoy, as if that’s not the entire job of character actors: to act. Still, this is Late 80’s Tom Hanks, and he is competent and fun. 

      The other seemingly random choice was Bruce Willis as Peter Fallow. Many criticized the casting of an American for a role that was supposed to emphasize the perspective of an outsider, but the character works nonetheless, and Willis fits, though this choice is still questionable considering how difficult he was known to be. Considering that Fallow was based on Christopher Hitchens, it would have made the movie drastically more entertaining if they knew enough about Roger Allam to cast him. 

      Despite these false alarms, it was Melanie Griffith as Maria Ruskin who rescues the film from the injustice of being unfairly maligned. Her performance is not just bad, it is irritating on a visceral, primal level, with the native New Yorker’s donning the worst fake Southern accent this side of Rian Johnson’s using some British actor for this purpose just for the sake of obnoxiousness while being praised as some bold auteur for doing so. It reminds me of Robert Duvall’s assertion that men should line the border of the South with shotguns to prevent Hollywood types from coming in unless they know what they’re doing. Griffith lost the Razzie Award to Bo Derek' performance in some forgotten piece by the name of Ghosts Can’t Do It, which I cannot imagine possibly being any worse. Then again, the Razzies are full of shit. I assert that Griffith’s performance is the one thing that single-handedly ruins this otherwise decent movie.

      The rest of the cast is solid. Saul Rubinek plays Larry Jed Kramer, who is reimagined as a relatively inexperienced lawyer. Rubinik is solid as a seemingly nice young man who is quickly corrupted by temptation, reflecting good range from someone who believably played a Star Trek character so monstrous he pushed Data to his breaking point. Reflecting the weaknesses of the medium in establishing backstory, Kramer’s experiences with “pieces of shit” (insignificant, banal black-on-black crimes that usually get settled) and his desire for the Great White Defendant cannot be established through internal text, so instead he gets the concepts spoon-fed to him in a forced exposition dump from Judge Leonard White (Morgan Freeman).

        Freeman is good in this movie, although the desire to cast him imposed some logistical difficulties as it did with Bruce Willis, although these difficulties had more to do with conflicting stage schedules than being an asshole. It also caused some controversy with the local Jewish community since the judge in the book was a Jewish hero who balanced out a Jewish villain. To be fair, the producers also would have had to choose that or the same problem with black characters, so you could hardly blame them for being put into that position. Then again there were two Jewish villains including the corrupt DA (F. Murray Abraham), and they decided to balance out the black cast.

      Yeah, they really did reap the whirlwind. I can see why this movie didn't do well. 

       Wolfe would no doubt be amused by this. 

       The best cast member is Kim Catrall, who plays Sherman’s frustrated wife Judy. Unfortunately, her role is diminished later in the plot, but she is excellent. If you want a good impression of how much of a joke the Razzies are, they nominated her for this. That has got to be one of the most brutal, graphic onscreen kills I’ve ever seen in a movie: I’m not even sure how it got away with a mere R-Rating.

 

Sherman's spirit observing his own unrecognizably
dismembered corpse lying in a pool of blood and viscera

I've seen the feminine instinct for teaching down to children weaponized against adult, but not as splash damage. The scene also illustrates the absurdity of making so much money over what should at best be an essential but banal wage position. There are many jobs that make no sense as commission work.

        Resident Al Sharpton parody Reverend Baker is also well played by John Hancock, who must have been pretty old when this movie was made. He also delivers an unexpected killing blow with impeccable timing worthy of an Angel Dust-style redraw. Other cast members include Kevin Dunn, Clifton James, Donald Moffat, Geraldo Rivera as himself, and Kirsten Dunst as the McCoy’s daughter Campbell.

         The movie has its stylistic strengths, even though the limitations of the medium force it to delete some context (including my favorite moment), but DePalma collaborated with veteran cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond to create some memorable scenes, the most memorable one’s being the movie’s impressive opening tracking shot. The set design in the ghetto is also interestingly stylized. One scene that stands out as a good demonstration of the strengths of cinema vs. literature is the introduction of the Rev. Bacon. The book takes the time to establish his corrupt dealings, and the movie pragmatically opts instead to demonstrate his comical hypocrisy by shooting him at a low angle with bombastic gospel music, ranting conceitedly as Kramer addresses him in bemused deference. The movie has its moments of humor and sticks to the themes of the book faithfully enough even if is incomplete. I often found myself thinking that this movie actually isn’t too bad, and then another Melanie Griffith scene happens.

          One rather interesting case of behind-the-scenes difficulties is the absolutely unnecessary trouble they went through to get one establishing shot of the Concord’s landing (even IMPDb can't help but comment on it). There are times in which the extra effort put in pays off on the screen but sometimes the opposite happens. Examples include the amount of money poured into the CGI final battle in TROS and Kubrick’s insistence that the table be the exact right shade of green in black-and-white movie Dr. Strangelove. They spent roughly $80,000 for location rights and the timing in order to capture the plane’s landing in front of a sunset. Granted, it’s a pretty shot, but the intent was to establish that Maria was a spoiled gold digger by demonstrating that she was flying in the Concord. However, there is a difference between a shot that says “This is the Concord” and a shot that says “This is a plane landing, and that plane happens to be the Concord.” The former would have been a close-up in which the Concord dominates the frame for emphasis. One would wonder why they did not feel confident with how convincing it would be to circumvent the paperwork with a miniature effect, but keep in mind this movie was made in 1990, and Star Wars hadn’t come out yet.

         A questionable story choice was Judge White’s corny decency speech, which was actually included in the original newspaper releases of the book. For obvious reasons Wolfe excised it from the official novel versions, but Hollywood dug it up for prosperity. There is not further comment on friend of Sherman's "victim" in the movie: he simply drops the kid off at the hospital and disappears. In the book we get further commentary when his kindergarten-level painting in jail impresses liberal social workers, not a surprising thing from Wolfe. The death of Maria's husband (Alan King) is perfunctory, substantially less comical and drawn-out than in the book, though it would have been amusing to watch on screen. The resolution to the story is also too rushed and clear-cut. Sherman is bailed out from legal trouble by exposing the illegal means with which he is entrapped, but in the book this does not save him from further frivolous legal harassment. Other annoying moments include the movie’s predictable, hackish concluding line and this shot.

        Bonfire of the Vanities was doomed to live under that shadow of the book, but if not for one annoying character, it would have been a movie worth giving a chance. It may still be for some of its strengths, provided you keep the fast forward button handy.

QUOTES

PETER FALLOW: Our hero, Sherman McCoy, was about to make a simple phone call. But despite the existence of eleven telephones and seven different lines in fourteen rooms of his sixteen-million-plus dollar apartment, this was a phone call he could not make at home.  

SHERMAN: I want you to meet Aubrey Buffing.

JUDY: Who?

SHERMAN: Aubry Buffing. The poet. He's on the short list for the Nobel Prize, he has AIDS, you'll love him!

SHERMAN: Well, a bond is a way of lending people money. Now let's say you wanna build a road or a hospital, and you need a lot of money, but what you do is you issue a bond.

CAMPBELL: Do you build roads?

[Judy laughs contemptuously]

SHERMAN: Oh no, no, no. I don't actually build them.

MR. McCOY: I think you're in over your head.

JUDY: Oh here, let me try. [assumes deliberate motherly tone] Darling, Daddy doesn't really build roads or hospitals or, anything, really. [looks at Sherman, who realizes he's screwed] Daddy just handles the bonds with the people who raise the money.

CAMPBELL: That's what he said, bonds.

JUDY: Yes! Now just imagine that a bond is a slice of cake. [increases playful tone] Now, you didn't bake that cake...every time you hand a slice of that cake to somebody else, a little bit comes off. [looks back at Sherman] Little...crumbs fall off.

SHERMAN: [laughing uncomfortably] Really? Crumbs, huh?

JUDY: You are allowed to keep those crumbs.

MR. McCOY: Many a man has sold his soul for those little crumbs.

JUDY: YES, AND THAT'S WHAT DADDY DOES. Daddy passes somebody else's cake around and picked up all of the crumbs. But you have to imagine a lot of crumbs. [starts tickling Campbell] And a great, big golden cake. And Daddy and a lot of golden little crumbs. You have to imagine Daddy running around picking up every little golden crumb he can get his hands on. And that's what Daddy does.

SHERMAN: Well, you can call them crumbs if you want to-

JUDY: I am doing the best...I can. Excuse me. [puts own shades and leaves]

REV. BACON: Honesty has nothing to do with this Mr. Fallon. Heh, this is show business! I've never known the two to go hand in hand. 

PETER FALLOW: Well, neither have I, and I'm supposed to be some kind of journalist up here.

REV. BACON: No, you're supposed to be a drunk. That's what I've been told.  

DA Weiss: We are gonna prove to these black motherfuckers...pardon my language, Howard, we are going to prove to these n-----s that this administration loves them! No matter what it takes. I'm no racist hymie! By November they are going to be thinking of me as the first black district attorney of Bronx County.

ED RIFKIN: Good doesn't really apply at Ruppert High. They're either cooperative or life-threatening.

JUDGE WHITE: THE COURT DIRECTS YOU TO SHUT UP.

SPECIAL: CASTING COUCH

Michael Fassbender as Sherman McCoy

Roger Allam as Peter Fallow

Adam Driver as Larry Kramer

Saul Rubinek as the Judge 

Catholic Churches in Nashville

This is post is exclusively ranking by aesthetic, not theological validity.

The ranking is going to be a bit ambiguous until I get to the truly good ones.

 

23. IGLESIA SAGRADO de CORAZON de JESUS

A converted Baptist megachurch across from Opry Mills. Bland, but they at least put some effort by adding a cheap-looking screen with pretty pictures on it. I'd like the diocese to eventually buy Christ Church, which is arguably the most beautiful church in town, but that's pretty much all the Episcopalians have going for them so maybe we should let them have it.

22. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE

Another converted Baptist church. The mauve columns and pediments might trick one into thinking it’s pretty, but the overall design is more indicative. Its ressurectionifix has thankfully been replaced by a Crucifix. Overall it’s like the previous entry with a more humble, quaint charm. I have to respect the bold kitsch of the giant rosary: proof Nephilim can be saved. 

 

21. ST. STEPHEN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY

Old Hickory

This relatively modern church has some extremely cringe liturgy featuring a combination of guitar music and TR-808-style beats. Architecturally it looks typical of modern church: tasteful on the outside and strange on the inside. I like the turquoise color for the frieze, but it definitely crosses a line with its choice of font. I have mixed feeling about the Stations of the Cross: on one hand, the colors are vibrant and the emotionality is visceral, but they are somewhat kitschy, and the Roman soldiers appear to be wearing silver-painted cardboard boxes like children. 

 

 

20. ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

Appropriately named for its location. It’s an awkward modernist church with some noble effort to add some reverent traditional aesthetic. Unfortunately, they use offset flatscreens in lieu of missals.

 

19. ST. EDWARD

Another bland postmodernist church. They recently added a beautiful high altar, but it clashes with the architecture, and the now redundant hanging crucifix (I’ve never liked those) partially blocks the view of it. Once again, valiant attempts to traditionalize a modern church whose awkward layout and drywall construction demands a complete reskinning. Even a minimalist design would be helped with a few adornments if not for the structure.

 

18. HOLY FAMILY

Brentwood

It’s a good sign that it was built to accommodate a growing Catholic community in Brentwood, but it’s typical modern with the typical awkward layout to go with it. I do like the angular wooden roof, though. It was not without reason that the Church encouraged the basilica format for so long. Though there have been some improvements lately.

 

 

17. CHURCH OF THE KOREAN MARTYRS

An interesting modern church with an Eastern flair. It also hosts a Byzantine-rite community.

 16. ST. PIUS X

I love the humble split-level stone building and the beautiful altar, but the drop-down roof brings the look down.

15. ST. VINCENT De PAUL

A solid design. It’s interesting that the screen behind the altar seems to change colors depending on the liturgical vestment, but it awkwardly stops near the bottom. Unfortunately, they seem to use offset flatscreens.

14. ST. JOSEPH

Madison

A relatively creative design for a modern church with some atmosphere. My only major complaint is the strange linoleum airport sculpture behind the crucifix and the cold stone wall flanking the sanctuary. 

13. JOHN PAUL II HIGH SCHOOL CHAPEL

Hendersonville

I tasteful minimalist design with a warm atmosphere, but it could use some more adornment, and the tabernacle should be centered. 

12. CHURCH OF THE HOLY ROSARY

I like A-frame churches, and the design is tasteful. It was improved greatly by moving the tabernacle to the center and putting the hanging crucifix on the wall. However, the side aisles have an ugly drop-down ceiling overhead with fluorescent panels (the AC has to be accessed somehow), which was particularly annoying before they moved the tabernacle, and the cold stone walls clash slightly with the warm brick/wood motif. Strangely enough, the school library looks more like a church. Not the biggest fan of the orangish brick.

11. FATHER RYAN CHAPEL

This small high school chapel is a good example of tasteful minimalism done right.

10. BENTON CHAPEL

Vanderbilt’s interfaith chapel (I'm still including it on the list) is the type of modernist design I love, even though most people have more tolerance for bland Postmodern churches for reasons I’m apparently too eccentric to understand. It’s unpopular, but I like the style of stain-glassed window and the layout is a good one.

9. ST. PATRICK

Another old-style church. It’s a bit bare-walled, but it has good atmosphere and an impressive baptismal font.

 

8. CHURCH OF THE HOLY NAME

A nice traditional church, and a hidden gem for those trying to avoid the holiday Mass rush.

 

7. ST. HENRY

One of the few Modernist renovations that I think is an improvement. The layout is semicircular, but the tabernacle was placed in a site of focus and honor. They exterior design is unique, but I wish they had not used that orange brick that was in vogue during the 50’s. The crowning achievement is the stain-glassed windows.

 

6. ST. ANN

A great exterior design with an interior that combines Southern charm and Catholic aesthetic. Recent renovations have improved the church greatly, and the tabernacle is back where it should be. I’m not the biggest fan of the sky mural behind the crucifix, and I have mixed feelings over the recent whitewashing.

 

 

5. CHURCH OF THE ASSUMPTION

One of the older churches. American gothic style, but not one of the best examples. A little light on the color and it looks a little bare. Fortunately, an upcoming renovation will improve this greatly.

 

4. ST. MARY OF THE SEVEN SORROWS

The oldest church in Nashville, designed by Adolphus Heiman (despite often misattributed to William Strickland). A beautiful, classic design.

 

3. CHRIST THE KING

The most uniquely styled church in Nashville. Great atmosphere. Despite its medieval inspiration, it’s the closest we have to a Brutalist church (then again limestone is organic cement). Gotta love the bold move of placing a giant crown over the crucifix. 

 

2. ST. CECILIA MOTHERHOUSE

One of the few traditional Catholic churches here that’s competitive by a national standard.

 

1. CATHEDRAL OF THE INCARNATION

Before the 2019 renovation I would have ranked this much lower. But moving the tabernacle back to the center and giving it a new paint job, which used a more appealing color palette (from bronze and pink to bright blue and gold) while filling in some blank space, definitely put the church in a competitive field with the rest of the country. The tabernacle was finally moved back to the center. The columns now have a faux-granite paint job, but it works. This was the first I’ve heard about wreckovations, since I’ve always been shocked by how much of a downgrade the 1987 renovation was, but it was apparently a relatively innocuous one.

Maybe I'll do a complete list of beautiful churches in Nashville later.