Many critics bemoaned 2001 as a terrible year for movies. For some religious critics, the year’s only significant topic was the terrible evil of Harry Potter, and they exhorted parents to keep their kids away from a fairy tale that might lure them into dangerous waters. (Interestingly, those same critics lauded Fellowship of the Ring because the author was a Christian, even though the Dungeons and Dragons phenomenon and much of our culture’s obsession with magic and fantasy stems from love of The Lord of the Rings.) Meanwhile, other moviegoers found spiritual truths evident in Shrek, Amelie, Moulin Rouge,Memento, Mulholland Drive, even in Harry Potter.
Daniel Taylor, author of The Healing Power of Stories, talks to Christians about the importance of exploring stories that come from secular culture. “There is a great hunger for meaning … for justice,” he said in a recent interview. “Many things that we think are in ‘our province’ are things that are also in these stories, because everybody is made in the image of God. We might be quick to say ‘This is secular, this is non-Christian, or this is liberal’ or anything that distances us from it. That is an immoral way of listening. We listen because they are human beings … who have things to tell us that we need to know and will be better for hearing. And at the same time, listening to their stories will help us form relationships with them.”
Last week I asked fellow critics and readers what 2001 answers are a testament to how God can reach us through all kinds of secular art—heavy political dramas, animated lowbrow humor, French romantic comedies, bombfilms were meaningful to them. I received a flood of opinions. Their astic postmodern musicals, action-packed epic myth, and more.
Critics Toast a Feast of Favorites
For me, it was an unforgettable year, if only because the literary world I loved as a child finally came to the big screen in a worthy adaptation with Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings—The Fellowship of the Ring. It is remarkable how the actors bring each beloved character passionately to life. Viewers can’t miss the story’s emphasis on moral responsibility and the seductive nature of evil. It has its flaws—Jackson struggles with the size and scope of the novel, and inevitably rushes things along at a breakneck pace to try and encompass as much as possible. We’re left rattled, exhausted, and Tolkien fans complain about how the film skips some favorite episodes. But that harrowing cliffhanger ending sent almost everyone I know to the bookstore or the library, eager to find out what happens next, unwilling to wait until The Two Towers opens next December. Any movie that makes people read great literature is a reason to celebrate. I can’t wait for the DVD release, which reportedly features 40 more minutes of essential storytelling.
I was also moved by the ebullience of Moulin Rouge, Baz Luhrman’s pop-opera valentine to “silly love songs,” which also acted as a parable about Christian love’s triumph over base and carnal lust. Waking Life served up hours of challenging philosophical debates. It pointed towards God instead of self-interest, a refreshing change, offering fodder for after-movie discussions. And others—The Road Home, The Royal Tenenbaums, Divided We Fall, and Amelie offered inspiring stories of individuals who seek healing for themselves, their families, and even total strangers. And while Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone wasn’t a great film, I was impressed by the symbolic importance of magic in the story, as a way of talking about gifts and talents that make each child special and full of potential. (For the rest of my year-end wrap-up, visit Looking Closer.)
* * *
Peter T. Chattaway, whose reviews have been published at B.C. Christian News, Books and Culture, and elsewhere, admired three different titles.
“I was particularly excited by Memento because it reminded me of how limited our theories about the world can be, and because it emphasized the crucial role that memory plays in shaping who we are and how we relate to the people and the world around us. We all live within a narrative of some sort, and because the main character in this film is incapable of creating new memories, he is incapable of moving his own narrative any closer to some sort of resolution. He is, therefore, lost. My own hope as a Christian is that I am somehow living in the narrative within which God would have me live, and because God sees everything, and because God’s memory is so much more reliable than mine, my true identity is ultimately going to be found in him, and not in me. It was this film that moved me to finally dust off my copy of Augustine’s Confessions, since he makes a similar point near the end of that book.”
He also mentions a Holocaust “dramedy,” Divided We Fall. “It made me wonder how willing I would be to risk my own life to save a friend, and which ended with a powerful picture of hope and forgiveness (made all the more resonant for me by the film’s deliberate Christian symbolism.)” And lastly, “Believe it or not, Osmosis Jones. This film does some very clever things by setting its police-story conventions within the human body—the heroes are a white blood cell and a cold tablet—and the story reminded me that the things which make us go ‘Ewwww’ play an essential, even heroic, part in keeping us alive. As the poet said, ‘I’m a little world made cunningly,’ and this film helped me to appreciate that.”
* * *
The Circle haunts Mike Hertenstein, film critic for Cornerstone magazine: “We hear a woman in agonized labor and finally delivery. There follows a flurry of confused activity, a mounting sense of concern. ‘What’s wrong?’ someone asks and the answer is like a punch in the stomach: ‘It’s a girl.’ Director Jafar Panahi (The White Balloon) continues to display the stylistic imprint of his teacher, revered Iranian auteur, Abbas Kiarostami, with this naturalistic and relentlessly linear narrative, yet manages to slowly coil the story around us and take away our breath. The place and role of women in the fundamentalist Islamic Republic is the subject that passes from one protagonist to another like the baton in a terrible relay. Too much information beforehand will dampen an effect that better unfolds in what has been described as an ‘elliptical’ fashion: this is a film to come into blind, and leave with your eyes forever opened.”
* * *
Michael Elliott, the critic at Movie Parables, posted his own Top Ten list. “Because my aim is to see the Word of God reflected in the movies I watch,” he says, “the one common denominator shared between these films was how well they allowed that goal to be realized.” His top choice of the year is The Road Home. “Based upon the novel Remembrance by Bao Shi, The Road Home is a love story so beautifully and respectfully told that we are swept away with the depth and passion of the emotional ties that exist … not only between husband and wife, but also between mother and son; teacher and students; really, between any two individuals whose hearts grow together to form a meaningful attachment.”
Elliott also found truth in The Fellowship of the Ring, The Shipping News, Shrek, The Dish, Spy Kids, Monsters, Inc., Kate and Leopold, and The Majestic.
* * *
“There is a pretty good war film out there that everyone is going to forget about,” says Rich Kennedy of The Film Forum. “Enemy At the Gates is not the best film I have ever seen, nor the best war film. … Yet, almost a year after I saw and wrote about it, there are moments that stay with me as if I were almost part of the battle. Even explicit films like Private Ryan show a rather clean and neat environment in which to fight and take the other guy’s head off. The interior sequences of Enemy are something completely different. War is dirty. War is filled with pestilence, filth, and extreme lack of comfort. Watching this film, I could almost feel my allergies and sinus problems well up as characters attempt to eat dinner or catch a little sleep in cramped, collapsed basements and sewer tunnels. I’ve never been introduced to this sort of privation that is really quite logical for any battleground, if you think about it.”
* * *
Steven D. Greydanus of Decent Films lauds The Fellowship of the Ring: “Far from a mere sword-and-sorcery film, Fellowship … is a work of serious epic Western fairy-tale mythopoeia—the first truly successful film of that kind. The historic significance of Jackson’s achievement can scarcely be overstated. In the three central heroes, Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn, we start to see dim reflections of the mystery of Christ. All three begin to undergo a sort of self-sacrifice or ‘death’ and subsequent rebirth; and together they suggest in a remote way the threefold mission of Christ as priest, prophet, and king.”
* * *
“Waking Life is one of the most theologically and artistically invigorating film I’ve seen in years,” says Doug Cummings at Chiaroscuro. “It’s a film about ideas and how we process them, and while many of its notions are introductory philosophical topics, the film brings them to life through its many eccentric characters and wobbling, mismatched animation. It’s not a film like most, with an easily-identifiable setup/conflict/resolution narrative pattern, but like life itself, simply follows a listener as he drifts through an imaginary town meeting one articulate person after another, each one asking some of life’s biggest questions. Who are we really? What determines our actions? What is the relationship between our dreams and reality? One might ask the same questions about movies in general—and Waking Life does, in a beautiful scene that suggests that a truthful image “is a record of the face of God.” When the plot does sneakily arise, the character is already on a headlong journey to God, wondering whether to take a leap of faith in order to experience “waking life.” With over 30 artists contributing their personal styles to the project, its non-conventional narrative structure, and its reflective tone, the real miracle is that this film was released in major U.S. cinemas at all. Don’t miss it when it comes out on video.”
Steve Lansingh agrees with Cummings. “I figured, going into Waking Life, that I would like it. After all, the film is a series of monologues on the nature of life and dreams, and, as a writer and a contemplative, I cherish words and ideas. Yet I loved the film for reasons I hadn’t assumed, as it pushed me in another direction. Rather than merely delivering a discourse of philosophies, the movie jars you—with groggy animation and a cacophony of words—into seeing how poorly words grasp at truth. The characters seek to pin down life with exact definitions and theories, and yet we see through our protagonist that the most human moments—seeking, presence, connection, surrender—are wordless acts. Amid the storm of words, the silences become sharply powerful.”
A Menu of Reader Recommendations
Among those readers who responded to my meaningful movie question, Wayne Proctor highlights Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s French comedy Amelie: “Selfless, benevolent acts without celebrity are a rare breed in this day and age, and I found that to be the beautiful heart of the film.”
Likewise, Jessica Poundstone is enamored of Amelie: “Plunging your hand into a sack of dried beans. Making shadow puppets on your bedroom wall. Sticking raspberries on your fingers and popping them off with your teeth, one by one. These are but a few of the small pleasures spotlighted in Amelie. (Why they didn’t keep the original French title of the film, The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulainfor its U.S. release is beyond me.) I adored this film’s willingness to go over the top with everything—from the luscious greens, golds, reds and blues that saturate every frame to the title character, with her enormous eyes, porcelain skin and impish smile; to the storyline: girl on a mission to execute outrageous, anonymous good deeds. The film is a wild celebration of moviemaking, life, and love. It has set me looking for small ways to bring poetry and magic back into my everyday life.”
Dan Buck nominates Moulin Rouge: “As a Christian artist I see my peers bowing to the status quo of Christian art. Great minds are reduced to painting landscapes with Bible verses blazoned across them, [making] videos to 15-year-old Christian propaganda songs, and creating music that all sounds the same. Hollywood is equally restrictive on its filmmakers. The formulas are in place, but Baz Luhrman has chose not to use them and has still created beautiful art. His film moves me and his courage inspires me.”
He admits, “There is little that will make this movie a favorite among most Christians. The story takes place around a 1900s brothel and its themes are a rehash of old ideas of Beauty, Freedom, Truth, and Love being victorious over Greed, Malice, Power, and Hatred. Yet, Baz Luhrman has unleashed his imagination. The result is a visual cacophony of sights and sounds that flood the viewer.” Our first reaction is to gasp for air, but then we start to fall in love. With the characters, with the music and with the imaginative powerhouse that lies behind it all.”
Jason Cusick writes in praise of Memento for several reasons: “First, I believe it represents a new step in filmmaking. While it was Orson Wells who did away with linear storytelling, Memento‘s creator threw storytelling into the midst of postmodern storytelling in actually allowing his audience to connect with a man with no long-term memory. Second, because its simplicity as a film—great acting with few characters and a challenging plot—take us away from the big budget, big action films without resorting to being a three-character romantic tryst. Third, the message of Memento is a profoundly spiritual one, showing the great lengths to which we as fallen humans go to in dealing with painful memories and the ways we can use others so cunningly for our own advantage. It does this not by glorifying disobedience and sin but showing the dark and self-deceptive side of human nature.”
For Ed Rock Crabtree, Monsters, Inc. made a difference:“I know it sounds fluffy, no pun intended, but Monsters, Inc. really impacted me. It’s a happy movie, and I found that it really softened the harsh mood I was in when I saw it. I left a man more at peace—and smiling! I found it to be a heartwarming film that showed we all have a lot of prejudice and that if we get to know people different from us we may find they’re not only not scary but people we’d like to be with.”
“I would have a tough time choosing between Memento, Waking Life, and Thirteen Days,” says Don Smith. “The first two films led to many wonderful conversations about the meaning and nature of life, consciousness, and our roles in it. … [Memento] had a coherent and powerful story that cut to the heart of what it means to be human. … Waking Life, although ostensibly about dreams, got me thinking about the value of interaction and communication. … Memento was wrapped up in one skull, but Waking Life was a conversation. … [Thirteen Days] showed the value of real leadership in a crisis situation.”
Some were impressed by films from years past. Christian Hamaker writes, “In a year when cinematic imagination was sorely lacking, the most meaningful film was a 1946 gem, all dressed up and restored thanks to Martin Scorcese: Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s A Matter of Life and Death, which I saw, at last, at the American Film Institute theater in Washington, D.C. Modern digital effects wizardry can’t hold a candle to this film’s Technicolor sequences beheld on a big screen.”
* * *
After the celebration of the year’s best films, it’s sometimes hard to stomach what is served as leftovers. But here are a couple of noteworthy new pictures and what the critics are saying about them.
Hot From the Oven
Who’s afraid of the big bad Beast of Gevaudan? There really is a story in the history books about a wolfish beast that crept about at night and devoured unfortunate peasants in 18th-century France during the reign of Louis XV. Brotherhood of the Wolf takes that obscure bit of history and runs with it, creating a violent, intense, bloody epic.
Two heroes ride into town to try to end the terror. Gregroire de Fronsac (Samuel Le Bihan), a David Lee Roth look-alike, is a Frenchman sent by the king to hunt the animal. His friend is Mani, an Iroquois warrior that Gregoire befriended in America and brought to France. In spite of the racist attitudes of his countrymen, Gregroire respects Mani and admires his tracking instincts. They’re a formidable team, but the more they investigate, the more it becomes clear that they aren’t just fighting a monster; they’re fighting a conspiracy of dangerous men.
It’s definitely awe-inspiring. But parents, don’t be fooled—this is not just another thrill-a-minute adventure with cool heroes and Matrix-style martial arts fighting. While the scenery is great and the story compelling, this is the bloodiest movie to come along in quite a while, positively reveling in slow-motion footage of cruel violence. The camera worships the wrathful vengeance of its heroes; one even goes so far as to scalp an enemy and flaunt the bloody trophy.
The film transgresses in other ways as well. There are also several unnecessary scenes set in a brothel merely for the opportunity to put scantily clad women onscreen. If this was essential to the story, that would be one thing, but this is merely decadence. While the movie frowns on religious hypocrisy, it seems to count promiscuity among a hero’s proper virtues. The hero of this story feels free to sleep with any prostitute he likes, even as he’s trying to woo what he calls his “true love.” Isn’t there a conflict of interest there?
It’s not all bad. The performances are better than in your typical martial arts film. The cinematography would earn an Oscar nomination if Oscar-voters paid enough attention to foreign films. And the action is truly spectacular. While the editing chops up the scenes far too much, the choreography and acrobatics of the combatants are amazing.
Brotherhood is one of many period pieces that portray the Roman Catholic Church as a sinister body, carrying out great evil under the banner of God’s will. It’s worth mentioning that Christians have carried out gross evils in many of history’s darker periods, and thus artists have every right to portray the Church’s flaws. (I just wish they noticed all of the things that the Church does right once in a while.) But it’s interesting that while the film writes off Christians, it goes on to tell a Christ story with its own symbolism. The hedonistic hero is promiscuous, arrogant, and hyper-violent, but he also lays down his life for his friends. And he is given a sort of symbolic death and resurrection before it’s over. Incredible—even as the movie makes narrow-minded generalizations about the evils of religion, it is acting out the basic stages of a Passion play, and echoing the true drama of a Christ who conquers death and saves people from the Beast. As always, a story told well, no matter how hard it tries to avoid the truth, betrays humankind’s built-in need for a savior who conquers death. A good story requires good design, and good design reflects God’s pattern for creation, one way or the other.
That’s not a recommendation, though. Brotherhood climbs the heights of implausibility, and shamelessly panders to the appetites of adolescent action-film lovers. Mainstream critics enjoy the indulgence. “The one thing you don’t want to do,” says Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), “is take this movie seriously. Because it’s so good-looking, there may be a temptation to think it wants to be high-toned, but no: Its heart is in the horror-monster-sex-fantasy-special effects tradition.”
Most religious critics were too busy chalking up the moral offenses of the characters and its historical anachronisms to make any comment on its Christ symbolism. John Adair (Preview) correctly points out that “the true beasts in this film are those men and women blinded by prejudice and fear.” He still rejects the film for its “graphic violence and explicit sexual content.”
Jerry Langord (Movieguide) calls it “an absurd story” that “follows in the footsteps of the latest filmmaking trends to present an historical story with contemporary elements and values. It is a clash which, if taken seriously, is, at the worst, revisionism and, at the least, terribly unconvincing as a storyline.” Still he admits the film is “superbly crafted. It has breathtaking settings, amazing and technically-enhanced fight scenes and a terrific cast.”
Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) finds it too harsh on the Roman Catholic Church. “What, the Inquisition isn’t damning enough when attacking corrupt religious leaders? Now, we need to bring in mythical monsters?” He concludes, “The ultra violence, the sexual activity [and] the religion bashing … made this a disappointing film.”
* * *
Charlotte Gray is based on a novel by Sebastian Faulks about a Scottish woman who joins the French Resistance in London during World War II, hoping to rescue her boyfriend, a pilot shot down in combat. Cate Blanchett appears here in her seventh film this year, playing the lead. She’s reportedly fantastic. The movie, however, is not.
Jackie Durham (Movieguide) applauds the film: “Charlotte Gray resonates with post-9/11 audiences in a way that previous movies set in World War II could not. Cate Blanchett brings the same strength, conviction, and vulnerability to Charlotte that enabled her to create her Best Actress role (Golden Globe) in Elizabeth. Armstrong maintains an exquisite balance between the grand scope of a world war and an intense focus on the human elements in the story—the effects of war on ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Sustaining principles of regard for life, responsibility and concern for others and a high sense of purpose resonate with these characters, even when obscured by pettiness and seeming indifference.”
But according to the U.S. Catholic Conference, “Director Gillian Armstrong somehow turns spying into banal work, while stripping the film of any sense of urgency, suspense or passion and ending on a pointlessly melodramatic note.”
John Adair (Preview) notes “a message of hope” and that the film “illustrates the importance of trust in any relationship, a fact that is only heightened in wartime.” But foul language “leaves Charlotte Gray short of Preview’s recommendation.”
Mainstream critic MaryAnn Johanson (The Flick Filosopher) raves about it: “Old-fashioned in the best sense—emotional without being stickily sentimental, giving more than just a passing nod to character—this is a wonderful, wonderful film … a tremendously moving film about the horrible things people do to one another in wartime and small kindnesses amid the horror.”
Roger Ebert gets distracted praising Blanchett’s work: “Name me an actress who has played a greater variety of roles in four years, and I’ll show you Meryl Streep. Were you counting Blanchett’s accents? British, Elizabethan English, Edwardian English, Scots, Australian, French, American Southern, Midwestern, New England, New Joisey. And she has the kind of perfect profile they used to use in the ‘Can You Draw This Girl?’ ads. She can bring as much class to a character as Katharine Hepburn.” But when it comes to the movie, he says the talented cast is “performing life support on a hopeless screenplay. This is a movie that looks great, is well-acted, and tells a story that you can’t believe for a moment.”
Next week: Orange County, I Am Sam, and Black Hawk Down and more.
Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
