The Movies in a Theocentric worldview
A unique approach to film reviewing
On the assumption that the
closest many people get to looking at life in a deeply meaningful
or philosophical context that transcends mundane concerns is
discussing the themes and ideas of movies they see, this
worldwide web site exists to encourage and facilitate that kind
of discussion in a God-centered–or what C.S. Lewis called Tao-centered–context.
If, as the great creeds and more than a billion people
confess, all things have their origin and purpose in a single
creation and Creator, then all the issues of life large and small
should be seen–at least by them–through the
"spectacles" of that divine reality. That's what this
unique approach to film reviewing attempts. The reviewer, a
magazine editor, a campus minister at Stanford University from
1972 to 1983 and a recent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, has been
writing from this approach for more than 25 years.
Jon Kennedy's book on a theocentric approach to the movies, The
Message of the Movies, published by Kuyper Institute in 1975,
describes the 10-point-scale approach to rating the movies used
in this site. A brief synopsis will help readers make better use
of this forum. In the early '70's, there were half a dozen
distinct categories of movies being made on a regular basis.
Though more films actually are released now every year than at
that time, the number of categories has narrowed as film
producers have found certain formulas to be profitable, others to
be risky.
These general principles still apply, however:
- In general, realism-based films are closer to a
theocentric worldview than romances, thrillers, and
fantasies. Realism-based films view life as either an
accident of evolution or a gift of God, and death as the
inescapable end of life, barring resurrection. In
general, realism films describe life as
meaningless–in the face of ultimate death–if
there is no God. Such films are also called film noir
(dark films), "existentialist" (life is bare
existence; that's all there is), and
historical-redemptive (those that, while facing the
reality of death, find God or redemptive forces at work
in history). In short, the following reviews assume that
if a 10-point score defines a perfect movie, the one that
best tells the real truth gets the highest score.
- Romance, the idea that love conquors all, is a cheap
diversion from the truth that either death is victor and
all is shifting sand, or God is victor and there will
someday be a judgment. Romance, therefore, generally
rates fewer points on the scale. Unless the romantic love
reflects the transcendent love of God, it is a phoney
device used solely for escape from facing the truth, a
kind of mental masturbation. Romance movies are not
always about the love between persons; often they are
paeans of praise to abstract ideals like courage, honor,
and goodness, with no substantive foundation undergirding
the virtues. It is humanistic–secular
humanist–idealism, the hope-against-hope (and
reason) worldview that life is meaningful simply because
we choose or affirm it.
- Thrillers have even less worldview or values content than
romances. They are a form of sport, simply diversion from
having to face the realities of life and death. Thriller
elements are often powerful devices to compel our
attention in realism films, of course. But when a film is
simply a bus ride over a cliff, it has no more to teach
us than a roller coaster ride, a baseball game, or a pulp
fiction romance or detective novel.
- Fantasies can be theocentric and life-affirming (like the
Narnia and science fiction tales of C.S. Lewis), but
most–especially most of the children's fantasies
from Disney and that company's imitators–are not.
Their basic themes, like romance, are unrealistic ideals:
life derives its meaning from what we learn, what we
give, and what we acquire (preferably knowledge and
love). But in theocentric terms, this is a destructive
heresy: it is the literary sphere of life's most potent
tool for diverting people from squarely facng the
life-or-death choices God gives them.
This is the context of the reviews that follow. I hope you
find them stimulating, enjoyable, informative–any or all of
the above.
"Without prayer there is only madness and
horror." –Vasilii Rozanov
Go to: | Silicon Valley Today Home Page | Film
review index
Unforgettable
|
Rated
R-language
|
4 This film would
be slightly above average as a made-for-TV movie, which is to say
its only appeal is some manipulated starts of surprise as things
explode or jump out of the dark. Ray Liotta is good in the lead
as a doctor using Jeckyl and Hyde experiments to solve his wife's
murder, but otherwise there's hardly anything worth watching or
new here.
Go to: | Silicon Valley Today Home Page | Film
review index
Angels and Insects
|
Not rated,
would be X or NC-17 for graphic sex, full frontal nudity
|
6 When the
releasing company tells you its film is "shockingly
sensual" you can expect full frontal male nudity,
which in general can be counted on to earn a film one rating
grade lower than female nudity by Hollywood's strange reckoning.
And when the movie's own PR suggests that the frontal male nudity
here makes its forerunners in the Merchant Ivory productions (A
Room with a View, Maurice) look, well, R-rated by comparison,
you might wonder if this is going to be out there somewhere in
the realm of the "triple-X" hard-core Caligula.
It's no Caligula, though it is farther
out than the originally X-rated Last Tango In Paris (which
would get an R by today's standards), and a tad beyond another
ground-breaker in the genre, Sirens, reviewed here in
1994. Its closest comparative to my knowledge ever to go into
general release was Spetters, the classic Dutch reworking
of Saturday Night Fever. (And though I agree with Gene
Siskel that "Fever" is one of the all-time greats, Spetters
is even better, despite, not because of, its groundbreaking use
of nudity. The videotape version I saw some years after the
theatrical release—ironically, as there are no ratings for
tapes—had the most potentially offensive five seconds or so
cut out, so don't count on renting Spetters to see what
I'm referring to.)
What special quality sets Angels and Insects
and Spetters apart? How to put it politely? These two go
beyond showing glimpses of male organs to making it obvious that
these are male sex organs or, as one Hollywood producer
said in explaining the industry's squeamishness on the topic, as
potential "weapons of aggression." The close runner-up Sirens
did so too, but from a safe distance, and Merchant-Ivory's Maurice
did so by strong allusion, but both of the latter were, so to
speak, less turgid.
Now that I've covered what you really wanted to
know about Angels and Insects, what is this movie about?
Not nudity in general or male nudity in particular; not even
about "pushing the envelope" in filmmaking.
No, this is the film for all those people with
Darwin walking fish emblems on their car rearends, and all those
who sympathize with them. Though Darwinism has fallen on hard
times since 1968, the first two-thirds of this movie is a paean
to Darwinism, both biological and social. It looks at the insect
world and shows clearly how we are all very much like insects,
proving that somewhere along the line they must have been our
antecedents.
We live in sophisticated anthills peopled by
worker ants and even a queen ant. And in the best-organized and
most efficient "hills"—in this case a lush and
lavish English manor house—even the canons of ant society
govern human behavior. A certain action was bad, the lead female
character—the queen ant—says at this film's climax,
"but it didn't feel bad." So she did it anyway,
and doesn't even see any imperative to refrain from doing it
again.
That's the perfect encapsulation of the
Darwinian world- and lifeview of the Victorian era which rendered
the 20th century one in which human beings fell a notch farther
from the angels and closer to the insects. That could be an
excellent story.
As in Sirens, a major figure here is a
clergyman who is uncertain about where his commitment to God fits
into the modern world. He starts out as someone for whom God has
become a theoretical abstraction, and under the influence of the
Darwinist frenzy all around him and a Darwinian entomologist who
moves into his manor and marries his daughter, ends up concluding
that God is now even beyond abstraction, at best an outdated
creation of historical mythology.
But also like the makers of Sirens, the
creative team here (Philip and Belinda Haas, working with a story
by A.S. Byatt) were onto something but didn't quite know what to
do with it. Two-thirds of the way through the story they turned
the naturalist who logically—consistent with letting nature
run its course—would have said it hardly matters who has sex
with whom in this anthill, into a moralist who starts behaving
like a missionary. Where this moral indignation comes from, or
why, we're never given a clue. Apparently the film makers hope
we'll be so distracted by their "shocking" exploitation
of "sensuality" that we'll not notice their plot has
fallen flatter than a failed souffle.
While not "must see," for its
gorgeous cinematography and other production values, and
especially its provoking lots of good questions if failing to
suggest answers, I will rate it "worth seeing," at
least for those not too squeamish, or willing to avert their eyes
for about five minutes randomly interspersed throughout the
film's last hour.
Go to: | Silicon Valley Today Home Page | Film
review index
Restoration
|
Rated
R-sexual content
|
7 This romance set
largely in the court of England's King Charles II (in the
1660's), the first monarchy after the Cromwellian interregnum, is
the story of a playboy's late coming of age. Though redemption is
the theme and a new English sect called the Quakers play a large
role in the process, there's more reference to humanistic values
than godliness here.
Robert Downey, Jr., as Merivel, is somewhat
reminiscent of Fielding's Tom Jones as the central character, a
medical school student with progressive ideas about his
profession, but with more interest in sexual trysts and one-night
liaisons than the healing arts. The only trouble is, everyone
recognizes that, apart from his scurrilous personal life, he is
gifted.
When he dares to put his hands into the open,
permanent chest wound of a man brought to the school for
observation, and feel the man's beating heart, he comes to the
attention of the new king, who likes the cut of Merivel's gib.
Furthermore, they share similar values.
Despite the opposition of his father, a
bootmaker, and his best friend, a fellow student, to his
profligate ways, Merivel doesn't think twice about accepting the
king's offer to be the new keeper of the royal dogs. After all,
the women at court, and there are many of them there, just as
playthings, are cleaner and better looking than the ones a
medical intern can find on the streets and in the pubs after a
20-hour shift.
Merivel has another big break when the king
chooses him to marry the royal mistress, Celia, played by Polly
Walker. The marriage is strictly for show, of course; her bedding
is to remain strictly the king's province. The king gives Merivel
a title and sets them up in a minor palace. Things seem to be
going well, though first Merivel didn't want to marry Celia, and
second—well, you could see this coming—he falls in love
with her.
And I haven't even got to Meg Ryan's character
yet, who is the real crux of this story, but I'll not divulge
more except to say that, as the title suggests, Merivel is
redeemed, at least in humanistic terms, by the end.
The period recapitulation of Renaissance
England is as good as I've ever seen. You can almost smell the
sewerage in the rivers that are the main arteries of
transportation at the time; but never mind, there is lots of
color and majesty in both senses of the word, too. Downey and
Ryan are both excellent, and the smallest part we've seen him in
for some time is made a comic highlight by Hugh Grant. This is
probably no classic, but is definitely worth seeing.
Go to: | Silicon Valley Today Home Page | Film
review index
© Jon Kennedy 1996
All photos © by films' respective
releasing companies.
|
Created using and best viewed in:
Click icon to get your free copy
of the latest version.
|
 |
