Hey rabid fans! For the 2 people in the entire universe who ever read my oft belated blog, I have a new place of musings and postings! Go to Evangerfireside.wordpress.com for my new blog!
Thanks, all you loyal fans!
-Evanger Fireside, AKA, Louis Hara
Friday, May 18, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Amazing Grace: a review.
When my roomate asked me if I wanted to go see Amazing Grace, the latest in pro-Christian film fare, I accepted with a hint of apprehension. I didn't expect the movie to be all that great. Perhaps this is because of the all too prevalent complaint of "enlightened" Christain youth like myself who flatly criticise Christian-made films for being "not very well made". My suspicion is that this means at very least "I didn't like it", and at most "the special effects were cheap-looking". The likelihood that most of us actuay pay attention to camera angle, scene structure, quality of writing and narrative unity is slight.
Keeping this in mind, I went to see the movie, knowing that I fit in more with the ignorant mass of uninformed young film critics. So I tried to watch the movie attentively, trying to use my amateur film critic skills less that my skills of simple human audience-ship. But I was distracted. I was trying to let the story wash over me, trying to be drawn into history, character, and plot, but something distracted me--I think it started with the very young children sitting next to me. There were four of them all together, all between 5 and 12, sitting with their mother, bored out of their minds. I felt the most sympathy for the boy next to me.
Undoubtedly his mother, judging from her mid-prayer worthy "mm-hm"s and "amen"s throughout the film, was there purley because she heard the words "Christian", "family", and "famous hymn" associated with the film. Poor kid--he had no choice! He was dragged away from a delightful night of legos and Bible-Man action figures to a movie that was unsure of its genre, and, I hope, more unsure of its audience. It angers me that parents aren't more discriminating in what they let their children watch.
I considered writing this review henceforward from the perspective of my small friend beside me, but decided it would be too depressing. So, finally, the review: after complaining for the last two paragraphs (which I secretly believe is the reason the Blogosphere was invented), I thought I'd start with the good things the movie did, the things that, almost without realizing, I enjoyed and even admired. First, almost all the actors were top notch, a rarity for Christian fare. Ioan Gruffudd was all that the character of William wilberforce needed, with subtle eccentricity, believability, and real passion. Other acting highlights included Michael Gambon as the hearty and humorous Fox, an ancient english bloke still lively enough to ruffle parliament's feathers, and a tragic, glorious, and grotesquely underused Albert Finney as the famed John Newton. Also a delight was the brief role of Wliberforce's butler Richard, played by Jeremy Swift, who stole each of his scenes with his Scottish brogue and Bacon-esque wisdom.
The second thing the movie did quite well was the smooth transportation into the period and setting of the story. Gruffudd especially seemed born to wear wigs and tall, brown boots, and seemed quite at home, along with the rest of the cast, in parlimentary debate. Though I'll have more to say about the writing a bit later, one thing the writers were good at was simulation of the forgotten wit of yesteryear's political procedure. I don't know much about the style of debate in 19th century British politics, but I didn't doubt for a minute that I was seeing what may have been.
If only for these two qualities--superiority of acting and seeming perfection of period, the movie is worth seeing. And now on to the nasty-bits. I immediately noticed the strange brevity and vacuity of each scene. The film began en media res, so some bit of preliminary choppiness was to be expected, but it didn't let up. Scene after scene flowed by, mostly unconnected in time, plot, and intention. Some scenes were clearly shot only to make a joke, and most of the jokes weren't quite worth a scene. Many scenes seemed included for profundity's sake--all for the punch of a final line, which usually turned out to be "you can do it, William, YOU CAN DO IT!" But even the talent of Albert Finney or Michael Gambon couldn't fix the problem of how the scenes were written. The dialogue was too brief, as if Eugene Peterson had come across a Quentin Tarrantino script and decided to try to mimic M. Night Shyamalan. The scenes had no time to build--characters rushed toward conclusions and emotions in fast motion, often opting for only expositional filler when there was filler at all. The love scenes especially, for all the chemistry of Gruffudd and the firey Ramola Garai, looked like nothing in real life-- a parody, a gloss of actual interaction--'show, don't tell' this was certainly not.
I said earlier that the film wasn't sure of it's genre, and I'm sticking to it. It was, of course, a historical drama, but it wavered from comedy to drama, from an in-dpeth story of a tormented genuis to a collection of pithy Christian aphorisms articulated in the finest British accent. It was part actual story, part quote collection. It made me sad that the profound quotes were such a hit with the contemporary Christian audience. I was not sad because I think profound quotes are worthless, nor because I find Christian audences easily manipulated (which they only sometimes are), but because the movie didn't work for its profundity, and it didn't show its themes. I'm not even sure what the theme of the movie was. Was it grace? After all, it's called Amazing Grace, but it was mostly a collection of somewhat connected scenes in which Wilberforce is convinced that he should fight to abolish slavery in England. Some scenes show him discouraged, some scenes show him encouraged, but are very few thematic threads that tie the story together, no unity of idea. Sure, there are lots of ideas, but none incarnate, except, perhaps, that it's good to keep fighting for what's right. But even then, the payoff at the end of the movie doesn't even rise to the level of intense standoff with evil. It fizzles into a happy ending, with a few memorable lines said by Gambon that I fear, revealed the highest levels of the script writer's ability.
There's more to say about this movie, but I think I've said enough. I'll wait for someone else to write about the pitiful use of the song Amazing Grace in the movie. Such a powerful song should have a powerful incarnation into a story, but until Christians stop being so hasty with the pop-gospel and make a movie that patiently reveals truth and beauty, we will be seen as impatient hacks all too content with petty sentiment squeezed from a preached-to choir, while the spoils of Egypt stand by and wonder why we even hired them.
Keeping this in mind, I went to see the movie, knowing that I fit in more with the ignorant mass of uninformed young film critics. So I tried to watch the movie attentively, trying to use my amateur film critic skills less that my skills of simple human audience-ship. But I was distracted. I was trying to let the story wash over me, trying to be drawn into history, character, and plot, but something distracted me--I think it started with the very young children sitting next to me. There were four of them all together, all between 5 and 12, sitting with their mother, bored out of their minds. I felt the most sympathy for the boy next to me.
Undoubtedly his mother, judging from her mid-prayer worthy "mm-hm"s and "amen"s throughout the film, was there purley because she heard the words "Christian", "family", and "famous hymn" associated with the film. Poor kid--he had no choice! He was dragged away from a delightful night of legos and Bible-Man action figures to a movie that was unsure of its genre, and, I hope, more unsure of its audience. It angers me that parents aren't more discriminating in what they let their children watch.
I considered writing this review henceforward from the perspective of my small friend beside me, but decided it would be too depressing. So, finally, the review: after complaining for the last two paragraphs (which I secretly believe is the reason the Blogosphere was invented), I thought I'd start with the good things the movie did, the things that, almost without realizing, I enjoyed and even admired. First, almost all the actors were top notch, a rarity for Christian fare. Ioan Gruffudd was all that the character of William wilberforce needed, with subtle eccentricity, believability, and real passion. Other acting highlights included Michael Gambon as the hearty and humorous Fox, an ancient english bloke still lively enough to ruffle parliament's feathers, and a tragic, glorious, and grotesquely underused Albert Finney as the famed John Newton. Also a delight was the brief role of Wliberforce's butler Richard, played by Jeremy Swift, who stole each of his scenes with his Scottish brogue and Bacon-esque wisdom.
The second thing the movie did quite well was the smooth transportation into the period and setting of the story. Gruffudd especially seemed born to wear wigs and tall, brown boots, and seemed quite at home, along with the rest of the cast, in parlimentary debate. Though I'll have more to say about the writing a bit later, one thing the writers were good at was simulation of the forgotten wit of yesteryear's political procedure. I don't know much about the style of debate in 19th century British politics, but I didn't doubt for a minute that I was seeing what may have been.
If only for these two qualities--superiority of acting and seeming perfection of period, the movie is worth seeing. And now on to the nasty-bits. I immediately noticed the strange brevity and vacuity of each scene. The film began en media res, so some bit of preliminary choppiness was to be expected, but it didn't let up. Scene after scene flowed by, mostly unconnected in time, plot, and intention. Some scenes were clearly shot only to make a joke, and most of the jokes weren't quite worth a scene. Many scenes seemed included for profundity's sake--all for the punch of a final line, which usually turned out to be "you can do it, William, YOU CAN DO IT!" But even the talent of Albert Finney or Michael Gambon couldn't fix the problem of how the scenes were written. The dialogue was too brief, as if Eugene Peterson had come across a Quentin Tarrantino script and decided to try to mimic M. Night Shyamalan. The scenes had no time to build--characters rushed toward conclusions and emotions in fast motion, often opting for only expositional filler when there was filler at all. The love scenes especially, for all the chemistry of Gruffudd and the firey Ramola Garai, looked like nothing in real life-- a parody, a gloss of actual interaction--'show, don't tell' this was certainly not.
I said earlier that the film wasn't sure of it's genre, and I'm sticking to it. It was, of course, a historical drama, but it wavered from comedy to drama, from an in-dpeth story of a tormented genuis to a collection of pithy Christian aphorisms articulated in the finest British accent. It was part actual story, part quote collection. It made me sad that the profound quotes were such a hit with the contemporary Christian audience. I was not sad because I think profound quotes are worthless, nor because I find Christian audences easily manipulated (which they only sometimes are), but because the movie didn't work for its profundity, and it didn't show its themes. I'm not even sure what the theme of the movie was. Was it grace? After all, it's called Amazing Grace, but it was mostly a collection of somewhat connected scenes in which Wilberforce is convinced that he should fight to abolish slavery in England. Some scenes show him discouraged, some scenes show him encouraged, but are very few thematic threads that tie the story together, no unity of idea. Sure, there are lots of ideas, but none incarnate, except, perhaps, that it's good to keep fighting for what's right. But even then, the payoff at the end of the movie doesn't even rise to the level of intense standoff with evil. It fizzles into a happy ending, with a few memorable lines said by Gambon that I fear, revealed the highest levels of the script writer's ability.
There's more to say about this movie, but I think I've said enough. I'll wait for someone else to write about the pitiful use of the song Amazing Grace in the movie. Such a powerful song should have a powerful incarnation into a story, but until Christians stop being so hasty with the pop-gospel and make a movie that patiently reveals truth and beauty, we will be seen as impatient hacks all too content with petty sentiment squeezed from a preached-to choir, while the spoils of Egypt stand by and wonder why we even hired them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)