Indecency reigns in Hollywood - but then, everybody knows that already. I don't have to tell any of you about the sexual content that seems required in any movie rated at least PG-13. (And, tragically, some rated PG.) Most of this behavior seems applauded or, at the very least, tolerated. X-Men: First Class, though, has a rather odd stance on its sexual content.
There are three female characters who bring indecency to the movie: Angel (Zoë Kravitz), Emma Frost (January Jones) and Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Angel is a stripper when Charles (James McAvoy) and Erik (Michael Fassbender) first find her. In her defense, she seems to have been on her own for nearly her whole life (perhaps grew up on the streets?), and she takes up Charles on his offer of a job where she can keep her clothes on. However, she later says she'd rather have men stare at her with her clothes off than because she's a mutant. Then she evidently becomes Sebastion Shaw's (Kevin Bacon) mistress.
Emma Frost begins the movie as Shaw's mistress. She nearly always has some large piece of clothing missing - whether she's in a bikini, an extremely short skirt, or a shirt with an almost unbelievably low neck. At one point, she strips down to her underwear for a Russian general and then uses her telepathic abilities to make him think she's on his lap.
Raven is less promiscuous than the others, but she still has her problems. Her clothing is immodest, though not as much as Emma's. Near the end, she tries to seduce Erik by waiting for him in his bed, sans her clothing. To his credit, he seems uninterested, though it seems he just thinks she's annoyingly immature. Also, it's not clear whether their kiss at the end of the scene leads to anything more or not. Either way, Raven acts like a little idiot.
This isn't to say that the good characters in First Class are perfect. CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) infiltrates a hotbed of communists by boldly walking into the building in only her underwear - it's a Las Vegas club and she blends in with the strippers. Charles hits on a young lady at a bar with the aid of his telepathic powers. She asks him how his seduction technique is working out, and he tells her that he will let her know in the morning. Where this would have ended up is a mystery, because Raven gets Charles to leave soon after.
Now to get to my point: Angel, Emma, and Raven all end up fighting for the bad guys. Angel and Emma work for Shaw and then switch allegiance to Erik/Magneto after Shaw's death, and Raven sides with Magneto. (In First Class, Raven seems to choose Erik because she's in love with him. By the original trilogy, she has definitely developed an evil character.) All three indecent women side with evil.
So does First Class intentionally portray indecency as evil? The answer is no. Some of the indecent actions are portrayed neutrally, if not exactly positively. For example, when Angel is a stripper, the general impression the movie gives is that she's in a bad situation, but not necessarily a bad person. This could be partly true, but not enough emphasis is placed on just how bad her actions were. Raven's attempted seduction of Erik is shown as a result of her search for a person she can truly belong with, not necessarily as the first step in the wrong direction. So indecency is shown more neutrally than I would like.
Another question could be asked. Does First Class portray indecent women as evil and/or misguided? The answer is yes. The most immodest, sexually immoral women in the movie all end up as bad characters. That's a bit of an odd take on indecency: Indecent actions are not necessarily wrong, but indecent women are bad. But, odd or not, for a big, popular movie, that's definitely a step in the right direction for Hollywood.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pertaining To X-Men: First Class
Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Touch of a Broken Man
I know Mel Gibson has done some very bad things in his life - more, probably, than many of us. But he has also touched many lives, from viewers of The Passion of the Christ to Robert Downey Jr. Gibson is, I think, an example of how Christ uses even broken tools to touch people's souls with His grace.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Concerning The Ebony Swan
(Written by Phyllis Whitney.) Alex is worried. Her granddaughter Susan is coming for a visit, and she's not entirely sure that's a good thing. After all, the girl's father wasn't exactly fond of his mother-in-law, particularly after Susan's mother died in a terrible accident. Grandmother and granddaughter might not get along. At the same time, Alex can't help but think that Susan might just be able to shed some light on the terrible tragedy of so many years ago. Too young at the time to understand, Susan had nevertheless been a witness to her mother's accident. But Alex isn't at all sure that she wants more light on her daughter's death; light has a tricky way of exposing things that some people prefer to leave in the dark.
It is typically easy to guess the murderers in Whitney's books. Luckily, that isn't the case in The Ebony Swan. I thought I had the murderer picked out just a few pages into the book, but I was wrong. After that, every hypothesis I invented was proved wrong. In fact, the revelation near the end was rather surprising. That's the most important thing in any mystery book, and one of only two things that kept this one afloat.
The other was the likeability of the heroine and hero. Susan is a very nice woman, and Peter seems a good man. I'm not real fond of the idea that he and his wife were separated, but at least she's dead. (Cold-blooded, I know, but there it is...)
Unfortunately, there are bad sides to The Ebony Swan as well. First, the lack of certain details was, frankly, annoying. For example, Alex thinks her husband's last words are puzzling. Whitney won't say what they were until near the end of the book - but the words were not important. If they had contained some revelation that perhaps the reader could have used to find the murderer, I would understand the omission. But they were very obvious. And there are few things more annoying in books than having suspense built up around a certain element only to be disappointed in its capacity to surprise.
Then there was the annoyance of the affair. In a curious sort of way, it's condoned and condemned at the same time. Alex, who was years younger than her husband, had a short affair with another man who tried to convince her to leave her husband. She stayed, and the lover ended up marrying somebody else. Showing that she does have some idea that adultery is wrong, Alex is very relieved that her husband knew nothing of her affair. But she is also only half regretful of what she did. She doesn't acknowledge that it was really wrong, and she even seems to regret not leaving her husband once or twice throughout the book. Most disconcerting.
Ultimately, The Ebony Swan is a fairly decent, fairly clean mystery novel with a likeable heroine. Some pointless sleight of pen and murky morals could have held up to a good scrubbing, but it's still fairly enjoyable.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
It is typically easy to guess the murderers in Whitney's books. Luckily, that isn't the case in The Ebony Swan. I thought I had the murderer picked out just a few pages into the book, but I was wrong. After that, every hypothesis I invented was proved wrong. In fact, the revelation near the end was rather surprising. That's the most important thing in any mystery book, and one of only two things that kept this one afloat.
The other was the likeability of the heroine and hero. Susan is a very nice woman, and Peter seems a good man. I'm not real fond of the idea that he and his wife were separated, but at least she's dead. (Cold-blooded, I know, but there it is...)
Unfortunately, there are bad sides to The Ebony Swan as well. First, the lack of certain details was, frankly, annoying. For example, Alex thinks her husband's last words are puzzling. Whitney won't say what they were until near the end of the book - but the words were not important. If they had contained some revelation that perhaps the reader could have used to find the murderer, I would understand the omission. But they were very obvious. And there are few things more annoying in books than having suspense built up around a certain element only to be disappointed in its capacity to surprise.
Then there was the annoyance of the affair. In a curious sort of way, it's condoned and condemned at the same time. Alex, who was years younger than her husband, had a short affair with another man who tried to convince her to leave her husband. She stayed, and the lover ended up marrying somebody else. Showing that she does have some idea that adultery is wrong, Alex is very relieved that her husband knew nothing of her affair. But she is also only half regretful of what she did. She doesn't acknowledge that it was really wrong, and she even seems to regret not leaving her husband once or twice throughout the book. Most disconcerting.
Ultimately, The Ebony Swan is a fairly decent, fairly clean mystery novel with a likeable heroine. Some pointless sleight of pen and murky morals could have held up to a good scrubbing, but it's still fairly enjoyable.
My Rating: T (thematic elements)
Friday, October 14, 2011
First Avengers Trailer Released
*squeals with delight* Okay, now that I'm over my initial thrill, I just have to say that this looks awesome. First, a genuine conglomeration of superheroes, with their own quirks and coolnesses, put into one movie. Second, only Hawkeye's character needs to be established, since the others have had their own movies or at least a fairly major part in another's movie. That means the movie can get right down to the business of saving the world - or avenging it. Finally, Loki looks like he has progressed to a little bit better character. If that is the case, this movie's going to be one for the ages.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
On The Incredible Hulk
As the result of a military science experiment, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) transforms into a mindless beast every time his pulse rate hits 200. Now he must hide in South America with no connections to his former life - he even had to leave the love of his life, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), behind. But when the military discovers where he is, they come after him with lots of firepower. Bruce soon finds himself caught up in a deadly battle with military commandos led by the increasingly out-of-control Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). But Bruce suspects that his greatest enemy just might be himself.
Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.
Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*
All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.
Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)
Other superhero movies:
Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.
Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*
All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.
Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)
Other superhero movies:
Friday, October 7, 2011
*Spoiler Reflections* On Marriage and Jane Eyre
"Some mere human law." These are the words Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) uses to describe marriage. To him, his love and devotion for Jane (Mia Wasikowska) are all that matter. Love, or at least, his idea of love, conquers all - even a marriage that already exists between him and mad Bertha Mason. This is the same attitude that many in our ailing modern culture take toward the sacred, God-given institution of marriage. And, like Jane in the oft-told story, it is this attitude that we must reject.
Multiple lines in the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre mirror the prevailing modern attitude toward marriage. A pre-existing marriage is just "a mere convention impediment," according to Mr. Rochester. "Convention" is then the villain in his eyes, not himself. This is the same line of reasoning used both by cohabitants and same-sex union activists. Marriage is a "convention." Marriage is man-made. Marriage can be ignored. Or marriage can be altered to welcome any new combination of consenting adults - and, perhaps one day, children - who want to bestow that title on their relationship. Conventions change, so why shouldn't marriage? If two or more people say they "love" each other (though the definition of that word has become suspect), then marriage is not required. On the other hand, if two or more people love each other, then society should accept them like any traditional married couple. That, at least, is the reasoning.
The reasoning Mr. Rochester uses in an attempt to persuade Jane to become his mistress is similar to those used to justify broken marriages. In other words, divorce. Mr. Rochester pleads with Jane, telling her that, in the sinful relationship that he proposes, "the essential things are the same" as those in a real marriage. "I pledge you my honor, my fidelity, my love until death do us part," he whispers. In our culture, as long as two people "love" each other, it doesn't matter whether those two people have ever been married. As long as they are legally free to marry, they are morally free to do so.
Unfortunately, this the Protestant attitude toward marriage. I'll never forget the scene in Fireproof, the famous pro-marriage, low-budget film, where Catherine has a conversation with a coworker named Anna. Catherine and her husband are on the verge of divorce (which would be her husband's fault more than hers), and Catherine has been enjoying the attentions of a male coworker. Anna expresses distrust of the coworker and says something like: "If he is willing to flirt with you while you're still married, then he probably won't respect your marriage to him if you end up getting married." However, if marriage is not truly "until death to us part," if marriage is merely a legal status, then why should he respect it? What does it matter whether another man flirts with Catherine before or after she files the paperwork? If her marriage lasts only until she gets tired of her husband, then it arguably never existed at all. Either marriage is a temporary legal status that can be changed at any moment (and is therefore pretty much pointless), or it has some meaning and is 'til death. There is no other option.
Despite all arguments to the contrary, marriage is not a convention. It is not man-made. The title of marriage cannot be given to just any relationship. In Ephesians 5, St. Paul repeatedly compares the relationship of a man and his wife (not just two people who love each other) to the relationship of Christ and His Church. In this way, marriage is a covenant that reflects Christ's covenant with His Church. Christ was faithful unto death and will remain faithful throughout eternity. The Church has likewise remained faithful and will remain so for eternity, though its members sometimes stray. Christ will not simply divorce his Church and find another that is easier to get along with. He made a covenant and sealed it with His blood. In marriage, the couple makes a covenant and seals it with the marital embrace. After that, nothing except death can part them.
This was Jane's idea of marriage. Mr. Rochester had entered into a sacred bond with another woman, and only death could part them. He could verbally pledge his honor, his fidelity, and his love, but they were not his to give because he had given them to someone else. As he pledges these three to her, Jane cries "You cannot!" When he is finished, she counters with the question, "What of truth?" His marriage to her would not be a true marriage, and she wants nothing to do with a mere imitation. She soon afterward flees the room and his house.
Jane is vindicated in the end. After a period of several months, she returns to Mr. Rochester's house to find it is partially destroyed. There has been a fire, and Bertha is dead. Mr. Rochester lost his sight in an attempt to save her life - a truly heroic gesture given that Bertha was the impenetrable wall that had been built between him and Jane. Mr. Rochester and Jane are now free to marry, and marry they do (though it is not shown in this particular movie). But this time, each is free to pledge their honor, fidelity, and love in a true marriage with no impediments. Their embrace of true marriage and true love brings a happiness that nothing, not even blindness, can dampen. Thus, the prevailing attitudes in our culture must be rejected, for no "mere human law" could give such happiness.
Off-site links to more in-depth Church teaching and arguments:
Multiple lines in the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre mirror the prevailing modern attitude toward marriage. A pre-existing marriage is just "a mere convention impediment," according to Mr. Rochester. "Convention" is then the villain in his eyes, not himself. This is the same line of reasoning used both by cohabitants and same-sex union activists. Marriage is a "convention." Marriage is man-made. Marriage can be ignored. Or marriage can be altered to welcome any new combination of consenting adults - and, perhaps one day, children - who want to bestow that title on their relationship. Conventions change, so why shouldn't marriage? If two or more people say they "love" each other (though the definition of that word has become suspect), then marriage is not required. On the other hand, if two or more people love each other, then society should accept them like any traditional married couple. That, at least, is the reasoning.
The reasoning Mr. Rochester uses in an attempt to persuade Jane to become his mistress is similar to those used to justify broken marriages. In other words, divorce. Mr. Rochester pleads with Jane, telling her that, in the sinful relationship that he proposes, "the essential things are the same" as those in a real marriage. "I pledge you my honor, my fidelity, my love until death do us part," he whispers. In our culture, as long as two people "love" each other, it doesn't matter whether those two people have ever been married. As long as they are legally free to marry, they are morally free to do so.
Unfortunately, this the Protestant attitude toward marriage. I'll never forget the scene in Fireproof, the famous pro-marriage, low-budget film, where Catherine has a conversation with a coworker named Anna. Catherine and her husband are on the verge of divorce (which would be her husband's fault more than hers), and Catherine has been enjoying the attentions of a male coworker. Anna expresses distrust of the coworker and says something like: "If he is willing to flirt with you while you're still married, then he probably won't respect your marriage to him if you end up getting married." However, if marriage is not truly "until death to us part," if marriage is merely a legal status, then why should he respect it? What does it matter whether another man flirts with Catherine before or after she files the paperwork? If her marriage lasts only until she gets tired of her husband, then it arguably never existed at all. Either marriage is a temporary legal status that can be changed at any moment (and is therefore pretty much pointless), or it has some meaning and is 'til death. There is no other option.
Despite all arguments to the contrary, marriage is not a convention. It is not man-made. The title of marriage cannot be given to just any relationship. In Ephesians 5, St. Paul repeatedly compares the relationship of a man and his wife (not just two people who love each other) to the relationship of Christ and His Church. In this way, marriage is a covenant that reflects Christ's covenant with His Church. Christ was faithful unto death and will remain faithful throughout eternity. The Church has likewise remained faithful and will remain so for eternity, though its members sometimes stray. Christ will not simply divorce his Church and find another that is easier to get along with. He made a covenant and sealed it with His blood. In marriage, the couple makes a covenant and seals it with the marital embrace. After that, nothing except death can part them.
This was Jane's idea of marriage. Mr. Rochester had entered into a sacred bond with another woman, and only death could part them. He could verbally pledge his honor, his fidelity, and his love, but they were not his to give because he had given them to someone else. As he pledges these three to her, Jane cries "You cannot!" When he is finished, she counters with the question, "What of truth?" His marriage to her would not be a true marriage, and she wants nothing to do with a mere imitation. She soon afterward flees the room and his house.
Jane is vindicated in the end. After a period of several months, she returns to Mr. Rochester's house to find it is partially destroyed. There has been a fire, and Bertha is dead. Mr. Rochester lost his sight in an attempt to save her life - a truly heroic gesture given that Bertha was the impenetrable wall that had been built between him and Jane. Mr. Rochester and Jane are now free to marry, and marry they do (though it is not shown in this particular movie). But this time, each is free to pledge their honor, fidelity, and love in a true marriage with no impediments. Their embrace of true marriage and true love brings a happiness that nothing, not even blindness, can dampen. Thus, the prevailing attitudes in our culture must be rejected, for no "mere human law" could give such happiness.
Off-site links to more in-depth Church teaching and arguments:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
In Relation To Jane Eyre (2011)
(Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.) A lonely, lost young woman collapses on the doorstep of a minister and his sisters. She says her name is Jane Elliot, but her real name is Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska). Her life has been rather hard, and she flees from something - or someone - in her past. After a miserable childhood, she was happy during her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, particularly when her employer Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was at home. But something happened to crush her happiness and make her willing - adamant, in fact - to leave her life and start afresh under a new name.
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)