|
|
5/19/2004
New Film "Saved" Walks a Very Fine Line
 So it's no shocker that Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ is completely decimating the competition. The film currently has the #7 slot on the list of highest-grossing movies of all time right between Lord of the Rings and Jurrasic Park (rather telling, I'd say). Final figures can't even be predicted yet so it's assumed that #7 slot will change. The Passion is set to release to DVD very soon and has only recently opened in many international markets. It's safe to say the "bling" is still rolling in. With the success of The Passion, much conversation has been bouncing around about Hollywood venturing into the area of "faith films". I personally don't think we'll ever see "moral" films rightly portrayed until Hollywood actually becomes moral and there's a lot of work to do there. Righteousness is probably the only thing in the world that can't be faked. Not even expensive sets and fancy make-up artists can help that. However, more recently at the forefront of the "faith film" frenzy is the movie Saved starring young adult-boppers Macaulay Culkin and Mandy Moore. Saved was already in the workds before the public success of Gibson's film, and it's a lower budget film that will most likely make the rounds among the independent and small film festival circuits so there's no point in even comparing the two (although the film does do so by poking fun at the Passion by a play on words on their website). The film is set on the campus of a private Christian high school where teenagers struggling with homosexuality, drugs and sex are a plenty. Is this realistic? Unfortunately-- absolutely, yes. However, the film's resolution is not exactly a positive one. The basic synopsis of the film is a group of "Jesusfreaks" disown their friend who gets pregnant in an attempts to "deprogram" her boyfriend out of homosexuality by having sex with him. Lofty, yes. Does it happen, in some circles, yes. Are they out to prove a point? More than likely yes, and probably a controversial one too. The film is definitley more of a satirical dark comedy, although the filmmakers would argue otherwise.
If the film's website is any indication of the movie itself, than I'd say the media is right if they don't think Christians will appreciate it. (Just click around the website for a minute and you'll see what I mean). Columnists are already predicting that Christians won't see the humor. I'd take it a step further to say not only don't I see it, it's completely irreverent and over-the-top. Interestingly enough, the film's website has a section called "Christian Guide". Yeah, okay, whatever. The filmmakers purport that the movie is intended to spark dialogue around "true faith", the real issues with which Christian teenagers are grappling, and what's "not acceptable" to talk about in the church. Nice goals. Questionable path. Well now wait a minute. Let's surf the production credits for a moment....oh yes, now this is interesting: The film boasts some of the same production team responsible for Being John Malkovich, and what's this...Underworld? Oh yeah, sure that's really a morally sound film. NEXT!
Lewis Schaeffer of the National Review notes that gay audiences "love" the film. Nuff said. If that's not enough to let me know something is horribly askew with this film, I don't know what is. Now maybe some other people brush that kind of stuff under the rug, but in following with my other trends of thought concerning the homosexual agenda, I'd definitely say red flag anything the gay community is behind. Like a huge, gigantic, NEON, red flag with sequins, moving lights, and sirens. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this deflated attempt at social dialogue. They won't be getting my money.
posted by ambra at 5/19/2004 03:12:26 PM | link to this entry |
|
|
|
|
|
