Director Patrice Leconte’s new film is a literary tragedy, based on true events. Lawmakers in the French settlement of St. Pierre, Newfoundland, are eager to acquire a guillotine (a device nicknamed “the widow”) to legally behead convicted killer Neel Auguste (Emir Kusturica). The broad-shouldered, wild-haired sailor has in a drunken stupor killed a man who threatened him with a knife. It was, debatably, an unpremeditated and unthinking act, although Auguste’s taunting provoked the scuffle. Before a court, he brokenly admits to his crime, although he can hardly remember the specifics. He is nevertheless condemned to death.
The army captain (the magnificent Daniel Auteuil), who acts as a sort of town sheriff, locks up the dejected criminal in a cell at his home. Madame La, the captain’s spirited wife (played by the radiant Juliette Binoche), decides to teach Auguste something about responsibility and goodness. She allows him to work on their home and begins teaching him to read. Slowly, neighbors grow curious. Maybe Auguste isn’t a hardened killer. Maybe they rashly judged him for what was really a terrible moment of immaturity. At the Hollywood Jesus Web site, the film’s central issue is clearly summed up. “This film helps us to question the appropriateness of capital punishment. Do people change? Neel Auguste certainly did. Do we do anything, as Madame La did, to bring change into their lives or do we simply seek to punish them and treat them cruelly?”
The community’s doubts are turned to admiration when Auguste bravely saves an imperiled neighbor from certain death. Madame La is overjoyed. But the local lawmakers are incensed, sensing a threat to their authority. They don’t want to face Auguste’s humanity; they want to look on him as a dangerous beast.
The film does not, in my opinion, adequately explore the seriousness and repercussions of Auguste’s crime, however unpremeditated or foolish. And perhaps the rehabilitation of the brute is a bit romanticized—Auguste happily goes about repairing roofs, gardening, and studying. Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum believes that the movie favors Auguste’s conscientious redeemers too clearly, but he isn’t bothered by that: “It is true that the movie stacks the deck in Auguste’s favor and displays no curiosity about the murder victim—a form of indirect dramatic expediency. Yet if one believes, as I do, that capital punishment is both barbaric and ineffectual as a deterrent against crime, then the deck stacking is no more objectionable than the casting of big stars to play the sexy leads.” David Denby at The New Yorker is not as generous, saying the film, “for all its stern moral conviction, manages to duck the only question worth asking: would a less sympathetic murderer be worth saving from the blade?”
Another moral dilemma presents itself when Auguste and Madame La discover the first inklings of an attraction to each other. With her husband so often “gone on business,” perhaps it is loneliness, perhaps memories, that kindles the tension between her and this sometimes gentle giant. When Auguste, who still has a lot of growing up to do, impregnates a willing and eager local woman, he then tries to rectify the situation by marrying her. Madame La looks on with mixed feelings. This chapter got Roger Ebert‘s attention. “It’s not that she wants to be [Auguste’s] lover; in the 1850s such a thought would probably not occur,” the Chicago Sun-Times critic writes. “It’s that she is happy for him, and is marrying him and having his child vicariously. And Le Captaine knows that, and loves her the more for it.” Le Captaine is concerned about the intense platonic relationship between his wife and a strange man, but he trusts and understands her. Unspoken glances between husband and wife suggest that perhaps Le Captaine himself was once untamed and undisciplined. His trust is well-placed; Madame La resists temptation and runs into her husband’s arms with a renewed appreciation for his love.
In spite of the victory of marriage over temptation, Ted Baehr of Movieguide is incensed at the relationship between Madame La and the criminal. Baehr describes her behavior towards Auguste as “the ultimate romantic fantasy and an absurd refutation of marriage, dignity, authority, and the other principles of civilization.” And his accusations reach further. “The only moral moments in the movie are at the end,” he says, referring to the bloody consequences carried out upon on the condemned man and those who forgive him. “The good news is that justice prevails,” he concludes, “although viewers are led to believe that those in authority and the executioners are the villains.” He calls this story’s message “depressing and unbiblical.”
But it is precisely the vivid illustration of Christlike love that makes The Widow of St. Pierre such a moving and powerful story. Auguste’s plight echoes that of the biblical woman caught in adultery. Like Auguste, the adulteress had broken the law. Like Auguste, she was to be executed by those who scorned her. Besides sending this man to his death, the lawmakers of St. Pierre commit an act of violence far more premeditated than Auguste’s clumsy mistake—they conspire out of pride to have Le Captaine himself accused of sedition so he too will be given a death sentence. When no one in town will agree to act as executioner, they take advantage of an immigrant’s poverty and coerce him to take the job or be exiled. They are just the sort of villains that Jesus vocally and bitterly criticized: whitewashed tombs.
Jesus got between the stone-throwing and the sinner, and he pointed the finger back at the accusers. He saw in them the same hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and hard-heartedness that resides in the hearts of St. Pierre’s administrators. He asked them to face their own sinfulness. And then he excused the adulteress and sent her on her way with an exhortation to “sin no more.” After all, we too are sinners, deserving capital punishment like Auguste, but offered salvation freely, by grace. Like Auguste, we have the opportunity to be born again.
Madame La in desperation tries to save Auguste behind the back of the law. But Auguste himself and Le Captaine respect the law in spite of its merciless executors. In spite of their different ways of following their consciences, Le Captaine and his wife stand united in their bold and risky belief that Auguste should pay his debts differently. They are devoted, enthusiastically and ebulliently, to each other and to love. Theirs is the most admirable and resilient onscreen marriage since Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange roamed the Highlands in Rob Roy. While Movieguide‘s Baehr calls this “abhorrent … romantic tripe,” others—including me—are convinced that The Widow of St. Pierre will remain one of 2001’s most lasting and memorable films precisely because it delivers a painfully beautiful illustration of the gospel.
Hot from the Oven
C.S. Lewis once insisted that if a story wasn’t good enough for a grownup, it definitely wasn’t good enough for children. Nevertheless, the term “family film” has become synonymous with “waste of time.” Oh, there have been a few recent exceptions: The Iron Giant, the Toy Story movies, The Prince of Egypt. But the big studios seem to believe that good acting, clever scriptwriting, and high production values are for Oscar-worthy grownup films while kids deserve nothing better than clichés, fart jokes, and cookie-cutter pop songs in bottom-feeding comedies like See Spot Run.Good news: Audiences and critics everywhere are hailing the arrival of Spy Kids as a clear sign that there are still exciting, entertaining family movies to be made. Critics are offering a slight caution to parents that the film includes “intense chases, moments of peril, deformed characters and action-related violence,” but they qualify this as “cartoonish” and all in good fun. Who would have thought that the director of slick, violent films like Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn would come up with one of the most highly acclaimed all-ages movies in years?
The U.S. Catholic Conference calls Spy Kids “terrific” and raves, “Not only does Robert Rodriguez’s flick synthesize a winning adventure story and cool special effects, it also underscores the importance of family.” The Movie Reporter‘s Phil Boatwright says, “Although the kids argue throughout, they obviously love one another and learn the value of family.” Focus on the Family is pleased to see “a loving, two-parent family that doesn’t take itself for granted. The need for relational labor and personal sacrifice—and the conviction that it’s worth every bit of the effort—resurfaces frequently. Spouses continue to share passion and friendship nearly a decade after saying ‘I do.'” Holly McClure at The Dove Foundation is equally impressed: “I applaud the fact that the kids love and respect their parents, the parents aren’t portrayed as idiots, and that family is the most important message and theme to the movie.” Movieguide‘s Ted Baehr is also delighted: “Spy Kids has several positive messages and a moral worldview. The dialogue explicitly states that keeping a family together is the most challenging task of all.” And Michael Elliot of Movie Parables piles on the kudos: “Granted, the plot description makes the film sound silly and even a little cheesy, but the high production quality, witty writing, accomplished direction, and winning performances make Spy Kids the most enjoyable family film experience to be released in the past year.”
Mainstream critics are attentive to just what it is that makes this movie work. At Salon.com, Stephanie Zacharek argues that the film portrays a story in which “children get to be the adults; freed from parental restrictions, they get the chance to go off and save the day with their own ingenuity and smarts. But beyond that, it’s also a story about parents’ finding their own independence in the context of raising their kids. The movie’s message—that families are stronger when they allow for both parents’ and kids’ independence and breathing room—is refreshingly subtle and sophisticated.” Entertainment Weekly gives special note to costar Alan Cumming, who plays the villain. “Cumming, whose dimples are practically an extra facial feature, is like the world’s naughtiest elf, with the rare gift of acting innocent and demonic, joyous and petulant, all at the same time.”
Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun-Times notes the film’s complete avoidance of gun-related violence, and is happy to see its focus on Latino characters. “Spy Kids,” he concludes, “is an intelligent, upbeat, happy movie that is not about the comedy of embarrassment, that does not have anybody rolling around in dog poop, that would rather find out what it can accomplish than what it can get away with. It’s a treasure.”
* * *
Pierce Brosnan plays some spy games of his own in John Boorman’s adaptation of the John LeCarre novel The Tailor of Panama, starring alongside Geoffrey Rush and Jamie Lee Curtis. Brosnan plays Andy Osnard, a U.S. agent in Panama who is gathering information on the Panamanian underground resistance. The problem is that he’s getting his tips from a ruthless and inventive liar (Rush), a tailor to Panama’s political elite.
The U.S. Catholic Conference says this “smart film is filled with irony and wry humor, although the meandering story line and an atmosphere of promiscuity diminish the overall effect.” Phil Boatwright is not impressed with the hero at all. “Dashing Andy is about as carnal as a human can get,” he writes. “And he has a stock line that works for guys with James Bond looks and no affinity for the Ten Commandments.” Preview‘s family-oriented review says the film “effectively shows, albeit in somewhat comedic form, the havoc one fib can cause. However, in spite of promoting truthfulness by showing the disastrous effects of a lie, the film’s liberal attitude toward promiscuous sexual activity yields negative images.”
Mainstream critics seemed more troubled by implausibility. Anthony Lane of The New Yorker calls the movie “a strange, thick stew of a movie, alive with tricks and flavors that you weren’t expecting. All this should make for high comedy; yet somehow the film takes a wrong turn and winds up as dispiriting farce. I enjoyed the spectacle, but I didn’t believe it for a minute.” Ebert’s Chicago Sun-Times review is more positive: “Many thrillers are essentially machines to inject a shock into the audience every few minutes. The Tailor of Panama is a real movie, rich and atmospheric, savoring its disreputable characters and their human weaknesses.”
* * *
Ashley Judd’s new romantic comedy Someone Like You sounds like it will join an already long parade of forgettable 2001 releases. The film was originally titled Animal Husbandry, because it focuses on the idea that men are more like bulls than the pigs they are often compared to, making their way noncommittally from mate to mate. Repeated references to this theory exhausted the patience of almost anyone who wrote about the film.
Movie Parables‘ Michael Elliott showed more patience than most, looking past the insulting script to the performances: “The acting is well above average. There are moments which are, at turns, very funny, poignant, or emotional. But the moments between the highlights aren’t enough to sustain our interest.” Phil Boatwright at The Movie Reporter writes, “Guys may begin to squirm in their chairs after the fourth or fifth crying jag by the film’s female protagonist, but it is only the fornicating lifestyle of the leads and the occasionally objectionable language that prevents me from recommending this comic froth.” The U.S. Catholic Convention is quicker to disqualify the film: “Director Tony Goldwyn’s predictable plot rolls out one cutesy cliché after another without being particularly romantic or funny.” And Preview‘s critic muses, “Although flaunted as a date movie, the subject matter may cause some gender-siding arguments. These characters seem to take for granted that premarital sex is a requisite for dating couples.”
* * *
As the weekend’s fourth-highest-grossing film, the crass, locker-room-humor comedy Tomcats is—sadly—drawing enough of an audience that it merits a mention here as well. Michael Elliott writes, “I would think that the audience old enough to see this R-rated film would have long stopped being titillated by such immature and misogynic humor.” And Phil Boatwright shakes his head. “Boys just can’t seem to get enough of sexual innuendo mingled with flatulence jokes. Girls, I can only hope that those backwards-ball-cap-topped, baggy-pants-wearing high school heartthrobs of yours will outgrow their taste in movies. But it doesn’t look like Hollywood is going to.”
Side Dishes
Series 7 is a violent satire in which reality television becomes survival of the fittest … with shotguns. Brooke Smith, who screamed in The Silence of the Lambs and then illuminated Vanya on 42nd Street, plays the film’s central contestant.The folks at Preview object to the film for the violent nature of its characters: “Few of the killings are graphic. But the suggested images often imply gruesome deaths, such as a girl being beaten with a club.” The reviewers at CultureWatch.net, meanwhile, find valuable insights in Series 7’s ideas. “We are reminded repeatedly in the Bible not to test God—Jesus says this to the devil when he is tempted. Series 7 illustrates how we as humans do this repeatedly. America is quite fond of this concept as we test God with extreme sports and whenever we place something sacred that he has given us at unnecessary risk.”
Meanwhile, mainstream critics seem unsure of the film. The New Yorker‘s review calls the film “harsh and strident, but it’s not without some very funny moments. The film eventually trips over its own feet: it wants to play a joke on the audience (‘Why are you laughing?’) but also to be just a joke (‘Please laugh’).”
Coming soon: Critics respond to the Morgan Freeman thriller Along Came a Spider and Johnny Depp’s new film about drugs, Blow.
Jeffrey Overstreet is on the board of Promontory Artists Association, a non-profit organization based in Seattle, which provides community, resources, and encouragement for Christian artists. He edits an artists’ magazine (The Crossing), publishes frequent film and music reviews on his Web site (Looking Closer), and is at work on a series of novels.
Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.