Murder and Marriage Most Foul

'Tis the season for top ten lists. Film critics are fighting over whether The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Black Hawk Down, Moulin Rouge, Mulholland Drive, or Memento is the "movie of the year." (My own such list is at Looking Closer.) Golden Globes and Oscars are just around the bend.

I'd like to hear from you: Did Frodo's quest or Harry Potter's magic move you? Did you sense the truth glimmering through Shrek or Monsters, Inc.? Maybe you treasure a film most people missed, like The Dish or The Road Home. Or perhaps the year's best was a re-issue like Apocalypse Now or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What film meant the most to you in 2001? Why? E-mail me and I'll include some responses in next week's Film Forum.

* * *

A few weeks ago, two religious media critics posted early reactions to In the Bedroom, an acclaimed art-house picture from actor-turned-director Todd Field. But now that the film is in wider release, and accumulating awards and nominations left and right, other critics are writing in about this artful and troubling drama.

The title might suggest that the film is about sex, but it's actually about a marriage. Matt and Ruth Fowler's brief but barbed exchanges have remarkable realism; they're not often contentious, but they're not very communicative with each other either. During times of stress you can see the hairline fractures in their relationship. This is especially true when they discuss their son's love life.

When tragedy strikes, cracks in the foundation spread and broaden. (I'm being carefully vague to avoid spoiling surprises.) Matt and Ruth grope for comfort and consolation, but friends and legal advisors fail them. A great injustice looks like it will remain an irresolvable problem in their lives. Matt (Tom Wilkinson of The Patriot in an astonishing performance) keeps his grief turned inward, nagging his lawyers to get things done. Ruth (the great Sissy Spacek) shouts, complains, and weeps, her rage intensified by her husband's stony silence.

Nowhere is the toll taken on their marriage clearer than "in the bedroom," where conversations end in uncomfortable scowls. We also learn that the "bedroom" is the innermost part of a lobster trap. Matt, whose family carries on a tradition of lobster catching, explains that lobsters in traps can become so tightly packed together that they hurt each other. We're treated to realistic footage of the actors reeling in lobsters, many of whom have clawed each other's limbs off in attempts to survive. A lovely metaphor for marriage, isn't it? Will Matt and Ruth destroy each other as they fail to mourn cooperatively?

J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) praises the acting as "a tour de force." And he finds the exploration timely: "Watching movies like this, which focus on loss and grief, in the wake of Sept. 11, it's hard not to think about the thousands of people who've been thrust into a similar situation. How are they dealing with a life that takes a dramatically unfortunate turn? In the Bedroom offers no easy answers, which is one of the reasons why it rings true. I suspect many will find it a source of comfort and strength in these times."

Doug Cummings writes that the film is "lovingly constructed, beautifully photographed, and carefully acted." But he is disappointed in its final act: "It finds itself irretrievably pulled toward its generic 'criminal justice' plot rather than focusing on its characters or any overarching perspectives of emotional suffering and healing. The first 85 percent was a well-observed drama, but the last act collapsed in the worst way I could have imagined."

Similarly, Peter T. Chattaway (B.C. Christian News, Books and Culture) wrote at the OnFilm discussion list that the film's violent finale was a stumbling point: "Field did such a good job of making a movie about the grieving process … and made such effective use of a style that avoided direct depictions of violence, that the final half-hour felt like it was a whole different movie."

Mainstream critics are moved by the film's dramatic intensity, but also by its implications. David Denby (The New Yorker) says the film "draws its strength from minute observation of settings, moods, and manners in Camden and from a gradual tightening of the winch. Much of it is very quiet, but when it explodes, the violence, both verbal and physical, actually means something."

Andrew O'Hehir (Salon.com) finds that the film honors the ideas of Andre Dubus, the writer and moral philosopher whose short story Killings was the inspiration for the film: "It captures Dubus' fascination with the nature of justice, and in fact with its impossibility. It's also a study of how amazingly painful life can become when its ordinariness, its tiny, protective hypocrisies, are stripped away. It captures Dubus' conviction that our contemporary clichÉs about healing are empty."

Like Cummings and Chattaway, I also felt the film lost its sensitive touch in the last act. The ending seemed abrupt and the film's exploration of justice and healthy relationships felt incomplete. But days later, I am still haunted by it. As I watched the film, I focused on its tragic and violent turns. Now I am wondering if the specifics of the tragedy are perhaps unimportant. The real story is in how the marriage is strengthened or harmed by each spouse responds to what's happening. If this particular tragedy hadn't occurred, surely something else would, and the marriage would have been tested in the end. I've been having better conversations with my wife all week. This film has exhorted me to vigilance.

The film also demonstrates how our built-in sense of human "justice" can lead to empty and unsatisfying resolutions in the real world. In most movies, it is the proper duty of heroes to respond to violence with violence. Here, justice through violence may eliminate an immediate problem, but there's now a new and perhaps more troubling problem in its place. The last few images of the film will drive this point home. The justice and peace Matt and Ruth desire probably cannot be found on this earth, in this lifetime. And unfortunately, this story offers Matt and Ruth no source of consolation. In the Bedroom raises all the right questions and points to love by effectively portraying its absence.

* * *

Robert Altman, the acclaimed director of such classics as McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player, and recently Cookie's Fortune, is back with a period piece set in 1932. Gosford Park is a country estate where a gathering of British, upper class and lower class, have their party spoiled by a murder. Class divisions in Britain are severe and volatile during this time, and thus, picking a murderer out of a manor filled with people rich and poor, smart and foolish, proves to be a nasty business.

"It is a wonder that PBS did not go off the air with so many stars of English drama committed to this project," says Michael Elliott (Movie Parables). "Such a large cast can tend to be overwhelming for an audience … but the sheer opulence, magnificent set design, and polished performances manage to keep us entertained."

Marie Asner (The Phantom Tollbooth) praises scriptwriter Julian Fellowes: "He shines with dialogue so witty and catty it crystallizes the air around it. Gosford may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has enough romantic situations, intrigue, and top-notch acting for most. Director Robert Altman has done it again."

Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) says, "It's very long, very stiff-upper lip, but very stylish story telling."

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) calls it "a bit overlong," but adds, "the acting is brilliant and Altman's direction is assured." Snyder concludes that Mary, one of the servants, is a memorable heroine: "It is Mary's compassionate, thoughtful, forgiving spirit that ultimately transcends all the foibles and human sin on display at Gosford Park."

The U.S. Catholic Conference's critic says, this "airy yet biting study of the English class system is a classy ensemble production that employs Altman's roving, inquisitive style with acumen and flair."

Regular newspapers are full of the film's praise. Stephen Holden (The New York Times) calls it "a melt-in-your-mouth hunk of 12-layer English spice cake that will appeal to anyone who feels a nostalgic pang for the long-running British television series Upstairs Downstairs, or for the cozy whodunits of Agatha Christie."

Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) calls it "a celebration of styles … an Altman film is like a party with no boring guests. Gosford Park is such a joyous and audacious achievement it deserves comparison with his very best movies."

Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune) calls it "a British period murder mystery for connoisseurs. I warn you, though: For mystery addicts and film buffs alike, this is a movie that demands to be seen more than once. You'll enjoy it even more when you know who done it."

* * *

Writer Robert Nelson Jacobs and director Lasse HallstrÖm (Chocolat, The Cider House Rules) offer up an adaptation of the E. Annie Proulx's award-winning novel The Shipping News this month, to a mixed critical response.

It's a change of pace for Kevin Spacey, who usually plays smug, sarcastic antiheroes. Here he's a mellowing newspaperman named Quoyle, returning home to the coast of Newfoundland, where he tries to put the pieces of his shattered life back together. We learn about his various crises through a series of flashbacks—not only is his wife promiscuous, but she's placing their daughter in a dangerous and perverse situation. On top of that, he's dealing with the death of his father, and several dark family secrets. Perhaps a new relationship with a sensitive woman (Julianne Moore) can bring healing, but Quoyle has a long way to go.

Many religious press critics winced at seeing characters whose lives show evidence of sinful attitudes and behaviors. But others found profound moral lessons and evidence of God's grace in these realistic stories of mixed-up people.

"Artistically," says Phil Boatwright, "cast and director deliver the goods. But it never gives evidence that these damaged people seek a spiritual healing. Jacobs … and … HallstrÖm seek a human solution to things like incest and family neglect, carefully leaving Christ out of the equation. If you examine their other work, although artistically well done, both Jacobs and HallstrÖm ignore God or employ themes that mock Christian beliefs."

"HallstrÖm beautifully captures the stark bleakness of Newfoundland," says the USCC's critic, "but the languid, episodic narrative feels compressed, and the characters never evolve beyond one dimension."

Christopher Okkerse (Christian Spotlight on the Movies) says, "I found this movie a little dry, unlike the beautiful scenery filmed in its Newfoundland setting. [It] left me with the feeling that I had just woken up from a weird dream. But it's the kind of dream I wish I could forget."

Mary Draughon (Preview) says that a brief sex scene, some violence, and some "salty language" "wreck The Shipping News."

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) calls it "a sometimes dry-humored character study." Spacey's troubled hero "has many positive moral traits … [but he] also expresses politically-correct sentiments toward lesbian homosexuality and against oil companies." Sounding something like a chef, Snyder suggests, "A good writer or director could … cut out the evil content, add some Christian elements, and create a more wholesome, uplifting movie with great depth."

Darrel Manson (Hollywood Jesus) thinks the film is uplifting, with great depth. "Quoyle is … in a sense, drowning in his life and in his history. But as he lives among these people and grows within himself, there is an opening for him to move beyond his fears and suffering." He sees this as evidence of a sinful man regaining something of Eden through the grace of God. "Just as the Garden may be hidden in our lives waiting to be recognized, so too does the landscape in The Shipping News yield its beauty when Quoyle discovers a new life in this community and love that can bring joy and fulfillment."

"HallstrÖm does an admirable job," says Marie Asner (The Phantom Tollbooth), "with the help of photographer Oliver Stapleton, Christopher Young's soundtrack and a group of talented actors. As we move through the film, we see that virtually everyone in the story has a secret to hide. What happens when these deep, devastating secrets begin to surface is the main current of the film."

Michael Elliott places this film among his ten favorites of 2001. "HallstrÖm clearly has the ability to find and display the emotional lives of his characters without his films becoming maudlin or melodramatic." He finds insight in this story of a man trying to escape his tendencies. "Quoyle has a lot of history to live down. His father was not what we'd consider to be a fine role model, and Quoyle is concerned that it might be genetic. The thing to remember is that righteousness is not embedded in our DNA. It is a free will choice which God grants to each of us. Whether we come from a family of saints, or a family of sinners, there comes a time when we must choose which course our lives will take."

* * *

This year's first sci-fi adventure suggests that genetics might have more to say about who we are than what we do. Based on a Phillip K. Dick short story, Imposter stars Gary Sinise in the lead role of a government scientist hunted down on accusations of being a robot spy sent by villainous extra-terrestrials to blow up the earth. Is he what they say he is? Or can his wife (Madeleine Stowe) use her medical abilities to prove him innocent?

Michael Elliott says the movie "has the feel of an idea to which much 'filler' has been added in order to extend its running time. Director Gary Fleder seems to mistake poor lighting for 'atmosphere' and tries to build tension/excitement through shoddy camerawork. The most interesting element to the film is only touched upon briefly and thereafter discarded, never to be revisited. That is, namely, the question of what it is to be human."

Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) says it "gets tedious. If only Imposter had used more of its time to expand on references to God, man's soul, and their eternal bond. As is, we get a very long chase."

The USCC calls it "unremarkable … overwrought … awash in murky lighting, dizzying jump-cuts and pointless chase scenes."

Paul Bicking (Preview) says, "Similar to The Fugitive, the story takes a few semi-surprising twists, which are still somewhat predictable."

Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight on the Movies) writes, "I know that Phillip K. Dick has been the inspiration behind other popular sci-fi flicks like Blade Runner and Total Recall, but I found this one rather stale. Instead of trying to explore the themes of paranoia or technology run amuck, we have a very cold, distant, and unengaging presentation. Most of the suspense in the film was spoiled by obvious predictability. My recommendation is to just skip this one."

* * *

Lantana, from Australian direction Ray Lawrence (Bliss), is impressing critics and audiences in art-house theatres during a limited release. This is the story of Detective Leon Zat (Anthony LaPaglia), a good cop, but a bad husband. When Leon takes on the investigation of a missing person that brings him into contact with three married couples, his own extramarital affair intensifies, and soon his future as both a husband and a cop is jeopardized.

Tom Snyder (Movieguide) credits the filmmakers with providing "a powerful, heartfelt, positive denouement that rebukes infidelity and extols marriage and family." But the movie's parable-like depictions of truth are not enough for him; he argues that the movie would have "played more strongly" if it had included "Christian or scriptural references."

The USCC's critic, however, calls it an "intriguing psychological drama. Confronting unpleasant truths about relationships, marital infidelity and human foibles, director Ray Lawrence incisively probes the psyches of the realistically depicted characters in an intelligent film with strong performances."

Meanwhile, mainstream critics applaud it as a unique crime story. A.O. Scott (The New York Times) calls it "an astonishingly well-acted film, so much so that it seems unfair to single out any of the performances. Mr. Lawrence's camera sense is as sure and unobtrusive as his feel for acting. The movie just seems to happen … revealing the intricate intelligence of its design only in hindsight."

Erin Free (The Hollywood Reporter) calls it "a slick, stylish drama that seethes with dark, passionate undertones. It gets inside the idea of love and marriage and skillfully paints a picture that bristles not only with paranoia and betrayal but also with hope and compassion."

* * *

If stories about murder, genetic curses, and bad marriages just aren't your cup of eggnog, here's something lighter—a movie about an old-fashioned knight-in-shining-armor type come from the past to romance an eligible bachelorette.

In Kate and Leopold, a 19th-century Duke named Leopold (Hugh Jackman of X-Men) is caught in a time-travel mishap that plants him in the present day, where a tough-talking executive (Meg Ryan) nabs his heart. As he adapts to the new world, his new girlfriend discovers that perhaps the past had a few good ideas about love and romance.

The USCC gives it a ho-hum approval: "With a mixture of old-fashioned romance, fish-out-of-water chuckles and a good dose of star power, director James Mangold's fluffy romance is a sprightly piece, albeit a conventional one with few surprises."

"Any movie that contrasts nineteenth-century gentility favorably with modern boorishness deserves some credit in my book," says Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films). But he is exasperated by problems with the film's time travel logic … or lack of it: "Whenever Kate and Leopold is about Kate and Leopold, it just about works. Whenever [it's] about … its unsalvageable time-travel premise … the movie will leave you knocking your head on the seat in front of you. Fortunately, it's mostly about Kate and Leopold. But the holes are maddening."

Lisa Rice (Movieguide) is hesitant about "many post-modern ideological elements of destiny and inevitability." She still concludes, "Kate and Leopold is a delightful, romantic, refreshing holiday movie with an old-fashioned protagonist. If you support movies like this with your box office dollars, there will be many more like it."

Michael Elliott says, "What really makes the film work as well as it does is Hugh Jackman's charm and affable manner. Mangold doesn't overreach, contenting himself with simply presenting an uncomplicated and sweet romance. Leopold's chivalry, especially his views on how a woman should be courted and treated, may seem old-fashioned but they are indeed timeless."

Douglas Downs writes, "Kate and Leopold reads like a cheap dime-store Harlequin romance novel." Still, he concludes, "This is the best romantic comedy that I have seen Meg Ryan in. I do recommend this film in spite of its obvious flaws and the above-mentioned cautions. The film focuses on human relationships rather than the common Hollywood path of sex. It never hurts for singles to learn more about 'courting' and we married men to be reminded to be courteous to our wives."

Steven Issac (Focus on the Family) likes it: "I'm a sucker for time travel stories. Kate & Leopold has all the right elements. Romance. A clash of cultures. Hard decisions. Even a moral baseline. It's … a fun story with a good heart. Kate & Leopold crusades for a kinder, gentler society, one that looks backwards and forwards with equal affection."

David Bruce at (Hollywood Jesus) is struck by the film's echoes of Kierkegaard: "Both Vanilla Sky and Kate and Leopold, movies released at the same time, feature a leap of faith. Both feature SØren Kierkegaard's transcendent view of life. Life/God is not found in a neat package of objective rules/dogma. Rather Life/God must be known subjectively through experience."

But Mary Draughon (Preview) asks, "Why does Hollywood drop the inappropriate foul language into an otherwise wholesome love story? Unfortunately … obscenities and profanities push Kate and Leopold, a promising date movie, into a negative acceptability rating."

* * *

If you like films in which the characters positively revel in mischief and bad behavior, check out How High. It's a comedy about two African American men whose intelligence skyrockets when they start smoking a different kind of dope. When they get into Harvard, their stash is stolen, and they're left to fend for themselves with sub-par smarts.

The USCC's critic reports, "Vicious stereotypical characterizations, perverse mocking of American founding fathers, and a meandering plot with nary a laugh, make [this] vulgar film pure garbage."

Bob Waliszewski (Focus on the Family) calls How High "Cheech & Chong transported into the 21st century." He observes "dozens of pot-smoking scenes, sexual content galore, language that would make the proverbial sailor's ears bleed, and a destructive stereotypical depiction of African-American males as lazy, dope-smoking sex addicts. So you tell me. Should you let your family get High?"

That's probably enough coverage of that film for our purposes here.

Next week: What film meant the most to you in 2001? Several critics suggest viewers revisit their favorite titles of the year.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

More review roundups are available in the Film Forum archives.