First Reformed: A Review
For what is definitely a more intelligent and appreciative review, see this piece from CT.
I saw that this film was on Prime Video, free, so I took two hours out of my life and watched it. The question is whether I would recommend another person to do so.
However, I often have this experience with a film: I watch it, and get mad because there is something about the plot, resolution, or theme that I don't like and find objectionable. And yet I can't get the film out of my head; it bugs me, for days, forcing me to examine what it was I didn't like and to ask what I missed or misinterpreted. Such was the case with Sling Blade, for instance, and with the very different First Reformed.
The CT article gives one the outlines of the plot (spoiler alert!) and I will write here about the ending of the film. For the first half of the film I was enthralled; reviewers on Amazon said, of course, that is was slow and boooorrrrrriiiiiiing, but that is the opinion of children. I was quite moved by this man and felt that for once a movie was portraying a person of faith as intelligent and empathetic. There are many layers to the main characters and interrelationships, and Ethan Hawke really does well in the role, and I am not an acting connoisseur. But after the pastor discovers the young activist's body after the suicide and performs his funeral, it started to go downhill for me.
When it becomes clear that his despair has turned to hate and murder, and he is going to blow up himself, the church, innocent people, and some of those who have oppressed him (Balq and the megachurch pastor) with the suicide bomber vest--I lost it. Yes, suicide, but it made no sense that he would kill a hundred other people and destroy the building where he ministers (beautiful, historic church) because he's now convinced that mankind has sinned grievously against God and His creation (viewers are hit over the head with the theme of climate change). He changes his mind at the last minute when the activist's pregnant wife, with whom he has fallen in love, shows up even though he warned her not to. Then it really goes off the rails in a scene I couldn't watch, and she finally comes to his room, they kiss, and that's it.
As I watched, without having read other reviews, I realized it was another version of Diary of a Country Priest, which I recommend more. Now that I've revealed the whole plot, the reader can decide to watch for the cinematic value, which (again not an expert) had some merit. At least I felt like these characters understood Christian theology and culture, for better or worse. The script writer understands theodicy and Scripture (he was raised Calvinist). The African-American megachurch pastor and the industrialist are portrayed negatively enough that we are supposed to understand why he would go ahead and kill them, but I lost all empathy for him when it was clear that the only reason he didn't was the presence of his lover.
The scene of the lovers (not consummating) floating over the world was a bit much for me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's his imagination. Maybe. OK. I also didn't like how he turned on the music director who truly loved him, and he was an alcoholic in denial. But . . . this is a movie about the reach of despair. That works. What I pause at is whether the possibility of a love relationship would bring him totally out of that despair.It is a chance for him to start over, having lost in son in Iraq and his wife in subsequent divorce.
The film makes one think about a number of matters; since climate change is such a bludgeon in the film, we have to ask, like Wendell Berry, "What are people for?" and "What is the earth for?" Yes, we have hurt the planet; it groans in expectation and hope for the redemption of sons; yes, we should do better. Extinction of species, however--didn't millions already go extinct if you accept an evolutionary model? Why is extinction bad, and don't new species evolve? Only if you accept a God-driven (rather than evolution-only-driven view of the natural world does the extinction of species seem wrong. (I am not claiming evolution processes do not exist, though. Like climate change, of course they do. The question is how particulars fit into the whole.)
I saw that this film was on Prime Video, free, so I took two hours out of my life and watched it. The question is whether I would recommend another person to do so.
However, I often have this experience with a film: I watch it, and get mad because there is something about the plot, resolution, or theme that I don't like and find objectionable. And yet I can't get the film out of my head; it bugs me, for days, forcing me to examine what it was I didn't like and to ask what I missed or misinterpreted. Such was the case with Sling Blade, for instance, and with the very different First Reformed.
The CT article gives one the outlines of the plot (spoiler alert!) and I will write here about the ending of the film. For the first half of the film I was enthralled; reviewers on Amazon said, of course, that is was slow and boooorrrrrriiiiiiing, but that is the opinion of children. I was quite moved by this man and felt that for once a movie was portraying a person of faith as intelligent and empathetic. There are many layers to the main characters and interrelationships, and Ethan Hawke really does well in the role, and I am not an acting connoisseur. But after the pastor discovers the young activist's body after the suicide and performs his funeral, it started to go downhill for me.
When it becomes clear that his despair has turned to hate and murder, and he is going to blow up himself, the church, innocent people, and some of those who have oppressed him (Balq and the megachurch pastor) with the suicide bomber vest--I lost it. Yes, suicide, but it made no sense that he would kill a hundred other people and destroy the building where he ministers (beautiful, historic church) because he's now convinced that mankind has sinned grievously against God and His creation (viewers are hit over the head with the theme of climate change). He changes his mind at the last minute when the activist's pregnant wife, with whom he has fallen in love, shows up even though he warned her not to. Then it really goes off the rails in a scene I couldn't watch, and she finally comes to his room, they kiss, and that's it.
As I watched, without having read other reviews, I realized it was another version of Diary of a Country Priest, which I recommend more. Now that I've revealed the whole plot, the reader can decide to watch for the cinematic value, which (again not an expert) had some merit. At least I felt like these characters understood Christian theology and culture, for better or worse. The script writer understands theodicy and Scripture (he was raised Calvinist). The African-American megachurch pastor and the industrialist are portrayed negatively enough that we are supposed to understand why he would go ahead and kill them, but I lost all empathy for him when it was clear that the only reason he didn't was the presence of his lover.
The scene of the lovers (not consummating) floating over the world was a bit much for me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's his imagination. Maybe. OK. I also didn't like how he turned on the music director who truly loved him, and he was an alcoholic in denial. But . . . this is a movie about the reach of despair. That works. What I pause at is whether the possibility of a love relationship would bring him totally out of that despair.It is a chance for him to start over, having lost in son in Iraq and his wife in subsequent divorce.
The film makes one think about a number of matters; since climate change is such a bludgeon in the film, we have to ask, like Wendell Berry, "What are people for?" and "What is the earth for?" Yes, we have hurt the planet; it groans in expectation and hope for the redemption of sons; yes, we should do better. Extinction of species, however--didn't millions already go extinct if you accept an evolutionary model? Why is extinction bad, and don't new species evolve? Only if you accept a God-driven (rather than evolution-only-driven view of the natural world does the extinction of species seem wrong. (I am not claiming evolution processes do not exist, though. Like climate change, of course they do. The question is how particulars fit into the whole.)
Comments