This is probably one of the best movies about child abuse that I have ever seen. I found it in the cheap movie rack at a department store, which is usually where mediocre movies go to die. I was surprised to find a plot that went beyond the formulaic and dealt with the real struggles that accompany child abuse. The main protagonists in this story are foster parents who struggle to keep their foster daughter from being returned to her formerly abusive father. Marie Martin does a superb job as Tella, and when she cries out in terror at having to be returned to her abuser, it seems real. The dynamics between the characters show the real struggles that people undergo when a family is split apart. There is no clear good guy/bad guy dynamic between the legal system/CPS and the foster family, and even the adoptive father muses "they're just people doing their jobs the best they know how." The other heroes in the movie are not whom one would at first expect, but are simply down-to-earth people with which most of us can easily identify. Best of all, this movie doesn't go for the syrupy sweet ending. It does not gloss over the fact that Tella's abuse has forever changed her.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Accurate, but perhaps too pious for some
5 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Having recently pored over the writings of St. Therese in order to learn more about her, I've also been drawn to film portrayals of her. This film sticks to the letter of Therese's life, drawing much of the dialogue directly from her autobiography Story of a Soul and from the Last Conversations that her sisters and the other nuns wrote about her last days.
First, its strengths: Visually the movie is very good, using authentic-looking (to me, anyway, though I'm no expert) wardrobes and props. There is a lot of color and the outdoor scenes are beautiful. The music is inspirational, perhaps a bit too inspirational at times. Some reviewers have complained about the acting, but I thought it was solid though not terrific: Somewhat better than a college theater production, and somewhat worse than Hollywood acting. The only actors who really seemed like they were forcing their lines were the "mean girls" at Therese's school.
The script did a fair job of showing Therese's human side and her struggles. However, the script would have been far better had they followed the old screen writing adage "show, don't tell." Occasionally the movie resorts to narration by quoting directly from Therese's autobiography, sometimes with underwhelming results. Therese's dark night of the soul, for example, gets roughly one minute of the movie, most of it mere narration. One gets the sense that Therese was only depressed for a little while then got over it, when in reality she spent the last eighteen months of her life almost entirely in emotional desolation. Which leads me to my other gripe with the movie, which is the passage of time (or lack thereof). When Therese gets to the convent, one doesn't get the sense of many years passing; those who aren't familiar with Therese's story might get the false impression that she was only there for a year or two before she died. The other thing that it didn't show very well was how hard convent life really was. I understand that they wanted to make the movie very appealing visually, but a more minimalist approach might have been better when portraying life in the convent. Here the nuns spent six hours in prayer a day and were under a strict oath of silence during most of the day, which was eased for two hours of daily recreation. The nuns also suffered from the bitter cold in the winter (there was no heat). The movie does not really show any of these deprivations.
I do appreciate that the movie went out of its way to show Therese's "little way" of making small, daily sacrifices for her fellow nuns out of love for Jesus. The In this regard, the movie did a better job of showing instead of telling. However, I still don't think this is a totally balanced picture of Therese from a historical standpoint. Lindsay Younce as Therese is meek and self-sacrificing, which are true aspects of who the Saint was. However, I think mostly due to an unbalanced script, she does not get a chance to show Therese's quiet strength and leadership. Therese was pretty much a de-facto novice mistress for the last few years of her life, supervising the novice nuns in the convent and looking out for their spiritual well-being. This, however, is not shown in the movie.
What I think will be the greatest turn-off for most viewers is that the movie is done in a very pious fashion. While its not pompous or overdone, those who do not have faith are undoubtedly turned off by such things as a rather straightforward account of a miraculous healing, for example. However, the movie does have enough shades of grey to make it seem mostly true-to-life. The nuns in Therese's convent are full of human foibles, yet they are not portrayed as evildoers whom Therese must convert, but as sisters in Christ who are to be loved in spite of their faults. On the other hand, Therese's father and her sisters will probably come across as being too goody-goody for a modern audience, but it is our cynicism that makes them seem that way. To read Therese's writings, hers really was a loving family without much conflict.
Overall, this is a solid movie but one that also has a lot of room for improvement. Cynical people might not like it much, but then again, the whole idea of sainthood is going to cause a lot of disagreement between believers and non-believers.
First, its strengths: Visually the movie is very good, using authentic-looking (to me, anyway, though I'm no expert) wardrobes and props. There is a lot of color and the outdoor scenes are beautiful. The music is inspirational, perhaps a bit too inspirational at times. Some reviewers have complained about the acting, but I thought it was solid though not terrific: Somewhat better than a college theater production, and somewhat worse than Hollywood acting. The only actors who really seemed like they were forcing their lines were the "mean girls" at Therese's school.
The script did a fair job of showing Therese's human side and her struggles. However, the script would have been far better had they followed the old screen writing adage "show, don't tell." Occasionally the movie resorts to narration by quoting directly from Therese's autobiography, sometimes with underwhelming results. Therese's dark night of the soul, for example, gets roughly one minute of the movie, most of it mere narration. One gets the sense that Therese was only depressed for a little while then got over it, when in reality she spent the last eighteen months of her life almost entirely in emotional desolation. Which leads me to my other gripe with the movie, which is the passage of time (or lack thereof). When Therese gets to the convent, one doesn't get the sense of many years passing; those who aren't familiar with Therese's story might get the false impression that she was only there for a year or two before she died. The other thing that it didn't show very well was how hard convent life really was. I understand that they wanted to make the movie very appealing visually, but a more minimalist approach might have been better when portraying life in the convent. Here the nuns spent six hours in prayer a day and were under a strict oath of silence during most of the day, which was eased for two hours of daily recreation. The nuns also suffered from the bitter cold in the winter (there was no heat). The movie does not really show any of these deprivations.
I do appreciate that the movie went out of its way to show Therese's "little way" of making small, daily sacrifices for her fellow nuns out of love for Jesus. The In this regard, the movie did a better job of showing instead of telling. However, I still don't think this is a totally balanced picture of Therese from a historical standpoint. Lindsay Younce as Therese is meek and self-sacrificing, which are true aspects of who the Saint was. However, I think mostly due to an unbalanced script, she does not get a chance to show Therese's quiet strength and leadership. Therese was pretty much a de-facto novice mistress for the last few years of her life, supervising the novice nuns in the convent and looking out for their spiritual well-being. This, however, is not shown in the movie.
What I think will be the greatest turn-off for most viewers is that the movie is done in a very pious fashion. While its not pompous or overdone, those who do not have faith are undoubtedly turned off by such things as a rather straightforward account of a miraculous healing, for example. However, the movie does have enough shades of grey to make it seem mostly true-to-life. The nuns in Therese's convent are full of human foibles, yet they are not portrayed as evildoers whom Therese must convert, but as sisters in Christ who are to be loved in spite of their faults. On the other hand, Therese's father and her sisters will probably come across as being too goody-goody for a modern audience, but it is our cynicism that makes them seem that way. To read Therese's writings, hers really was a loving family without much conflict.
Overall, this is a solid movie but one that also has a lot of room for improvement. Cynical people might not like it much, but then again, the whole idea of sainthood is going to cause a lot of disagreement between believers and non-believers.
Thérèse
(1986)
Stark, raw, but incomplete
1 March 2015
As an avid reader of St. Therese's writings myself, I thought I'd explore the available film portrayals about her life. This movie is quite literally a "screen play," quite obviously filmed on a soundstage with most of the scenes framed in front of gray backdrops. The colorless backgrounds cause one to focus more on the expressions and mannerisms of the characters, and also allow one to experience the richness of the sound (though many sound effects, such as that of a cat eating raw fish, are not exactly pleasing). In addition, the narrative basically stays true to the main events of Therese's life. Life in the convent was tough and exacting, and the stark manner in which it is portrayed gets that point across very effectively.
In spite of these strengths, the movie has its weaknesses and it does not (in my opinion) give a complete picture of Therese. One aspect of Therese that it does not do a good job of showing is her great intelligence, which really shines through when one reads her writings. Therese in this movie often seems to be a female counterpart of Gomer Pyle, a sort of dimwitted young Sister who smiles at the sufferings Jesus throws her way in much the same way that Gomer might smile after receiving a butt-chewing from Sgt. Carter. Her keen mental prowess is seen mainly in the first few scenes of the movie as she plots to save the souls of sinners and to gain entrance to the convent--once entering the convent, one gets the sense that Therese is nothing if not witless.
While portraying the mortification of the flesh that Therese practiced as a Carmelite (e.g. by wearing a cross close to her chest that had nails in the back of it), the movie does not show other important aspects of Therese's convent life that are less jarring but more important to understanding her philosophy. For example, one hardly sees Therese's "little way," the constant small sacrifices that she made for her Carmelite sisters on a daily basis that went largely unnoticed during her lifetime. The movie tends to dwell too much on those aspects of Carmelite tradition (and of Therese's life) that are more jarring to modern sensibilities and less on aspects of her life that might be perceived as more admirable. For example, one doesn't see that Therese was a prolific writer for her entire adult life (which she was, churning out enough letters, poems, prayers, and plays over nine years to fill several books--not to mention her autobiography). Therese was also a strong and exacting leader, put in charge of the novices for a few years toward the end of her life; in the movie she is portrayed as more of a servile follower.
The movie, while not overtly taking sides as to the veracity of Therese's faith, does seem to view the 19th century nunnery through a late 20th-century lens by portraying things that would not have been discussed if they ever had happened. For example, one nun seems to have (barely) repressed lesbian tendencies While another appears to be a man who has managed to pass as a sister. While titillating the imaginations of moviegoers by throwing in a bit of scandal, these anecdotes do little to help us understand who Therese really was.
Perhaps a 90-120 minute movie can never give total balance to any person, but the Therese that is portrayed in this movie is not the same sharp, tough-yet-sentimental figure whom I met in her writing. As a piece of cinematography, though, it does have its own strengths and should not be passed up solely because of the weaknesses I have outlined.
In spite of these strengths, the movie has its weaknesses and it does not (in my opinion) give a complete picture of Therese. One aspect of Therese that it does not do a good job of showing is her great intelligence, which really shines through when one reads her writings. Therese in this movie often seems to be a female counterpart of Gomer Pyle, a sort of dimwitted young Sister who smiles at the sufferings Jesus throws her way in much the same way that Gomer might smile after receiving a butt-chewing from Sgt. Carter. Her keen mental prowess is seen mainly in the first few scenes of the movie as she plots to save the souls of sinners and to gain entrance to the convent--once entering the convent, one gets the sense that Therese is nothing if not witless.
While portraying the mortification of the flesh that Therese practiced as a Carmelite (e.g. by wearing a cross close to her chest that had nails in the back of it), the movie does not show other important aspects of Therese's convent life that are less jarring but more important to understanding her philosophy. For example, one hardly sees Therese's "little way," the constant small sacrifices that she made for her Carmelite sisters on a daily basis that went largely unnoticed during her lifetime. The movie tends to dwell too much on those aspects of Carmelite tradition (and of Therese's life) that are more jarring to modern sensibilities and less on aspects of her life that might be perceived as more admirable. For example, one doesn't see that Therese was a prolific writer for her entire adult life (which she was, churning out enough letters, poems, prayers, and plays over nine years to fill several books--not to mention her autobiography). Therese was also a strong and exacting leader, put in charge of the novices for a few years toward the end of her life; in the movie she is portrayed as more of a servile follower.
The movie, while not overtly taking sides as to the veracity of Therese's faith, does seem to view the 19th century nunnery through a late 20th-century lens by portraying things that would not have been discussed if they ever had happened. For example, one nun seems to have (barely) repressed lesbian tendencies While another appears to be a man who has managed to pass as a sister. While titillating the imaginations of moviegoers by throwing in a bit of scandal, these anecdotes do little to help us understand who Therese really was.
Perhaps a 90-120 minute movie can never give total balance to any person, but the Therese that is portrayed in this movie is not the same sharp, tough-yet-sentimental figure whom I met in her writing. As a piece of cinematography, though, it does have its own strengths and should not be passed up solely because of the weaknesses I have outlined.
The Thanksgiving Treasure
(1973 TV Movie)
A Touching Account of Growing Up
18 January 2015
I sought this movie out because it was the sequel to The House Without a Christmas Tree, another movie that I greatly enjoyed. I had hoped that it would equal the quality of the first film, but it actually surpassed it. Like its predecessor, this movie uses a holiday (in this case, Thanksgiving) as a backdrop to the story, but the movie is not about the holiday itself.
From reading the brief plot summary, I had thought this was going to be a typical morality tale, something like "Love your enemies and they'll become your friends and everything will turn out hunky dowry." Although the element of showing kindness toward one's enemies does form the heart of the narrative, the plot is actually more nuanced than that. There is no neat resolution to the characters' problems. Addie, especially, experiences some of the jarring losses that are bound to occur when one is growing up. Although her initiative and iron nerve initially pay off, they are not enough to cushion her from the blows that are to come.
As in the first movie, Mr. Mills is far from understanding Addie's actions--it is kindly Grandma who bridges the gap between the two of them. The movie also occasions many opportunities for adults to reflect on how their behavior affects children. One sees how Addie is greatly affected by all of the adult main characters in the movie. Her father, her grandmother, her teacher, and Mr. Rehnquist all influence her in different ways.
This movie is a great movie for parents to watch with their children. The movie deals with some pretty heavy topics, and children who empathize with Addie's great sadness near the end of the movie will likely have a lot of questions. Although the movie contains nothing grossly inappropriate, children under 5 or 6 are unlikely to get much out of it.
The production values are similar to The House Without a Christmas Tree. This is a made-for-television movie, and was apparently filmed on videotape instead of film. Although it has interspersed action scenes, it is mostly dialog-driven. Unlike its predecessor, this movie makes copious use of authentic rural, outdoor settings.
Overall, seeing this movie makes me wish that the Mills family could have had their own television series. However, whether or not the good writing that we see here could have held up for season after season is a matter open to debate.
From reading the brief plot summary, I had thought this was going to be a typical morality tale, something like "Love your enemies and they'll become your friends and everything will turn out hunky dowry." Although the element of showing kindness toward one's enemies does form the heart of the narrative, the plot is actually more nuanced than that. There is no neat resolution to the characters' problems. Addie, especially, experiences some of the jarring losses that are bound to occur when one is growing up. Although her initiative and iron nerve initially pay off, they are not enough to cushion her from the blows that are to come.
As in the first movie, Mr. Mills is far from understanding Addie's actions--it is kindly Grandma who bridges the gap between the two of them. The movie also occasions many opportunities for adults to reflect on how their behavior affects children. One sees how Addie is greatly affected by all of the adult main characters in the movie. Her father, her grandmother, her teacher, and Mr. Rehnquist all influence her in different ways.
This movie is a great movie for parents to watch with their children. The movie deals with some pretty heavy topics, and children who empathize with Addie's great sadness near the end of the movie will likely have a lot of questions. Although the movie contains nothing grossly inappropriate, children under 5 or 6 are unlikely to get much out of it.
The production values are similar to The House Without a Christmas Tree. This is a made-for-television movie, and was apparently filmed on videotape instead of film. Although it has interspersed action scenes, it is mostly dialog-driven. Unlike its predecessor, this movie makes copious use of authentic rural, outdoor settings.
Overall, seeing this movie makes me wish that the Mills family could have had their own television series. However, whether or not the good writing that we see here could have held up for season after season is a matter open to debate.
Excellent inside look at Rich's life from friends and family
21 April 2014
While technically a documentary, this film about Rich's life has more of a homey fireside chat feel to it. As David Leo Schulz interviews those who knew Rich from the beginning of his life until the end, one gets a broad picture of his life that does not disappoint. For those who have seen other materials about Rich's life, this one will be an eye-opener in that it introduces us to some lesser-heard-from individuals in Rich's life (such as his brother Lloyd, who comes across more as a down-to-earth Hoosier country boy than as the brother of a Christian musician). The only disappointment was that the only extended interview material on the DVD had material only from the interview with Brennan Manning and from the interview with Mac Powell of Third Day; I was hoping to see more extended interview material from Mitch McVicker. The film also does not explore in great detail Rich's interest in Catholicism (which, I suppose, is somewhat understandable, as most of his friends, family, and even the documentary producer are Protestants). Perhaps most poignant are the segments at the end in which friends and family members describe how they each dealt with the news of Rich's death. This is a must-see companion to Ragamuffin (2014), the feature film based on Rich's life.
Ragamuffin
(2014)
Inspirational , but not your typical "Christian" movie
19 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Rich Mullins relentlessly pursued Jesus in his own life, of which fact this movie is not ashamed. However, the movie does not portray Rich as larger than life. Rather, we meet an enigmatic man who wrestled with rejection from his father and from the love of his life. While striving to live in obedience to the commands of Christ, he struggled with sin and often confused those closest to him. His struggles did not subside but rather were compounded by his own musical success as he lived with the emptiness that still remained. Unlike in many Christian movies, sin and rejection are not something that an unsaved person or lapsed Christian is ceremoniously delivered from, but are an expected part of living in this world.
Overall, I would give the acting an 8/10; it's not Hollywood, but it's not bad either. I would give the writing a 7/10, as the dialog seems contrived and heavy-handed in a few places. Fortunately, this happens seldom and the writing is overall pretty believable. For production and cinematography, I would give it 8/10; again, this isn't Hollywood, but it's great for an indie film. From a historical accuracy standpoint, I would give it 7/10. There are a few occasions where locations of events and names of people (even those closest to Rich) were changed, but overall it seems pretty accurate. Other reviews have also mentioned one particular anachronism, i.e. that musical instruments/equipment are seen years before they were invented; the reason for this is that the concert scenes in the movie were filmed live at Mitch McVicker concerts in 2012. Having a limited budget, this movie had to make do with what it could get. As for the accuracy of the details of Rich's life: Given that many of those working on the movie were close to Rich (such as Mitch McVicker, and his brother David Mullins), I have no reason to doubt overall account of his personal life.
Rich's music features prominently into this movie, and Michael Koch (himself a musician by trade, not an actor) does a pretty good job of approximating Rich's voice and re-creating his songs. Don't be disappointed if your favorite Mullins song is not featured, though; it's only a two-hour fifteen-minute movie!
****Spoilers Ahead****
This film is quite open about Rich's faults: His struggle with alcoholism, his chain-smoking habit, his struggle to be accepted by his father, his hapless pursuit of his love interest, and his highly dependent relationship with Beaker (whose name was changed in the film). Twice in the movie he chides Beaker for leaving his vicinity for mere minutes to perform mundane tasks (such as getting a cup of coffee from the hotel lobby). One gets the sense that Rich, for all of his shameless demonstration of the love of Jesus on many occasions, was excessively dependent on those closest to him. It is also interesting what the film chooses to focus on and chooses to ignore. For example, while the Order of the Kid Brothers of Saint Frank is described, the Ragamuffin Band doesn't get a mention. Also conspicuously absent are the details of Rich's experience on the reservation and his interest in Catholicism. But this movie does focus well on the aspects of Rich's life that it chooses to explore.
In the end, this is a story about a man who is deeply enveloped in loneliness and rejection, but who finds his solace and comfort in learning to love and obey the God who made him. As he is ignored by his fiancée' in the midst of his burgeoning success,telephone calls home seeking comfort are welcomed by a tender mother but dismissed by a calloused father. One turning point for Rich in this story is his friendship with fellow alcoholic and ragamuffin author Brennan Manning. When Rich learns of the death of his father, with whom he was never really reconciled, he is devastated. Frequent flashbacks to the paternal castigation of Rich's childhood days still haunt the grown-up Rich, who feels like he never measured up in his father's eyes. He still has trouble viewing God as father, since his own father was so hard on him. Brennan leads Rich on a mini-retreat in which Rich writes a letter to himself from his father, and comes to realize that his father did truly love him, but that he had difficulty expressing that love verbally.
The movie is also careful not to pit Rich Mullins as the hero against the Big Bad Christian Music Industry (as tempting as that might be). In one poignant scene, Rich gets in an argument with one of his producers at the record label. Although Rich seems to have some pretty valid points in the argument, the producer points out that Rich is being proud and disrespectful. In a subsequent scene, Rich begins mowing the producer's lawn early one morning as an act of reconciliation.
This movie did a good job of helping to understand the man who wrote the music. It totally makes sense to me that the man who wrote "Hold Me Jesus" and "Hard to Get" would be the same guy who showed up drunk to a friend's funeral, threw a phone through a phone booth window when he learned of his ex-fiancée's engagement to another man, and struggled with deep-seated loneliness (Sadly, in some circles of Christian piety, admitting that one is lonely brings forth accusations that one does not have a close walk with God, or that one may not even know Christ at all). Although some might lose faith in Rich upon learning these facts, I think Rich would have been okay with that. He would have wanted us to put our faith in Jesus instead. Rich often alluded to his own struggles with sin and temptation in his concerts. While not going into a lot of personal detail, he never pretended to be anything other than a ragamuffin in God's Kingdom.
Overall, I would give the acting an 8/10; it's not Hollywood, but it's not bad either. I would give the writing a 7/10, as the dialog seems contrived and heavy-handed in a few places. Fortunately, this happens seldom and the writing is overall pretty believable. For production and cinematography, I would give it 8/10; again, this isn't Hollywood, but it's great for an indie film. From a historical accuracy standpoint, I would give it 7/10. There are a few occasions where locations of events and names of people (even those closest to Rich) were changed, but overall it seems pretty accurate. Other reviews have also mentioned one particular anachronism, i.e. that musical instruments/equipment are seen years before they were invented; the reason for this is that the concert scenes in the movie were filmed live at Mitch McVicker concerts in 2012. Having a limited budget, this movie had to make do with what it could get. As for the accuracy of the details of Rich's life: Given that many of those working on the movie were close to Rich (such as Mitch McVicker, and his brother David Mullins), I have no reason to doubt overall account of his personal life.
Rich's music features prominently into this movie, and Michael Koch (himself a musician by trade, not an actor) does a pretty good job of approximating Rich's voice and re-creating his songs. Don't be disappointed if your favorite Mullins song is not featured, though; it's only a two-hour fifteen-minute movie!
****Spoilers Ahead****
This film is quite open about Rich's faults: His struggle with alcoholism, his chain-smoking habit, his struggle to be accepted by his father, his hapless pursuit of his love interest, and his highly dependent relationship with Beaker (whose name was changed in the film). Twice in the movie he chides Beaker for leaving his vicinity for mere minutes to perform mundane tasks (such as getting a cup of coffee from the hotel lobby). One gets the sense that Rich, for all of his shameless demonstration of the love of Jesus on many occasions, was excessively dependent on those closest to him. It is also interesting what the film chooses to focus on and chooses to ignore. For example, while the Order of the Kid Brothers of Saint Frank is described, the Ragamuffin Band doesn't get a mention. Also conspicuously absent are the details of Rich's experience on the reservation and his interest in Catholicism. But this movie does focus well on the aspects of Rich's life that it chooses to explore.
In the end, this is a story about a man who is deeply enveloped in loneliness and rejection, but who finds his solace and comfort in learning to love and obey the God who made him. As he is ignored by his fiancée' in the midst of his burgeoning success,telephone calls home seeking comfort are welcomed by a tender mother but dismissed by a calloused father. One turning point for Rich in this story is his friendship with fellow alcoholic and ragamuffin author Brennan Manning. When Rich learns of the death of his father, with whom he was never really reconciled, he is devastated. Frequent flashbacks to the paternal castigation of Rich's childhood days still haunt the grown-up Rich, who feels like he never measured up in his father's eyes. He still has trouble viewing God as father, since his own father was so hard on him. Brennan leads Rich on a mini-retreat in which Rich writes a letter to himself from his father, and comes to realize that his father did truly love him, but that he had difficulty expressing that love verbally.
The movie is also careful not to pit Rich Mullins as the hero against the Big Bad Christian Music Industry (as tempting as that might be). In one poignant scene, Rich gets in an argument with one of his producers at the record label. Although Rich seems to have some pretty valid points in the argument, the producer points out that Rich is being proud and disrespectful. In a subsequent scene, Rich begins mowing the producer's lawn early one morning as an act of reconciliation.
This movie did a good job of helping to understand the man who wrote the music. It totally makes sense to me that the man who wrote "Hold Me Jesus" and "Hard to Get" would be the same guy who showed up drunk to a friend's funeral, threw a phone through a phone booth window when he learned of his ex-fiancée's engagement to another man, and struggled with deep-seated loneliness (Sadly, in some circles of Christian piety, admitting that one is lonely brings forth accusations that one does not have a close walk with God, or that one may not even know Christ at all). Although some might lose faith in Rich upon learning these facts, I think Rich would have been okay with that. He would have wanted us to put our faith in Jesus instead. Rich often alluded to his own struggles with sin and temptation in his concerts. While not going into a lot of personal detail, he never pretended to be anything other than a ragamuffin in God's Kingdom.
Tell Your Friends