Skip to main content

Jesus has a horse in heaven.

Heaven is for Real
(2014)

(SPOILERS) It would be churlish to complain about a Christian movie selling Jesus, something Heaven is for Real (fo’ sho’; Heaven is 4 Real might have been a better title) has at the forefront of its mind. And critiquing its take on Near Death Experiences (“NDEs”), from a rationalist/atheist perspective, would be talking to the hand, as it would be for any who who avow a spiritual dimension to an subject that some would reduce to mere brain chemistry (what’s surprising is that an atheist who isn’t a Dawkins-type zealot would waste their time setting it straight at all). The real (4 real) question, rather than taking issue with its faith-based partiality, is whether Randall Wallace has made a decent movie.  On that front it’s distinctly underwhelming, fudging together a series of not-all-that-convincing conflicts and trials to sell an affirmative view of the Christian afterlife (well, the glass half-full side of that afterlife).


Based on a True Story, announce the opening titles, and it should be noted that, like baseball movies and a good proportion of their comedies, there is little interest in Christianity-based movies that aren’t also Biblical epics/period pieces outside of America. It deserves some consideration, as Heaven is for Real earned a significant 90% of its gross at home (big movies are moving ever more towards the 70% internationally). It was a significant sized summer sleeper hit, particularly given its modest budget, and identified that there’s a ripe believer-based audience out there that won’t just turn out for Narnia or Mel’s The Sadomasochism of the Christ. The unashamedly positive advertising probably broadened its appeal too, towards the Bruce Joel Rubin/Ghost crowd. This is where the selling Jesus comes in, apart from the mere fact of making the movie based on Todd Burjo and Lynn Vincent’s book.


It’s a case of attempting to preach to the unconverted (although I think it’s profoundly mistaken if Wallace thinks this particular topic will sway anyone) as apparently the experiences of Todd’s son Colton testified to the family’s Biblical beliefs in a much more rigid manner. Rather than merely coming away with benign sunshine and moonbeams, the youngster received confirmation of the existence of hell, Old Nick, and the end times (so that would be five horses up/down there in all; Colton also encountered a rainbow-coloured horse, which I can only guess derives from one of the non-canonical gospels). But that isn’t the kind of unfiltered starkness you want to expose moviegoers to, unless you’re intent on milking the fears of The Exorcist-esque lapsed Catholics.


The conflicts are also manufactured, quite reasonably, as otherwise Randall Wallace would have little in the way of a movie (he has little-enough even with a few stakes involved). Todd (Greg Kinnear) is a down-on-his-financial-luck pastor whose son is admitted to hospital with a ruptured appendix. It’s touch-and-go for a while, and Todd later learns that while undergoing surgery Colton was transported to heaven where he saw the great grandfather he’s never met (or seen, it seems), and Jesus (we don’t see the horse, alas) and the sister he knew nothing of, who died when his mother Sonja (Kelly Reilly) miscarried. Todd is not a little rocked by this, not knowing how to categorise his son’s experience. This befuddlement feeds into his ministry, and before long the church board is asking questions about his pastoral suitability (townsfolk even make jokes at his expense; oh, the travails!)


It seems the real Todd never had the crisis of faith provoked by Colton’s revelations, and never came into conflict with the church board. Since the two points interweave, that makes a lot of sense. While watching the picture I was surprised that Todd should react in a manner so askance, wondering at his wonder, and become so obsessive over whether his son’s experience was (4) real. The more likely reaction from a believer would have been to accept it as an unquestionable message from God (much in the way that less palatable bits of The Bible are inelegantly skipped). 


The issues with the church board are easier to swallow (particularly since the marvellous Margo Martindale and Thomas Hayden Church – cast on the strength of his surname - sit on it), since even broad-brush, keep-it-light (or especially?) weekend churchgoers found here are wont to be possessive of their own private interpretation of doctrine (Martindale is also given a caveat of grieving for the loss of her own son – don’t worry though, Margo, you’ll get your vision in time!)


As such, the picture presents a bit of a muddle in its attempts to appeal to the broadest possible audience base. The bits of Colton’s vision we do see include angels with wings (while sniffing its nose at some cherub types being unrealistic to the scriptures!) and a vision of Christ who matches the one painted by a Lithuanian Christian NDE girl (the most alarming aspect of this is not that he resembles your common-or-garden Jesus picture of the past few centuries, but that he has a particular similarity to a bearded Barry Manilow).


The Burjos are most definitely not your staid, starchy, Christians either. They have sex, for starters, which is quite shocking. And, if randy sex talk is out, there’s the kind of mild innuendo that any pastor who has seen Nicolas Roeg’s Puffball would muster towards Kelly Reilly. Todd is a fantastic guy who teaches wrestling, gets paid in carpet and does the volunteer fireman thing. And he plays baseball (he breaks his leg during this; one of the disappointing aspects of the movie is that he doesn’t discuss the trials of faith brought by God, establishing that he is a New Testament Christian with no awareness of the book of Job).


Todd also suffers from hilarious kidney stones (permissible toilet humour there) and gets into sing-a-longs of songs sung by well-known heterosexual Christian Freddie Mercury (We Will Rock You). Which is to say, he practices a particularly toothless, inclusive and inoffensive form of Christianity and it’s an attitude that spreads throughout the picture as a whole. It’s a “nice” movie, and it lacks any balls at all. The worst one can say about it is that the Burpos clearly practice corporal punishment and are all for their children beating up kids who verbally abuse them. But I’m sure neither of those things are a barrier to passing through the Pearly Gates on a rainbow-coloured horse.


The details that Colton could not possibly know are used to leverage the “This really happened” argument (aware of what his father and mother are doing while he is under the knife, as well as the appearances and fates of family members), but none of this conflicts with more general non-denominational NDE experiences. Unsurprisingly, Wallace opts not to explore this path, as it would create a universal theme rather than a Jesus-based one. 


The subject is broached briefly when Colton goes to see a psychologist (Nancy Sorel), who offers a rational explanation for the phenomenon (“No, he didn’t die” proclaims Todd, as if that is the deciding factor in such experiences). Apart from the sequence being another of the “Why would Todd, a pastor, do this?” (Sorel’s Dr Slater pretty much asks him), it is crudely positioned to present Slater as the one who clearly doesn’t believe for the most primary of reasons; she lost her husband, so God is dead to her. If only the poor woman had faith! It’s thin, given the crisis Todd is going through. As Sonja says, “Why cant it just be a mystery?


Wallace’s movie career has been chequered, including historically contentious fare Braveheart, Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers; Heaven is for Real confirms the effect of a lack of Mad Mel’s fiery faith on a Christian movie, particularly in trying to fashion a story when there is none. Kinnear is actually very good, a believably earnest pastor type with an informal but authoritative pulpit style. Connor Corum strikes out as Colton; smiling beatifically cannot make up for his lack of acting chops. The visions of heaven, from the comfort of the local church, are all shafts of light and choirs (and angel wings); this is not the most illustrious of cinematographer Dean Semler’s work.



I do wonder if it’s possible to make this kind of sincerity palatable? At very least, it requires artfulness well beyond Wallace’s reach. To preach without provoking resentment in the audience is a difficult nut to crack. Given the liberties taken with the source material, it might have been more effective (more dramatic, certainly) to tell this as a non-believer transformed, but that would defeat Wallace’s desire to present this as truth. The trouble is, it’s a truth that fails to convince as a uniquely divine message (why the Christian NDE as opposed to any other individual’s?). And it’s relayed via someone who should surely not falter in the face of a recognised phenomenon; certainly, in no way should it challenge his beliefs. Well, maybe that rainbow horse is a poser.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.