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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.