If you want to take a peak at some movies that have raised eyebrows or inspired animated exchanges of opinion, then start with these five fiery films.
Viewers may be drawn to a film by a favorite actor or an eye-catching preview. They may have a particular interest in a movie because it belongs to a beloved genre. But movie goers also occasionally step into the theater or rent a DVD in an attempt to discover an answer to the question: “What was all the fuss about?” If you want to take a peak at some movies that have raised eyebrows or inspired animated exchanges of opinion, then start with these five fiery films—and judge the controversy for yourself.
American Beauty
The dark comedy American Beauty has inspired both ire and praise; it has been saddled with accusations of immorality and crowned with claims of positive virtue. The controversy probably arises from the fact that the film could be interpreted in two different ways. Is it a typical Hollywood diatribe about the American dream and the nuclear family? Does it present domestic felicity as a charade and maintain the stereotype that bourgeois life is utterly vapid, while at the same time elevating the perverse to the level of the profound? Or is it, in contrast, a film that shows how petty and deluded people can become when they allow ennui and self-pity to consume them, so that they ultimately cannot see—until almost too late—the very real beauty that is in their own, presumably "ordinary" lives?
The movie seems uneven in its thematic presentation, and the message you take away from it may go a long way toward determining whether you love or hate it. Even those who are repelled by some of the scenes and values presented may ultimately interpret the movie positively. In the very midst of the violence, perversion, loneliness, emptiness, and desperation depicted in the film, there arises a theme of gratitude for the beauty that has been infused into life by a "benevolent being."
Running Time: 122 minutes. 1999. Rated R (nudity, sex, language, and violence).
Cider House Rules
Cider House Rules is packed with talented actors, and it is slickly filmed. Its philosophical message, however, has been regarded by some as abhorrent. Cider House Rules tackles the concept of moral relativism, covering such "gray" issues as abortion, adultery, and incest. The moral of the story comes from the mouth of the incestuous father: "These rules ain’t made for us," he says. "We're the ones who are supposed to make our own rules. And we do. Every single day."
The title refers to the rules posted in the cider house by the man who built the house, who, we are given to understand, doesn’t know anything about the real world these characters inhabit and therefore is in no position to demand obedience from them. Instead, these characters need to make their own rules day by day. The cider house is a microcosm for the world, and the absent builder might be interpreted as a stand-in for God, with the cider house rules serving as a kind of Ten Commandments. Our hero Homer begins the film with some semblance of a moral code, but as he grows and matures he learns the necessity of making his own rules, rather than living his life by the standard of an absolute moral code. As a consequence of this new outlook on life, he has an affair and ultimately performs an abortion, an act portrayed as courageous in the film.
The moral relativism of the film, epitomized in the characters’ rejection of the "cider house rules," results in an unwanted pregnancy, incest, and general misery. Critics object that the filmmakers fail to indicate that these sad affects might imply the value of having an absolute moral law. Instead, they argue, the film repeatedly suggests that it is naïve to maintain an absolute moral standard and that issues of conscience must be dealt with on a purely personal and circumstantial basis.
Whether you are offended or impressed by the film will likely depend upon how much you agree or disagree with the concept of moral relativism.
This slow-paced thriller, which boasts an interesting final twist, has been labeled anti-religious by some, including film critic and self-proclaimed “cultural crusader” Michael Medved. The movie is intended to serve as a modern retelling of the story of Abraham and Isaac. In the Bible, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham obeyed, his hand stayed from the deadly blow by God. Frailty, however, follows a hypothetical tangent, causing the audience to ponder: What if Abraham had refused to obey?
While some religious viewers will find this a thought-provoking question respectfully treated, others will conclude that Frailty, whether intentionally or unintentionally, presents a deceptive picture of Judeo-Christian faith by misrepresenting what it means, from a religious standpoint, to battle with principalities and powers.
Running Time: 99 minutes. 2002. Rated R (violence, language).
O
This modern retelling of Shakespeare’s Othello was billed as “the most controversial movie of the year.” Its controversy probably did not stem primarily from the teen sex and drug abuse depicted in the film (common enough occurrences in R rated movies), but from the fact that school kids and a shooting were coupled in the movie. In the wake of Columbine, this was sure to generate accusations of irresponsibility. However, it may reasonably be argued that these murderous events are absolutely essential to the plot which is, after all, Shakespeare's.
As a contemporary adaptation of a classic play, “O” succeeds, even if it is at times a bit too disturbing. The story is revised to fit into the framework of modern preparatory school life, with our Othello, Odin James (Mekhi Phifer) as a basketball player rather than a general. Julia Stiles plays Desi and Josh Hartnett turns in a fine performance as Hugo (the equivalent of Shakespeare’s Iago). Hartnett’s character is given more substance and attention than the Iago of Shakespeare's play.
I would recommend this movie for adults interested in modern adaptations of Shakespeare's plays; however, I would not recommend it for a general high school audience, firstly because of the "adult" content (sex, drugs, swearing) and secondly because most high school students are not yet mature enough to appreciate its thematic intensity and purpose.
Running Time: 94 Minutes. 2001. Rated R (sex, violence, language).
The Passion of the Christ
No one who was awake in 2004 could have missed the swirl of controversy that surrounded The Passion. The film tells the story of Christ's suffering and Crucifixion with rich symbolism as well as beautiful and brutal imagery. The movie is largely image driven, with only a sparse amount of dialogue, translated from Aramaic and Latin into English subtitles. The film is extremely intense, and audience members should be prepared for a lasting emotional impact. When casting the movie, Gibson made the judicious choice to avoid famous actors. His Satan is simultaneously beautiful and creepy, and his Mary is the appropriate counterpart.
Critics have raised three main objections to The Passion:
(1) The film is too violent.The Passion depicts Christ’s crucifixion in gory detail, and has been labeled sadistic by some. In opposition, one might argue that the subject matter is necessarily violent; the violence is severe, graphic, and prolonged, but unlike the gratuitous violence of many movies today, it is essential to the film, it has a purpose, and it cannot leave the viewer unaffected. The suffering of Christ seems real; even a generation inured by violence in movies may be deeply unsettled by the bloodshed in this film. For once, the violence of a film is integral to the story, and for once it serves not to inure the audience, but to heighten its sensitivity. Though at times nearly overwhelming, the scenes of Christ's passion are broken up by flashbacks to His time with His mother and His disciples. This serves both to reveal the meaning of His sufferings and to grant the audience a respite from the constant violence.
(2) The film only depicts fifteen seconds of the Resurrection. This objection has been voiced by Christians, and it is certainly true that the movie presents the Resurrection but briefly and almost as an afterthought. On the other hand, to criticize a movie about the Passion for not including enough about the Resurrection is like walking out of a Good Friday service and complaining that there were too few choruses of "He is Risen." Christians who make this objection are concerned that if a nonbeliever sees the film, he or she will be exposed to the dimmest part of the Christian story, without an equal, balancing emphasis on the hope and glory of the Resurrection. Easter is, after all, the most important Christian holiday. But it may be a mistake to regard The Passion as an evangelistic tool that is responsible for explaining Christianity to nonbelievers. The Passion may inspire nonbelievers to learn "the rest of the story," but it is not primarily targeted at those who disbelieve Christ; rather, its deepest impact will be felt by those who are already Christians, but who may have begun to take Christ’s sacrifice for granted.
(3) The film is anti-Semitic or may inspire anti-Semitism. Most who called the film anti-Semitic slandered it before they saw it, though some maintained the charge even after a viewing. Others, however, argue that the film clearly makes the point that Christ died because of the sins of all men, not because of the evil of a particular race of people. In the film there are Jews who clamor for Christ's death as well as Jews who follow Him to the last and tenderly take him from the cross. The movie shows both the heights and depths, the evil and compassion of man—Jewish and Gentile alike. Although Pilate is indeed portrayed as a reluctant executioner who is stuck between a rock and a hard place, the most brutal torturers in the movie are Romans. And even if we sympathize with Pilate, that sympathy should remind us that we, too, in his place would have consented to the crucifixion of Jesus. It reminds us of the too true adage that evil happens only because good men do nothing. Those who predicted that The Passion would lead to a rise in anti-Semitism may be surprised to learn that opinion surveys taken after its showing revealed an increased respect for Jews and Judaism.
Running Time: 127 minutes. 2004. Rated R (violence).
You Decide
These five films have evoked controversy and fueled discussion. But only you can decide for yourself whether they are to be valued or reviled. Take a trip to your local video store today, or add one of these films to your online DVD rental queue.