Hitch

—Overview
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Sometimes the romantic comedy formula seems dead. I mean, how many last-minute-realization/mad-dash-to-the-airport scenes can we endure? How many quirky best friend characters? How many predictably happy endings? But still, I for one don’t mind seeing a well-worn formula done well—after all, formulas become formulas because, at some level, they work. Hitch works. It follows the romantic comedy formula well, and also manages to do some unique things with it. In the end, it’s good for lots of laughs, the requisite insights into love and life, some great dialogue, and hopefully, more opportunities for Kevin James to get film roles.

Speaking of which, this movie was cast perfectly. James uses his established image—as the “funny big guy� from King of Queens—but I think also shows himself capable of doing some more complex stuff. And what about Hitch himself? Well, a better role for Will Smith is hard to imagine. I think he’d be believable as the supremely confident, lady-killing Date Doctor, even if this were his first role. But he’s even more believable because of the super-cool and confident “Will Smith ethos� that has built up from nearly all of his previous work. Of course, Smith also here plays against this persona to humorous effect—a shtick that started way back in his days as a rapper, when he was one of the first people to be self-deprecating and funny in a genre built on strict machismo. Likewise, the two leading ladies (Eva Mendes and Amber Valletta), though typecast, play their parts very well—being likable, standoffish, smart, desirable, aloof, etc., when needed.

These well-cast actors, as the formula dictates, get caught up in a comedy of errors that works itself out in the end. Smith is the aforementioned Date Doctor—capable of secretly helping less-than-smooth men get the ladies they love—who simultaneously takes on James as a client, and meets Mendes, a gossip columnist. Before long, Smith begins to fall for his girl, just as James’ girl begins to fall for him. Of course, problems arise: Smith isn’t able to be as cool with this woman as he is with other women, she gets the wrong idea about how he helps his clients and publishes a column about him, thereby outing James, and so on. How all of this works out isn’t unique, given the formula. There is, in fact, one of those mad-dash-to-the-airport type scenes, and a wedding to boot. Unfortunately, for me, this did detract from the ending. Like I said, I don’t mind a movie following the conventions of its genre, but this film was being just unique enough to make me hope for a unique take on the ending—it didn’t deliver.

However, the uniqueness of the rest of the movie remains. Hitch is basically a Cyrano de Bergerac type character. He helps other men with their romantic ambitions, necessarily putting his own romantic ambitions on hold. Normally in a romantic comedy, this type of character would lead to a love triangle plot—think The Wedding Planner or The Truth About Cats and Dogs. But in Hitch, there isn’t a love triangle. The Cyrano character eventually has his own romantic ambitions awakened without interfering with those of his clients at all. Also, in this type of movie there is usually only one major love story, or a focus on one mainly. But Hitch gives ample time to both Smith and James’ love stories, to great effect—this is the closest thing to a merger of the romantic comedy and buddy comedy genres that I’ve ever seen.

Thematically, though, Hitch again returns to the formula. From Smith’s story, we learn that love is worth a chance—that no matter the pain it may have caused in the past, it’s still worth it. From James’ story, we learn that people will love you for who you are. Simple themes, and themes that have been dealt with extensively in this genre. But also, I think, themes that always have had, and always will have, spiritual relevance.

Spiritual relevance? How? Well, the Christian story is, in a sense, a romantic comedy. It’s a comedy in the classic sense that it’s a story with a happy ending. It’s romantic in that, according to this story, God wants us, and pursues us, sacrifices for us, gives gifts to us, cares for us, etc., in a way that’s analogous to a lover/beloved relationship. This is an idea as old as the Song of Solomon, and as recent as Ted Dekker’s excellent Circle trilogy, where his characters practice an allegorical representation of Christianity, which they call “The Great Romance.� So, since the Christian story is a romantic comedy, we shouldn’t be surprised that the themes of this kind of movie will connect.

With this in mind, perhaps Hitch can connect to those of us who’ve been hurt by the church, or by Christians, or to those who perhaps feel they’ve been hurt by God himself. Perhaps it can make us take down our walls or masks, like James’ character, and be ourselves—honestly admitting that we still want that relationship, despite the hurt, like Smith’s character. Perhaps it can encourage us to take a chance, to remember that God’s love really is worth it, in the end.

Of course, with a movie like this, the fact that it can work—as all stories can—at that deeper level, is just an added bonus. Mostly, I just want to say that it’s an entertaining film, with great comedic moments, apt and sometimes unique handling of the genre, and a perfect cast. I just want to say, mostly, that it’s fun. Happy Valentine’s Day!

—Overview
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

The Phantom of the Opera

—Overview
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera is a hard movie to review. I mean, what do you focus on? The acting? That’s been influenced by years of stage and film actors’ interpretations. The music? Again, this film version is very close to Webber’s original score, used for years in the stage production. The sets and costumes? Sorry. My wife informs me that they look exactly as they looked when she saw the show on Broadway. The casting? Yeah, I guess . . . but why talk about any of that, which was all just as good, yet predictable, as you’d expect given the success of the musical, when you can talk about what’s really important here—when you can talk about what transcends the acting, the production details, even the music—the story. No, I will not here explain the plot, which most people know anyway, but I would like to look more deeply at the significance of the story itself.

Phantom is, like so many tales, about human needs and desires, and what we’ll do to fulfill them. The main character of the film, really, is the titular Phantom. His desires can seem complex, but really boil down to the need to love and be loved—all stemming from his facial disfigurement and resulting childhood abuse. Christine, around whom centers most of the Phantom’s attempts at happiness, first needs to make peace with her father’s death, and later wants to be rid of her “Angel of Music� (the Phantom), so she can be with Raoul. And Raoul—the third point of this classic love-triangle—very simply loves Christine and wants her for himself.

The fulfillment of these needs/desires, or lack thereof, is all initially due to the actions of the Phantom himself. It is he who secretly tutors Christine, perhaps hoping to vicariously win the opera’s love through her gift, and falling in love with her in the process. It is his unveiling of himself to Christine that proves that he is not the ghost of her father, and that starts her on the path to peace with his absence. It is the Phantom’s jealous pursuit that sparks Christine and Raoul’s clinging to each other, and his violence that forces her to choose between them. And at the end, when she is dead, he is still there—like a Phantom should be—loving her, and undoubtedly still regretting that his love was not reciprocated.

As I watched the film, reveling in the music, but also trying to put my finger on the spiritual implications of such a tangle of requited and unrequited desire, I found that my ideas didn’t solidify easily. I mean, surely this film has to do with good and evil, and life and death, and love and hate, and all these big spiritual themes—but I couldn’t wrap it up in a nice box. I’ve decided that it’s because I was trying (for some reason) to make the story be a perfect Christian allegory, which it’s not. It’s close: Christine is the everyperson/Eve figure, trying to fill the void left by her father. She is lured underground by the Phantom, to his personal hell of confinement, where he tempts her like the devil. Raoul, the Christ figure, whom Christine fell in love with on the roof of the opera house—suggestive of heaven, as opposed to the underground lair of the Phantom—then comes and rescues her, and they live happily ever after. But there are holes here, mainly having to do with Raoul not being a very developed character, and with the sympathetic presentation of the Phantom. So, instead of trying to simplify the story in this way, I’d like to just lay out some random thoughts on two things that this film does, spiritually speaking.

First, Phantom makes us consider the nature of good and evil. Like other stories in this vein—Paradise Lost, Jekyll and Hyde, and Prometheus Unbound come to mind—the Phantom is “the bad guy,� but because of the complexity, sympathetic presentation, and motivations of the character, the audience is forced to consider what it really means to be “the bad guy.� Do we root for the heroic, questing Christ figure, Raoul? Or do we root for the Phantom, whose downfalls seem forgivable, given what we know about him? Or is the Phantom himself the hero, the “good guy?� Does he, in some way, save Christine more than Raoul does? Does Christine even need to be saved from him? Or is he saved by her, and somehow redeemed by the end? All good questions, and all questions that don’t come up in stories with simpler presentations of heroes and villains.

Second, Phantom gives insight into what we all know about ourselves: we’re always striving for something, and we’ll go through a lot to get it. Our strivings are often very deep in our nature, and often have to do with father/mother issues, and with love. But as C.S. Lewis once suggested, if we have a desire, there must be a way to fulfill it—so perhaps there is a way to fulfill that need we all seem to have for a perfect parent-child relationship. Perhaps there is a way to love perfectly and be loved perfectly, unmarred by ulterior motives, or misperceptions, or miscommunications, or our past. And, as with the Phantom, Christine, and Raoul, perhaps our choices play a role in how these needs are met.

This, at the risk of simplifying again, may be the real strength of the story: it makes us seriously consider desire, proper action, motivation, consequences—in short, morality. The Phantom of the Opera is a modern-day morality play, hidden inside a love story, with big visuals and good music. It makes us think about our part in this big morality play called “our lives.� And, upon reflection, it will hopefully also make us think about the possibility of all our evils being understood and remedied, of all our desires being fulfilled, of all our needs being met. As such, Phantom truly is an “Angel of Music.�

—Overview
—Trailers, Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections