Christianity Today just posted their annual list of what they deem the “most redeeming films” of the year. Here is their list for 2006:
- 10. Children of Men
- 9. Akeelah and the Bee
- 8. The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
- 7. Tsotsi
- 6. Charlotte’s Web
- 5. The Second Chance
- 4. Joyeux Noel
- 3. Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
- 2. The New World
- 1. The Nativity Story
I’ve seen all of them except for The Second Chance, Charlotte’s Web, and Akeelah and the Bee. I’m a little surprised that they would give the number 1 spot to a merely good (that had the potential to be great) film so indebted to Hallmark Cards and the Three Stooges. Was it a shoo-in because of the subject?
I thought The New World was a very good film (not surprisingly, coming from Terrence Malick), but I’m not sure what exactly was “redeeming” about it. The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, on the other hand, is a great film that asks hard questions and finds one of its central themes in the search for redemption and atonement.
I’m glad to see three foreign films on the list, Tsotsi, Joyeux Noel, and Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. Joyeux Noel, my favorite of the three, reminds us that we should not (and cannot, if we are not satisfied only with stereotypes) dehumanize “the enemy”, and of the senselessness of war. Tsotsi asks great questions about the effects of our circumstances and whether we can change, whether or not we can learn to commit selfless acts when life seems to show that we must put ourselves first to survive. Sophie Scholl has deservedly drawn many comparisions to A Man For All Seasons, the story of Sir Thomas More, for the interrogation and courtroom scenes they both rely on.
I’m glad Children of Men made the list. Though there has been much debate of the merits of the film over the book from which it took its title and basic plot (and apparently not a whole lot else), I think the end result is still a great film. I am particuarly interested in the discussions that would be generated if this was shown back to back with another film involving Michael Caine, Cider House Rules.
At the end of their list, they include a couple that didn’t make it, including Half Nelson. The best description I’ve heard of Half Nelson is that it’s a lament to what should have been. It leaves the question of future redemption and change unresolved, as it is in many of our own circumstances. And Ryan Gosling’s performance is worthy of the critical aclaim it has been receiving.
I wish The King, starring Gael García Bernal and William Hurt, and Winter Passing, starring Zooey Deschanel, Will Ferrell, and Ed Harris, had been included in this list. Winter Passing is a wonderful film that centers around Zooey’s character coming to terms with her childhood and the way her parents lack of involvement (as two famous writers) shaped her, and the lengths she’ll go to to “feel something”. It’s also my favorite Will Ferrell role, as a guitarist kicked out of a Christian rock band who has tried to create his own sanctuary from the world and nervously utters phrases like “God is my co-pilot” and “Jesus loves you too”.
The King focuses on a Southern preacher and his illegitimate son who is newly discharged from the Navy. Bernal, as the son, forces his way into his father’s new life and that of his family, and while doing so challenges one of the central themes of what his father preaches, forgiveness. In the last 10 seconds of the movie, it asks, by implication, the probing question “how much are we really capable of forgiving, and if we (as humans) cannot forgive everything (the answer I think the film demands), can God truly forgive all?” (As a side note, I found it interesting that the kid who played the pastor’s son and ‘worship leader’ here turned around and played the kid in Little Miss Sunshine whose hero is Nietzsche and wears a t-shirt that says Jesus Was Wrong.
To read the rest of the list and the reasons why they chose the movies they did, click here.
Are there any other films you think should have been included?
Maybe if you folks read the Christianity Today review of the film, you’d see what their critics found “redeeming’ about The New World. It says this in the list: ….
“Depending on how you feel about Malick’s filmmaking style, the viewer is likely to either love or hate The New World. Eschewing any sort of traditional narrative approach, Malick nevertheless delivers a film that is stunning in its visual beauty and cinematography. At its core, it’s the story of Pocahontas, John Smith and John Rolfe, but even deeper, it’s about how we respond to the still, small voice of the Spirit that whispers in our hearts. For Pocahontas, it’s initially the “spirits” of the Native American world, but later, through the love of Rolfe, she comes to know the true Spirit of Christianity.” ….
And then there’s the full review, which highlights a number of “redeeming’ elements:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/thenewworld.html
Jeffrey, I did read your review of The New World that you wrote for Christianity Today, and I know you think it is one of the best films of the last 15 years. I always read CT’s reviews the day they are posted.
Like I said, I liked The New World. But, for me, the first time I saw it, nothing struck me as redeeming. Maybe if I see it again in 10 years, I’ll see it differently. And admittedly, my comment about it in this post was more of a throw-away statement starting off my post than anything else. When I wrote it, I tried going to the CT movie site to read again your comments on the film, but, as happens fairly often, the CT site was down.