It is a shame that Michael Tolkin couldn't decide which of the two primary themes of this movie to complete. He has a very interesting possibility relating to the role of religion as yet another alternative to drab existences. He also has an opportunity to delve into the compelling world of religious fanaticism and the kinds of forces that would prompt a mother to kill her child. Tolkin's movie offers tip of the iceberg glimpses of both themes but ultimately fails to deliver real satisfaction on either score.
I'll address the religious theme first. Many reviewers seem to think that the religious group that Sharon (Mimi Rodgers) joins is a "fundamentalist Christian" sect, portrayed in a "non-judgmental way." Some of the beliefs depicted in the film do share points of contact with American fundamentalist Christian groups, but nothing more than that. The emphasis on the importance of the mysterious child, for example, is not something that any fundamentalist Christian group would espouse. Similarly, the lengthy exposition of the "pearl of great price" is not a major point for American fundamentalists.
Therein lies part of the problem with Tolkin's take on American religion. He seems to want to portray a fundamentalist sect, but gets the details rather garbled and ends up with a mishmash of ideas and beliefs which individually can be found in some identifiable Christian groups, but are nowhere found in the combination in which they are presented in this film. Rightly, many fundamentalist Christian groups were highly offended by this caricature of "true believers." Sharon is a "born again" Christian in no sense other than the sense created by Tolkin for purposes of making the movie.
Being true to a particular version of American Protestant Christianity is beside the point, however, and that's why Tolkin would have been better advised to avoid some of the mangled theology he attempted to present and focus instead on the dynamics of fanaticism. Clearly, there is no more fanatical act than killing one's own young child for the sake of religious belief. Yet that theme is not only present in this film, it also presents itself in one of the oldest recorded tales of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament to Christians). In the book of Genesis, the story is told of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham does not understand the command. God "gave" Isaac to Abraham and his wife, Sarah, in their old age and promised Abraham that Isaac would carry forward the promise of God to Abraham to make a great people of Abraham's descendants. In the biblical story, God tests Abraham and Abraham proves faithful. He carries out every preparatory step to sacrifice Isaac to God, but then God calls off the killing of Isaac and provides a lamb for sacrifice instead. In Tolkin's vision, God does not call off the sacrifice. The question is, did God call for it in the first place? Of course it was the little girl who came up with the idea, but what kind of adult would agree to the scheme?
There's the religious story of this movie that Tolkin leaves largely untouched.
For the sake of space, I won;t launch on "the rapture" itself. Suffice it to say that Tolkin chose to depict those events in a manner fairly close to the literal unfolding as presented in the Book of Revelation. I am curious as to what Tolkin thought was happening in those scenes. There are many fundamentalists who adhere to the notion that a literal unfolding of the events depicted in Revelation is bound to happen. They also maintain, however, that true believers will be taken up into heaven either before anything bad happens, or in the midst of the evil events, or not until the very end (pre-Tribulation rapture vs. mid-Tribulation rapture vs. post-Tribulation rapture). While Tolkin could not let himself get bogged down into those sometimes obscure details, Sharon's continued presence on earth would suggest to the "pre-tribulation rapture" believers that Sharon was not a true believer at all.
Finally, I wanted to address the other theme in this movie that Tolkin failed to follow through to its conclusion. That is the theme of monotony. At the beginning of the film, Sharon is depicted as being stuck with a mind-numbing repetitive job with long-distance information. In an effort to bring some excitement in her life, she engages in a random acts of sexual adventure with multiple partners. But in the main scene depicting such an encounter, Sharon looks just as bored and unfulfilled by random group sex as she is by answering telephones all day. Into that mix comes this life-changing religious conversion. The fascinating question would have been whether that new life would also have bogged down into monotony had it carried on for a time. Tolkin does not probe that issue, suggesting instead that perhaps religious fanaticism is the answer to boredom in life.
I'll address the religious theme first. Many reviewers seem to think that the religious group that Sharon (Mimi Rodgers) joins is a "fundamentalist Christian" sect, portrayed in a "non-judgmental way." Some of the beliefs depicted in the film do share points of contact with American fundamentalist Christian groups, but nothing more than that. The emphasis on the importance of the mysterious child, for example, is not something that any fundamentalist Christian group would espouse. Similarly, the lengthy exposition of the "pearl of great price" is not a major point for American fundamentalists.
Therein lies part of the problem with Tolkin's take on American religion. He seems to want to portray a fundamentalist sect, but gets the details rather garbled and ends up with a mishmash of ideas and beliefs which individually can be found in some identifiable Christian groups, but are nowhere found in the combination in which they are presented in this film. Rightly, many fundamentalist Christian groups were highly offended by this caricature of "true believers." Sharon is a "born again" Christian in no sense other than the sense created by Tolkin for purposes of making the movie.
Being true to a particular version of American Protestant Christianity is beside the point, however, and that's why Tolkin would have been better advised to avoid some of the mangled theology he attempted to present and focus instead on the dynamics of fanaticism. Clearly, there is no more fanatical act than killing one's own young child for the sake of religious belief. Yet that theme is not only present in this film, it also presents itself in one of the oldest recorded tales of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament to Christians). In the book of Genesis, the story is told of Abraham being ordered by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Abraham does not understand the command. God "gave" Isaac to Abraham and his wife, Sarah, in their old age and promised Abraham that Isaac would carry forward the promise of God to Abraham to make a great people of Abraham's descendants. In the biblical story, God tests Abraham and Abraham proves faithful. He carries out every preparatory step to sacrifice Isaac to God, but then God calls off the killing of Isaac and provides a lamb for sacrifice instead. In Tolkin's vision, God does not call off the sacrifice. The question is, did God call for it in the first place? Of course it was the little girl who came up with the idea, but what kind of adult would agree to the scheme?
There's the religious story of this movie that Tolkin leaves largely untouched.
For the sake of space, I won;t launch on "the rapture" itself. Suffice it to say that Tolkin chose to depict those events in a manner fairly close to the literal unfolding as presented in the Book of Revelation. I am curious as to what Tolkin thought was happening in those scenes. There are many fundamentalists who adhere to the notion that a literal unfolding of the events depicted in Revelation is bound to happen. They also maintain, however, that true believers will be taken up into heaven either before anything bad happens, or in the midst of the evil events, or not until the very end (pre-Tribulation rapture vs. mid-Tribulation rapture vs. post-Tribulation rapture). While Tolkin could not let himself get bogged down into those sometimes obscure details, Sharon's continued presence on earth would suggest to the "pre-tribulation rapture" believers that Sharon was not a true believer at all.
Finally, I wanted to address the other theme in this movie that Tolkin failed to follow through to its conclusion. That is the theme of monotony. At the beginning of the film, Sharon is depicted as being stuck with a mind-numbing repetitive job with long-distance information. In an effort to bring some excitement in her life, she engages in a random acts of sexual adventure with multiple partners. But in the main scene depicting such an encounter, Sharon looks just as bored and unfulfilled by random group sex as she is by answering telephones all day. Into that mix comes this life-changing religious conversion. The fascinating question would have been whether that new life would also have bogged down into monotony had it carried on for a time. Tolkin does not probe that issue, suggesting instead that perhaps religious fanaticism is the answer to boredom in life.
