I don't remember reading a word about Raising Helen here on the board, but some Christian press critics are praising it for its portrayal of "a devout Christian family."
Anybody see it?
And while I'm on the subject, I'm looking for a volunteer review for Looking Closer...
Full Version: Raising Helen
The abject silence on this film from this group of critics would seem to be a bit of an embarrassment for a certain Christian press publicity organization some of us have worked with on other films.
Then again, if "some Christian press critics" are praising the film, maybe they don't need us after all.
Then again, if "some Christian press critics" are praising the film, maybe they don't need us after all.
Terry Mattingly mentions this film (and Saved!) in his latest column. One thing he points out is that this is yet ANOTHER Disney film with pro-religious content.
And does anybody here accept that one pastor's view that "You see a pastor in a movie today and he's almost always going to be an idiotic, dangerous, neurotic pervert or something"? Sounds to me like this guy is stuck in the '80s. It sure doesn't seem to reflect the state of film TODAY, to me.
And does anybody here accept that one pastor's view that "You see a pastor in a movie today and he's almost always going to be an idiotic, dangerous, neurotic pervert or something"? Sounds to me like this guy is stuck in the '80s. It sure doesn't seem to reflect the state of film TODAY, to me.
| QUOTE (Jeffrey Overstreet @ May 28 2004, 06:02 PM) |
| I don't remember reading a word about Raising Helen here on the board, but some Christian press critics are praising it for its portrayal of "a devout Christian family." Anybody see it? |
OK, I saw it. DH & I were at the theater & both RH and Mean Girls started at 4:30--we flipped a coin, RH won. After talking with my sister, I think we should have seen MG. Both she and my niece (who'll be 13 this week) loved MG, and saw it again with niece's 3 friends, one of whom actually is kind of a mean girl, and was appalled to see her methods exposed on the big screen. My sister thought it was a very salutary experience for her
But back to Raising Helen
What "devout Christian family"?
Helen & her nieces & nephews are obviously completely unchurched. She seems to have enough rudimentary faith that when she desperately cries, "Dear God, where will I find a decent school around here?" and the next corner reveals "St. ---'s Lutheran School," Helen takes that as an answered prayer--"That was quick!"
But her conversations with Pastor Dan & another school parent reveal--humorously enough--that she doesn't know the difference between Catholic & Lutheran, doesn't know anything at all about church, and neither she nor the children are ever portrayed as actually attending church at any time in the movie, nor is there any implication or mention of them doing so. Even the stodgy, "super-mom" aunt (played by the always excellent Joan Cusack) doesn't seem to be particularly Christian, though her children are shown dying Easter eggs; a generous reading would see this as symbolic of regeneration and (of course) Easter.
Now I don't think anyone absolutely must be a member of a church to be a Christian, but my point is that there's no evidence in the film to support the idea that it portrays a "devout Christian family."
Raising Helen does indeed portray Pastor Dan as a very nice, very attractive, all-round guy who's neither stuffy, nor judgmental, nor hypocritical. Given the (doubtless) hoped-for general audience of the movie, if Dan had spent large amounts of time explaining the gospel and the principles of the Protestant reformation to Helen and the kids--probably a big snooze would have been had by all. I'm willing to assume that all that could take place afterward. That's not why anyone would go to this movie.
They'll go to see Kate Hudson grow from adorably ditzy to adorably mature, and to see adorable children, and to see Helen Mirren in a scene-stealing supporting role as Helen's modeling agency boss, and to see Sakina Jaffrey demonstrate how to deal with partying teenagers. It's mostly harmless--the kind of thing Disney used to do. It won't shake anything up, but there are a few worthwhile messages about parenting.
Agreed. No "devout Christian family" here.
Just a very drab film.
Completely devoid of any color, any life, any spontaneity. Dull. With characters who really don't relate well and kid actors who aren't all that cute, and they sure as heck can't act. With music that is perfectly timed to come in and accentuate the moment, emphasizing exactly where i should feel emotional (which i appreciated because the acting wasn't helping me to know this). Even Joan Cusack, who i typically adore, was a cold, blank stare. A pregnant, cold, blank stare. And Goldie's daughter wasn't clicking with the kids-who-couldn't-act, which helped me to not care at all when her character really wanted them back, which every Lifetime mom in the audience saw coming anyway.
Look. I'm a dad these days and i'm not going to pretend that the themes of longing for the children didn't get to me towards the end, because the themes in and of themselves are heavy enough to tear out your heart and chuck it down a teary-eyed road. But the themes have been done better before -- much, much better before, and this film is certainly not worth seeing for those themes.
Save your hard earned cash and watch Oprah reruns instead. Her million dollar eye sobs are a lot more convincing.
-s.
Just a very drab film.
Completely devoid of any color, any life, any spontaneity. Dull. With characters who really don't relate well and kid actors who aren't all that cute, and they sure as heck can't act. With music that is perfectly timed to come in and accentuate the moment, emphasizing exactly where i should feel emotional (which i appreciated because the acting wasn't helping me to know this). Even Joan Cusack, who i typically adore, was a cold, blank stare. A pregnant, cold, blank stare. And Goldie's daughter wasn't clicking with the kids-who-couldn't-act, which helped me to not care at all when her character really wanted them back, which every Lifetime mom in the audience saw coming anyway.
Look. I'm a dad these days and i'm not going to pretend that the themes of longing for the children didn't get to me towards the end, because the themes in and of themselves are heavy enough to tear out your heart and chuck it down a teary-eyed road. But the themes have been done better before -- much, much better before, and this film is certainly not worth seeing for those themes.
Save your hard earned cash and watch Oprah reruns instead. Her million dollar eye sobs are a lot more convincing.
-s.
Caught this one today, while killing time before the Stepford Wives screening (hmmm, both films deal with the contrast between two kinds of women -- the high-powered manufacturer of glossy illusions and her more domestic, or domesticated, counterpart). Found it be irredeemably bland, dull, and LONG. I am grateful, though, that we never actually see Joan Cusack give birth. Just as no film can ever depict a gun without going on to depict someone firing it, so too no film can depict a pregnant woman without going on to show the baby -- but unlike most films, which create a big drama out of the breaking of water and the coming of labour pains and the rushing to the hospital, etc., this film just shows the baby in an epilogue. Nice.
But I digress. Stay on message, Peter. Bland, dull, and LONG. That's the lesson here.
Actually, I didn't mind the first half hour or so, as it sets the characters up -- but then the film didn't really do anything with them, except run through a bunch of very formulaic situations, all of which are resolved much too neatly, in typical sitcom fashion.
This film provides yet more fodder for my pet peeve regarding the fact that, in film, CHILD siblings get to be of mixed gender, but ADULT siblings must always be all-brothers or all-sisters. Kate Hudson, Joan Cusack and Whats Her Face play three adult sisters -- all the same gender. But Cusack has at least one girl and one boy apiece, in addition to the child within her womb; while Whats Her Face, the character who dies in the first act, has two daughters and a son, all of whom are taken in by Hudson after Whats Her Face dies.
How odd to see a Christian subculture portrayed in such blandly positive terms -- with hockey teams called "Holy Hitters" and "Stormin' Mormons" (just how ecumenical IS this hockey league?) -- so soon after Saved!.
Do Lutherans really believe in Purgatory? Or was Pastor Dan just nodding along the same way he nodded along when Kate Hudson said "Vespers" sounded like a scooter or motorbike?
Would have been nice if Pastor Dan's "I'm a sexy man of God and I know it" had been complemented by SOME sort of recognition of the fact that sex is generally a no-no at such an early stage in a relationship -- not just for pastors, but for Christians in general. (I'm too tired to get into the fact that Hudson's character isn't even a Christian at that point, at least not as far as we know.)
Also a bit odd to realize that the actor playing Peter, the "safe" prom date, is Joseph Mazello, formerly known as That Boy From Jurassic Park, That Boy Who Played C.S. Lewis's Stepson in Shadowlands, and That Boy Who Played The Young Jim Carrey in Simon Birch. What happened to HIS career!?
But I digress. Stay on message, Peter. Bland, dull, and LONG. That's the lesson here.
Actually, I didn't mind the first half hour or so, as it sets the characters up -- but then the film didn't really do anything with them, except run through a bunch of very formulaic situations, all of which are resolved much too neatly, in typical sitcom fashion.
This film provides yet more fodder for my pet peeve regarding the fact that, in film, CHILD siblings get to be of mixed gender, but ADULT siblings must always be all-brothers or all-sisters. Kate Hudson, Joan Cusack and Whats Her Face play three adult sisters -- all the same gender. But Cusack has at least one girl and one boy apiece, in addition to the child within her womb; while Whats Her Face, the character who dies in the first act, has two daughters and a son, all of whom are taken in by Hudson after Whats Her Face dies.
How odd to see a Christian subculture portrayed in such blandly positive terms -- with hockey teams called "Holy Hitters" and "Stormin' Mormons" (just how ecumenical IS this hockey league?) -- so soon after Saved!.
Do Lutherans really believe in Purgatory? Or was Pastor Dan just nodding along the same way he nodded along when Kate Hudson said "Vespers" sounded like a scooter or motorbike?
Would have been nice if Pastor Dan's "I'm a sexy man of God and I know it" had been complemented by SOME sort of recognition of the fact that sex is generally a no-no at such an early stage in a relationship -- not just for pastors, but for Christians in general. (I'm too tired to get into the fact that Hudson's character isn't even a Christian at that point, at least not as far as we know.)
Also a bit odd to realize that the actor playing Peter, the "safe" prom date, is Joseph Mazello, formerly known as That Boy From Jurassic Park, That Boy Who Played C.S. Lewis's Stepson in Shadowlands, and That Boy Who Played The Young Jim Carrey in Simon Birch. What happened to HIS career!?
| QUOTE |
| I'm a sexy man of God and I know it |
Yeah, i've already used this one a couple of times. I guess that's the one positive regarding the film; it gave me a new quote to scare my congregation with.
Was that hockey scene and all it's stupid team names lame or what? That had to be the most un-comedic appeal for laughs i've seen in a year.
-s.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.