C


Movies reviewed here...
Central Station.
Charlie's Angels & Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Clean and Sober.
The Color Purple.
Contact.
Country.


Central Station

reviewed by Brandi Hall, Pepperdine University

The opening scene in Central Station showcases people, noises, trains, and frenzy. As one train leaves, another enters. As one person invades a space, another is removed just the same. This film in itself is a logical point of inception for a class concerning religion within films. As one film exists at the core of what is spiritual and profound, another easily fades to the back of the memory as if it had never existed at all. As proven throughout the films that have been viewed this semester, religion as a main ingredient is difficult to feign and seems to blossom in areas where it is unexpected and perhaps unplanned. If religion is a sort of epiphany, awakening, and a deeply thought provoking entity, the realm of films that can be considered religious expands tremendously. But, if religious films remain only those that speak of its own existence and aspire to provoke predisposed reactions, than the variety is much smaller and essentially less inspiring in the end. In order to truly digest what we consider religious and why it is important at all to categorize a film in such a way, it is necessary to detail the manner in which religion presents itself. Religion, as defined by the profound and the thought provoking, presents itself primarily in the development of relationships, the expanding of one's mind in order to encompass new ideas, and acceptance of fate even when the desired outcome is not at all possible. Films that are religious in this way do not just document events and place scenes in chronological order.

Religious films in a real sense are extremely visceral experiences because many senses and feelings are involved. This is the primary reason why films that are considered religious are not always blockbusters or the most commercially successful because their goal is not necessarily to entertain, but instead, just to be. Many independent films are spiritual in that they are pure and raw, devoid of sociological politics and hidden agendas that guide too many films today. The concept of spirituality as pure is an interesting one. Pure belies the belief that something is untainted, unchanged, and uncontrolled. If this is the case, emotion is the purest thing that humans can express and the particular way that this emotion is showcased within a film can make it an experience that is religious or one that is inherently the opposite. A man's anger can be pure, raw, and unchanged. Sorrow exists as something that is real and unaltered as well. It is important to note that religion and spirituality can materialize in very diverse and paradoxical ways and that a film is not required to sing praises in order to ring true as one that is religious.

Spirituality is packaged a great deal of the time in the form of relationships. Many of our most famed films are based upon the simplicity of a singular relationship. Central Station, for instance, utilizes an entire film in order to create and sustain a relationship between a young boy and an older woman. And while she fulfills the role of mother and friend to her young charge, the boy exists as a son as well as companion to her. As the story unfolds and the two grow closer together, the purity and the sheer magic of what is occurring between the two grows as well. Multi-faceted relationships, as opposed to one- dimensional characters, can be even more profound. Unfolding upon the screen was a young boy sparking a yearning and a desire in an older woman to embrace her femininity, in terms of motherhood as well as her own sexuality, and to live again in Central Station. The formation of this relationship and the emotion present there makes this film truly religious in scope.

Pure religion also materializes when new ideas are incorporated and the more difficult the journey, the more compelling the tale. In the film Contact, Jodie's Foster's character embarks upon a journey that is far more endearing than her space adventure. By the film's end, she is a changed individual. While she doesn't quite grasp the concept of faith, or see its real purpose, she has had an experience that is literally nothing short of otherworldly and phenomenal. While the film visually concentrates upon her journey to space, its core is at the beliefs central to Foster's character at the inception of the film and the faltering of those same ideas by the end. And due to the extremity of the change in her character by the film's end, her journey to space can be characterized as nothing less than a religious experience.

A final manner in which spirituality presents itself is in acceptance of fate. When characters are changed by a film's end due to the incorporation of new ideas, their fate is ultimately changed and the end result might be quite different from what was originally hoped. Fate is a concept that has a distinctly dual nature in that it is something that is embraced not only religiously, but superstitiously as well. An obvious aspect of fate is that the good Christian will go to heaven. A less conventional, yet just as popular view, is that someone who was sinister in a past life will not have good luck in the future. There is always something intriguing about the tale of someone who is following their own destiny or doing as fate would have it and there is something that is extremely spiritual about that as well. In The Five Heartbeats, the characters lives all take different turns. In the beginning of their careers, they all wanted to be stars. By the films end, no one remained in the spotlight. A minister, a songwriter, a reformed junkie, a father, and monogamous brother emerged from 5 young boys who wanted a record deal. The journey of the change in fate, or the manifestation of fate in a way different than expected, was intriguing and reflective.

If religion in films can materialize in so many different ways, than it truly exists as one of the most diverse genres of film yet one of the least recognized. Perhaps it is not an issue discussed because the concept of religion is not always synonymous with spirituality that is considered pure. Religion is linked with something that is organized with power flowing from the top down. We so rarely equate religion with a child's big eyes staring wildly or a woman out on a walk with her dog thinking about how great life is. Perhaps we attempt to equate religion and spirituality with too much that is profound. The simplicity and joy of life can be a religious thing. Perhaps if we uncomplicated the nature of religion and cleared a less cluttered space for what is it truly is in our own minds, then we might be able to find that religion is present, at least in some part, in every film that we've ever seen.

Back to top.


Charlie's Angels and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

reviewed by Rebecca Godsil, Pepperdine University

One of the major course questions which especially interests me and which I find myself asking in every film I watch deals with issues of cultural pluralism and asks "How are the film's women portrayed?" I would not deem myself a feminist in the sense of how the word has come to be viewed (I am not a man hater; I do not think women are "superior"), however, I strongly believe in equality of the sexes, including in films. I am saddened by the lack of women that are involved and visible in the motion picture industry, evidenced by the fact that there have only been three Hollywood studio films that have had female producers, directors, writers, and actors (Gose 28). And I am angered by the fact that, of the women portrayed in films, most are distorted, and furthermore, do not represent heroes that women can respect and strive to be like.

Two films have come along in the last six months that have been hailed as empowering for women and/or "girl-power" movies. These two films are the modern film update of the American 70's/80's television series "Charlie's Angels" and the Mandarin-Chinese film "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast these two films, while considering different issues of the Getting Reel text. My ultimate goal is to discover how truly empowering these films are for women and what they've left to be desired.

The first similarity that stands out about these films is the fact that they are two of the first films to feature lead female characters as "action heroes" who are intelligent, strong, and powerful enough to battle and defeat both men and women. They are all tough fighters, though a slight difference in the films is that the characters in "Crouching Tiger..." are able to fly during fights. Though the women in "Charlie's Angels" do perform amazing moves whose possibility is questionable, in "Crouching Tiger..." the overt use of impossible feats gives it almost more of a mystical quality, making the film less believable for some.

Though neither film is particularly characterized as a "buddy movie", both have the relational (rather feminine) aspects that characterize such films (Gose 25). Alex, Natalie, and Dylan of "Charlie's Angels" work and play as a team, seem to care about each other, have a lot of fun together, and save each other's lives. In "Crouching Tiger..." Jen Yu (played by Zhang Ziyi) and Yu Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) develop such a strong bond that they call each other sisters (though this tie is strained many times in the movie).

Another similarity is that these women all work for and/or are closely tied to male figure. The Angels all answer to a man (played by Bill Murray) who is characterized as not particularly smart or tough, but as a nice guy that each woman seems to have an emotional tie to. Furthermore, as evidenced by the title, the women are in essence the property of Charlie, their main boss. He says that he cares about "his girls", yet they never see him or talk to him in person; he is shown living a comfortable and relaxed life as each Angel puts her life on the line daily fighting in whatever job Charlie has assigned them. "Crouching Tiger..." shares some of these aspects, but to a lesser (and more empowering for women) extent. Shu Lien is shown as a very independent woman; however, she is very closely tied to Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun Fat's character). Most of the actions we see her taking in the movie (such as first giving away the sword and then trying to recover it) are directly related to helping Mu Bai, whom she also speaks many times of loving, respecting, and honoring. Jen, we discover, works for someone, but it is a female "boss" (Jade Fox - whom she eventually surpasses and defeats) who has been apprenticing her and teaching her how to fight and master many things. Yet, Jen's main sadness in the film is directly related to the control men are putting on her. She resents both the man she has been chosen to marry and her father for forcing her into the marriage. She feels little control over the decisions the men in her life have made for her, which causes the main conflict in the story as she takes matters into her own hands.

A final main similarity (which leads also to a main difference) is that all of these five female characters are very beautiful and are shown as the objects of men's desire. But "Charlie's Angels" puts much more emphasis on this than "Crouching Tiger..." How gorgeous each Angel is gets mentioned in one of the first lines in the movie (as Charlie describes them and what they do) and is stressed continuously. It even seems to become implied that their beauty is essential for what they do, since their "feminine wiles" are used in nearly every scene to get information or to accomplish certain tasks. How empowering are these messages sent to women about being heroes? It is not enough to be smart and strong - you must also be sexy, beautiful, and willing to show a little skin and exploit yourself to get what you need. In "Crouching Tiger..." Jen and Shu Lien are both defiantly beautiful, but it is never much of a main issue in the dialogue or story. Of course we wonder if Lo (the man in the desert) would have taken such a liking to Jen if she wasn't so lovely, but looks and sex appeal are not shown as two of the main ways the women use to accomplish things.

As we further examine both the differences in the films and the issues of empowerment, it is helpful to consider the observations made by Molly Haskell concerning female characters in movies. In her 1974 work "From Reverence to Rape" she found several stereotypes and characteristics concerning screen women (Gose 28). Since the two films we are examining have both been hailed as empowering for women and were made over two and half decades after Haskell conducted her research and compiled her findings, we would hope to find the films fitting few, in any, descriptions that Haskell gives of unrealistic and sexist female film characters. Sadly that is not the case, especially for one of the films in particular.

"Charlie's Angels" contains about half of the negative aspects Haskell identifies. The three Angels truly are "little more than male fantasies, stereotypes of what men want to believe about women". There is so little characterization of each woman as an individual that I had trouble remembering who was who. There were also numerous gratuitous scenes that seemed little more than chances for common male fantasies to be acted out (the Angels as belly dancers, the Angels stripping down naked on the beach, the Angels in little German girl outfits spanking each other, among many others). Though power and strength as fighters may not fit the typical male stereotype about women, nearly everything else about the Angels does. Additionally, the women also fit two of Haskell's descriptions of passive female roles - that of objects of sexual desire and that of obstacles to male's successes (they were seen by the main male antagonist as an obstacles to him finding and killing Charlie). Finally, the Angels and many parts of the movie plot fit Haskell's statement that "When women are the protagonists, their successes are always compromised". As part of the subplot of "Charlie's Angels", we see each woman facing the difficulties of balancing their job as an Angel with their personal lives and their relationships with men. As Haskell describes, "[T]hey may be capable enough to get ahead in their career, but they cannot have the security of love of a family as well" (Gose 28).

As for "Crouching Tiger..." it thankfully fits very few of Haskell's descriptors. As is the case in "Charlie's Angels", the successes of both women are compromised (though it is questionable as to whether Jen would be characterized as a protagonist). Especially for Jen, continuing with the warrior lifestyle and trying to be with the man she loves means the loss of security and her family's love and acceptance (Gose 28). She has lost the honor that is so important in her society. Perhaps that is why she jumps at the end of the film.

There are a few other issues that are essential to consider. One is the cultural implications each movie poses. A common American belief is that American women are the most empowered and independent in the world. Many Americans would probably describe women in Asian countries as being property of and defined by the men in their lives. Why, then, after our analysis was "Crouching Tiger..." found to have more powerful female characters with fewer negative stereotypical aspects than the women in an American, "girl-power" flick? A partial answer to this may be found in the time period ideologies demonstrated. Though neither film reveals the time period it is set in, "Crouching Tiger...", especially in its feminist ideology, could be called more current. Why? "Charlie's Angels" obviously takes place close to the present day and though it is modernized, it still retains some of the television series' older aspects. The fact that they answer to two male bosses and are Charlie's possessions takes away from their power and independence; yet, those aspects were so ingrained in the series (and certainly in the title) that it probably would have been difficult to eliminate them and still say that the film was related to the series. Therefore, some aspects of the "Charlie's Angels" film demonstrates more of a 70's and 80's view of women which was shown in the TV series.

Lastly, it is quite interesting to note that critics in its native country and tongue panned "Crouching Tiger...". I do not know all the exact reasons, but it is intriguing to speculate if they felt the film was too Westernized, didn't want to see females as action heroes, didn't believe the story or characters, etc. It gives a whole other twist to comparing and contrasting these two films.

I enjoyed and applauded both of these films as each being a step in the right direction. It is important that one not take them at face value, saying that they are revolutionary and empowering films for women. That is not entirely true. As we have found by comparing them and using Haskell's assertions concerning females in films, each film (though "Charlie's Angels" to a greater extent) still carries a strong flavor of the way women have been portrayed in movies for decades. Let us hope that filmmakers will be encouraged by the successes of these films ("Crouching Tiger" has been the recipient of many award nominations and much acclaim; both films were two of the biggest moneymakers in the last several months). Taking many of the positive, empowering aspects of these films and expanding on them will surely produce more equality and diversity in films, not to mention more positive role models and heroes for girls and women.

Back to top.


Clean and Sober

reviewed by Gina Shipp Pepperdine University Directed by Glen Gordon Caron. Screenplay by Tod Carroll.
Produced by Tony Ganz and Deborah Blum.
Featuring Michael Keaton, Kathy Baker, Morgan Freeman, M. Emmet Walsh
Warner Brothers, 1988

"Clean and Sober" is a captivating movie about a drug addict living with the illusion of success and having things under control, and his gradual realization that even he needs help. The recovery process depicted, which encompasses most of the movie, closely parallels that of real-life drug rehabilitation centers, including the attitudes, struggles, and rebellion. The movie is certainly relevant because it gets the message across that material success does not mean that a person has "made it."

Daryl Poynter was a man who had it all - a lucrative position in a commercial real estate firm, an exclusive condominium, and most of all, an expensive drug - cocaine. The drug is so much a part of his life that he doesn't even have to think about it. He takes it absent-mindedly, as if he were snacking on a bag of potato chips. Consequently, he denies he has a problem. But the drug has begun to affect other areas of his life. The boss has discovered $92,000 missing from an account - money that Daryl had "borrowed" for investment and drugs. Of course, he has lost most of it, so he can't just slip it back into the bank and explain it away. Daryl then discovers that the woman in his bed is in a drug-coma, and a police officer tells him not to leave town in case she doesn't make it. Desperate, Daryl hears an advertisement for a drug rehabilitation center - "No one need ever know," the voice intones. Daryl decides it is the perfect place to hide out for awhile, thinking the crises will just go away. Winick (1974) describes the long process of realization and surrender involved with the admission of being a drug addict-the process that most of the rehabilitation center residents had already experienced, but which we witness from start to finish with Daryl. Until a person "hits bottom", a point so low that there's nowhere left to go but up (a feeling of utter powerlessness), life is just a succession of denial, escapism, and manipulation of others to meet one's own needs (Winick, 1974).

From the start Daryl makes no pretense of being willing to cooperate and follow the center's rules. After all, he's not an addict like the rest, he's just there to buy some time. He tries every way he knows to get some drugs while he's there, even asking his mother to take out a second mortgage on her home. His counselor kicks him out of the program for violations, but Daryl's back within a few a days, ostensibly to avoid the police. He may be beginning to realize that he fits in with, and actually needs these people? The rehabilitation center in "Clean and Sober" compares quite favorably with Phoenix House, the foremost community for the treatment of drug abusers in the United States. For one thing, it is made clear that the program is strictly voluntary - the residents must choose to be there. If they don't agree with the rules or norms, they must act "as if" they do (Nash, 1974). The ultimate punishment, perhaps in Daryl's case as well, is seen as being ejection from the house. Many residents admit afterwards, though, that they were only looking for an easier place to "do time" than jail (Nash, 1974). At the Phoenix House, as in the movie, the live-in community constitutes the second phase of recovery, after detoxification. Rules portrayed in the movie without modification are prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, violence, phone calls and unregulated communication with the outside world. Daryl's frequent urine tests are not an exaggeration. In the real world, people form all walks of life become drug abusers. "Clean and Sober" accurately reflects this fact by having a diverse group of people in the rehab center - rich, poor, Black, White, arrogant, reserved. There may be trouble getting along at first, but the situation softens over time. These people have a common crisis and a common goal, therefore one of the most integrated communities in America is successful. THe object of the program is to take the overly self-appreciating residents and reorient their motivations, energies, and values to that of a social life (Nash, 1974). Carlson and Edwards (1987) used Rokeach's scale of 18 instrumental and terminal values in determining that "personal values are more important to users while social values are more important to non- users" (p.183). They came to the tentative conclusion that peer pressure may actually deter the use of drugs rather than encourage it. This is a plausible rationale for the structure of drug rehabilitation centers like Phoenix House and that portrayed in "Clean and Sober". The participants are not responsible for, but to each other to stay clean (Carlson and Edwards, 1987).

Daryl finally reaches the first step towards realization that some parts of his life are out of control when he goes home on a pass and finds fliers all over the neighborhood calling him a murderer (the woman in his bed at the beginning of the movie has died). He dials his sponsor's number (by mistake?) and agrees to sit down and do a moral inventory. Introspection by one so arrogant is indeed a big step! It is soon after this that he is able to talk honestly about life with a attractive woman in the center, Charlie. After his release (at the end of a specified number of weeks) he can't give up Charlie, and tries to woo her away from her drug-addict boyfriend. Daryl is staying straight, in the meantime, not because he has been cured, but because he has found someone else to control - he takes the responsibility for keeping Charlie straight. He still feels in control of his life, even as he confesses his embezzlement and proudly notes that he knows about the money games of all the board members and employees. He is so confident that he has successfully manipulated the board that it is a complete shock when they fire him anyway. This and the following string of unsuccessful job interviews constitutes the second point at which he realizes he is not his own boss. The final blow then comes quickly when Charlie, confused about whether she wants Daryl of Lenny (the addict-boyfriend), drives into the night, takes a snort of cocaine to relax, and is immediately broadsided and killed. Her relapse is a classic example of the environment negating the gains from treatment (Wise, 1988). Daryl's sponsor tells him that if he takes responsibility for Charlie's death, then he is making himself out to be too self-important. He had been thinking about someone else for once, but even she can't be "kept" or controlled. This leads finally to Daryl's realization that his life is a mess, he can't straighten it out alone, and yes he is a drug addict. He hits bottom at last and is ready to honestly begin the very recovery process he has just kidded himself through.

There are some unrealistic parts in the movie, but none of them detract too much from the theme or action. The most obviously unbelievable is that the police never catch up with Daryl, and though he deserves some kind of punishment for all his misdeeds, he seems to get off very lucky. He doesn't even show any guilt. This does help to portray how far he has come by the end of the movie, though. It is also incredible that he is able to stay off drugs for so long, even though he hadn't intended to. We are left to assume that he would have relapsed soon enough. On the other hand, something to really appreciate about "Clean and Sober", besides its accuracy, is that it does not glamorize drug use nor users, and at the same time it does not portray users as a waste of humanity. In fact, it seems to show that underneath the facades we are all pretty much the same, each with different problems, of course.

The verdict on "Clean and Sober" is do see the movie and do take its message to heart.

References
Carlson, R.B. & W.H. Edwards. (1987) "Human values and cocaine use." Journal of Drug Education. 17(3), 183-195
Nash, G. "The sociology of Phoenix House: A therapeutic community for the resocialization of narcotic addicts." From Sociological Aspects of Drug Dependence, edited by Charles Winick. Cleveland: CRC Press Inc., 199-216.
Winick, C. (1974). "A sociological theory of the genesis of drug dependence." From Sociological Aspects of Drug Dependence, edited by Charles Winick. Cleveland: CRC Press Inc., 3-13.
Wise, R.A. (1988). "The neurobiology of craving: Implications for understanding and Treatment of addiction." Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 97(1), 118-132.

Back to top.


The Color Purple

Reviewed by Patricia McElroy, Northern Virginia Community College

This film is the screen adaptation of Alice Walker's Pulitzer Prize winning novel. The Color Purple. Steven Spielberg directed the film; Whoopie Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey made their screen debuts.

The Color Purple is an exploration in survival and growth of black women in a southern experience. Celie, the central character, is made brutally aware of gender exploitation in relationships with both her stepfather and her husband. She is emotionally and sexually abused; she lacks self-confidence and is, meek and unassertive. Walker's other characters, Shug Avery and Sofia in particular, represent different responses to the struggle with self-identity, self-love, and the cost of assertiveness when one is black and female. As these women's lives touch, each learns a bit from the others.

The film would be useful in teaching sex roles, sexism, and gender identity, with emphasis on minority experience. In addition, the controversy and criticism spawned by both film and novel would contribute to teaching about minority images in mass media. A post-film discussion might focus on:

  • Similarities and differences in the roles for black males and females; inter- vs. intra-racial nature of sexism;
  • Coping strategies for sex role expectations; to what extent are students aware of different, more positive roles and/or responses in black community life?
  • What permits the growth and development of Celie? What unfinished business is there for her? For Mister?
  • How would you answer critics who charge that the film cast black men in a negative light? What support can be given for your response?

The Color Purple as both film and novel has received much criticism. Especially on initial viewing, it evokes strong reactions. It will be particularly useful to allow for emotional responses before proceeding to focus the class discussion along a more analytical path. The one major limitation is that there are quite grave differences in the novel's character development and conflict resolution than in the film. For instance, the film omits the macrostructures for racism that gives context to the rage and abuse. Mister displays; the parallel concerns for a woman's place that Nettie encounters in Africa; and the context for reconciliation of Celie's relationship with Mister (Albert). Assigning the novel, along with use of the film as a teaching tool, would help establish the parameters of Walker's imagery; this will not be obtained from viewing the film alone.

Back to top.


Contact

Reviewed by Jim Benton

There is something about certain movies that have the ability to make one think. Unfortunately there are not too many popular movies that have the ability to do so. Besides being a movie that welcomes intellectual thought into the realms of the what if, the morals of technology, the belief in God, and one persons struggle with meaning, Contact is very entertaining and keeps the viewer thinking until the end of the film, as well as after. Because Contact is such a film, it is relatively easy to use many issues from "Reel Values" to analyze and gather greater insight into the movie.

Contact represents two values, in particular, of Sprangers - the Theoretical and the Religious. In many ways the movie shows theoretical values with Jodie Foster's character constantly searching for something else - some kind of purpose to life. This is complimented with Matthew McConaughey's character also looking for a purpose to life. The interesting twist to this scenario is that they come from completely different belief systems. Foster does not believe in God and tries to explain all events with a scientific, rational explanation (i.e. Occam's Razor). McConaughey is a very religious man, but is somewhat willing to explore all of the possibilities and ideas that man can think of. This is also opposed to the radical religious group that believes that technology is completely opposed to God's will and who also end up blowing up the first machine that is built to carry someone to an alien world. These religious groups have no real proof on any of their beliefs and resort to using faith as their means of verifying their worldview. By the end of the movie Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey are much closer in their beliefs because of the experience that Foster has in the travel sphere within the machine. McConaughey has faith that what Foster saw was real and Foster has faith that one cannot always explain events, even though she thinks she has no real proof of what happened.

The religious value is also portrayed quite frequently in Contact. To "comprehend the cosmos as a whole"(Spranger) is exactly what Jodie Foster's character has been trying to accomplish since she learned about the stars as a young child. She is not satisfied with merely a faith that does not give any proof to the existence of God. Her pursuit leads her into many relationships with scientists and religious people, including McConaughey. Their relationship contrasts one another until the end of the movie. Neither is satisfied with what they believe and are still able to search for true meaning. This allows them to challenge one another until the time is right for them to see things in a different way than they had before. Foster gains faith and McConaughey is able to trust a little more in technology and is people's beliefs (which also takes faith). This "higher reality" is not obtainable unless one is able to see the whole picture of life and the world. This is what Foster and McConaughey try to do to, eventually, strengthen their beliefs.

Maslow has devised a "hierarchy of needs" that is also well represented in Contact. The third and fourth levels of this hierarchy are considered to be "Achievement and Intellectual Needs"( Maslow). This level is not considered bad in any way, but is merely a stepping stone on its way top Maslow's Self-Actualization. The character played by Tom Skerritt seems to be stuck in this level. At the start of the film, he is shown to not care about Foster's plans for research and even "pulls the plug" on her funding. Foster is forced to look elsewhere for her money and Skerritt is considered the "bad guy" throughout the rest of the movie. Later on in the movie Skerritt's character is a big promoter of the very same project that he had cut years before. It is apparent that his motives are purely for achievement in life. He wants what is best for him and does not think about what may be the best for the overall perspective of the situation. If he did he may not have cut the program that gave him such prestige earlier in the movie. As Maslow says, Skerritt is trying to be a unique person by exalting himself into being recognized for his accomplishments. He is not interested in the grand appreciation for an order in the world.

Foster's character, on the other hand, is very concerned with the need for understanding and knowledge if the world. This leads to her appreciation for "the order and balance of life" (Maslow). This is considered by Maslow to be the last step before self-actualization. Even though Foster is mad that the government is trying to take her project, of which she has spent so much time on, away from her, she sees this more as a threat to the greater god rather than a personal downfall. Rarely does she complain of the government's role in the project. The few times she does, it is when Skerritt's character is monopolizing the media time and not giving her proper credit.

By attempting to see the order and balance of the world, Foster shows the difference between Maslow's achievement and intellectual needs and Maslow's aesthetic needs. This higher level gives Foster the ability to expand her belief system into the area of faith. She is now also able to believe things that she may not be able to see (God?). A similar transformation happens to McConaughey's character. When he sees how passionate Foster is about helping man to discover the unknown, he starts to believe that science and experimentation is more important than he may have thought before. By making an attempt to see the world as a place that needs to consider the needs of all, and not just personal gain, both Foster and McConaughey can appreciate the higher order that most people may not fully understand.

Another value, used by Chickering, is the idea of developing integrity. Throughout Contact Foster's character is using a set of beliefs that she had developed early in life. Many factors such as her parents deaths, wondering about life on other planets, and a sense of loneliness lead to her following this scientific idea of needing proof for everything. The problem was that she was not able to explain everything and it was as if something was missing. When she meets McConaughey's character Foster is challenged again with the theme of faith. This again forces her to think about the issue more. Of course it is not until the end of the movie that we see her faith come about, but the events behind the eventual faith development is integral throughout the movie.

Also along this theme is McConaughey's character. His integrity is challenged by his love for Jodie Foster's character. He is able to trust in her judgement by the end of the movie and not simple go on faith as the most important thing to have relationships with people. He is finally willing to accept her ways when she is finally willing to look at life through his eyes as well. Both of these cases are only guides that allow the people to have the belief system they have, but this does not mean that their belief system does not change. As in Contact, people's lives are affected by the events that happen to them. Both Foster and McConaughey keep developing their integrity throughout the entire movie.

All of these values within Contact are ones that compare people who are able to see the world in a broader perspective than through their own eyes. Foster and McConaughey's characters are able to grow throughout the movie, while Skerritt's character is worried about his personal gain in life. Contact shows a great interest in the purpose of the world as a whole. It deals with the different values that people have and how they can effect one another. Even to the point of changing a person's worldview. Even though no one person's values may not be the same as another, Contact points out that it is possible to live with different values in the world. But man should always strive to better understand what the world is about and how people perceive the world.

Back to top.


Country

reviewed by Gary M. Galles, Pepperdine University

Is farming a way of life or a business? In other words, does farming rate special consideration (e.g., farm subsidies or other assistance) from society as a way of life, rather than just another business? The movie suggests that the answer is yes, that there is something particularly worthwhile about the family farm, and that the government is remiss in not keeping such farmers from being forced off their land by the "farm crisis". However, before such a conclusion is warranted, we need to know more about what the government farm policy has been and what it can do about the problem.

The movie focuses on a particular farm family (immediately raising the issue of how their situation generalizes to that of most farmers), and their part of the crisis. It portrays what the crisis does to Gil (the husband) and to his family relationships, and implicates the government for not preventing the crisis and its consequences. However, what it is about farming that is so ennobling or otherwise worth public subsidy is not established (is Gil any better a man for having been a lifelong family farmer?), and much of what is portrayed in the movie is simply the result of Gil's weak character and stupidity.

The fact is that Gil is a bad farmer, which ultimately explains why his farm can't make ends meet. This is apparent from the beginning of the movie. The beginning storm damage should not have been an economic disaster. There is very heavily subsidized federal crop insurance available, as well as disaster assistance available from the government, but neither were apparently utilized. This shows poor business practice more than anything else, as does their haphazard record keeping. Businessmen who run their businesses badly go out of business; so do bad farmers.

Further evidence that Gil is a bad farmer is peppered throughout the movie. We find that his farm's net worth fell from $450,000 in 1980 to less than half that (say $200,000) a few years later; that their costs exceed their crop prices by roughly 25% ($3.54 vs. $2.80) on "the most productive farmland" around; and that they are living on only $9000 a year in the process. This family is not poor (their net worth far exceeded the U.S. average); they are simply choosing to squander their wealth. Given that long term U.S. Treasury bonds were then paying about 15% annual interest, they could have sold the farm and lived on the $30,000 yearly risk free interest ($60,000+ in 1980) with no work--and Gil could hire himself out as a farmer if he wanted to continue farming.

While Gil largely brought his own particular problems on himself, government policy does indeed share some of the blame for the farm crisis, but the blame does not rest with the FHA agent "heavy," who merely had to deliver and enforce the bad news about their farm. In fact, it was the government's (humanitarian) failure to get tough with delinquent loans earlier which led to the far more drastic problems when they did demand payment, by keeping more farmers like Gil hanging on by a shoestring when they should have left farming (with plenty of equity, reflecting the fact that someone else could have put the land to far better use than Gil), which made it harder for even efficient farmers to make a living. The government is also culpable in that they changed both monetary and export policies in dramatic and unex- pected ways, which fooled farmers into making expansion decisions that after the policy reversal turned out to be ill advised. This does not argue for a government policy designed to save farmers, however, but for the government to not rapidly reverse policies they led farmers to believe would be long lasting.

Even if we wanted the government to save the family farm, it has far less power to do so than people think. People have been moving off farms throughout the entire history of our country, reflecting dramatic increases in agricultural productivity that required ever fewer farmers to feed the population, resulting in those farmers who are relatively inefficient or overextended being constantly pushed out into other occupations. There is little that the government can do to effectively stem this tide of economic change.

Subsidies for crop prices, which on the surface seem to solve the problem facing the farmers, aren't the answer. Our current support prices for agriculture are already far above world prices, yet haven't solved the problem. Those higher prices simply keep marginal farmers around a few more years before they leave, rather than preserving the family farm in a permanent way. In addition, those higher crop prices get capitalized into higher prices for land and farm equipment, benefitting the land owners and agriculture supply industries rather than the farmers. Further, the largest subsidies go to the largest corporate farmers, not smaller family farms, so that the aid is extremely badly targeted on saving smaller farms.

One of the beginning lessons economics teaches students is that the correct way to approach public policy decisions is to first understand the underlying causes of the "problem" at hand, then use this understanding of causation to predict the likely consequences of various possible changes in policy, and only then make value judgements about whether the likely consequences are good or bad compared to the alternatives. "Country," trying to elicit a strong emotional response in the viewers, jumps past the first two steps directly to value judgements and implied policy prescriptions. So while the movie may or may not work as good drama, it certainly does not work to provide a reasoned basis for public policy.

Back to top.


Back to top.

Home | Back | Next