Francis of Assisi

Year:  1961

Filming:  Color

Length:  105 minutes

Genre:  Biography/Drama/Inspirational/Religious

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Bradford Dillman (Francis Bernadone), Delores Hart (Clare), Stuart Whitman (Count Paolo of Vandria), Finlay Currie (Pope Innocent III), Mervyn Johns (Brother Juniper), Russell Napier (Brother Elias), Cecil Kellaway (Cardinal Hugolino), John Welsh (Canon Cattanei)

         

Director:  Michael Curtiz

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

    As you all must know by know, I have a particular soft spot in my heart for religious epics from yesteryear. Now that we have a pope who bears the name of Francis, it’s only natural that the public should have an increased interest in the nature-loving saint from Assisi who they are vaguely familiar with through garden saints and book marker prayers. To begin the journey towards of deeper understanding of St. Francis, I would say that the following film is a must-watch-classic that brings him to life with a perfect balance of gentility and passion.

    Bradford Dillman stars as Francis Bernadone, the high-spirited son of an Italian merchant who indulgences in the various pleasures of life in the medieval town of Assisi. With the world at his feet, he marches off in armor and chain mail to fight in a conflict between the city states. He also befriends Count Paolo of Vandria, a dashing Italian noble who takes the young man under his wing as they both embark as brothers-in-arms. But Francis is haunted by strange voices, urging him to abandon his worldly lifestyle and embrace a higher calling God has planned for him. To his father’s dismay, he deserts the army and is thrown into prison as a result. His pious mother, however, understands the workings of his soul and prays for her son’s speedy release.

    Paolo is disillusioned by his friend’s perceived cowardice, but the beautiful noblewoman Clare persuades him to show mercy and use his position to pardon Francis. Paolo does so, but with the understanding that he hopes to win Clare’s hand in marriage. But she, like her childhood friend Francis, is being stirred by a deeper calling. After he is released, Francis cannot return to his former life and feels uncertain how best to proceed until he has a mystical experience at the dilapidated Church of San Domiano. There he hears a voice coming from the crucifix, instructing him to “rebuild my Church which is falling into ruin.”

    Taking this literally, Francis takes to the streets in a simple robe and sandals, begging for stones to rebuild San Domiano. While many of Assisi’s prominent citizens dismiss him as a lunatic, he begins to draw a following among those who seek to live the rule of total poverty in the spirit and service of Christ. Soon, his “brotherhood” grows to the number of 12, and they journey to Rome to have the Rule of their new order approved by Pope Innocent III. They are almost turned away because the strictness of the Rule, but then the Pope recalls a dream he had, in which Francis upheld the pillars of the Basilica of St. Peter which were crumbling. He takes this as a sign for God, and approves the Franciscan Order.

    Meanwhile, Clare makes a decision of her own to join the Franciscan order as a nun, much to the distaste of both her father and Paolo, who has received her father’s approval to marry her, whether she is willing or not. Nevertheless, she escapes with the help Francis and takes her vows. When Paolo breaks into the church, she shows him that her long golden hair has been cut, and calmly walks away from him. She goes on to be the foundress of the Franciscan Sisterhood. While the order grows in Italy, Francis journeys to the Holy Land in hopes of bringing peace to war-torn Palestine by converting the Sultan.

    But a series of disheartening events beset him, and he must return to Europe empty-handed. To make matters worse, one Brother Elias has been planning to relax the Rule of the Order, and Francis must learn to curb his own pride and take a back seat as the changes go on beyond his control. Suffering from extended illnesses and blindness, Francis retreats to a cave where he once again waits for a sign from God. It comes in the form of the stigmata, which will forever mark him with the Wounds of Christ.

    Francis of Assisi combines epic story-telling with profound spiritual depth. The on-location footage shot in Italy is wonderful, as is the colorful medieval costuming reminiscent of Italian pageants that continue to this day, bringing to life all the fierce local pride that characterized the city states of the Middle Ages. I’ve heard some people accuse this film of being too Arthurian or “Disney-land-ish” in feel, and failing to achieve gritty realism. But I felt the color and gaiety shown as the men march off to war was in keeping with the pomp and ceremony surrounding local Italian pageantry, and making it clear why Francis would tantalized by the glories of the battlefield.

    Bradford Dillman does an excellent job portraying Francis, from his colorful youth to the darkness enveloping his old age. I particularly appreciate the scenes showing Francis searching his soul, such as when a beggar repeatedly approaches him with the words “Pax et Bonum”, only to vanish from sight as a procession holding aloft a crucifix comes into view. Another one of the deeply spell-binding sequences is when Francis receives his stigmata. It is telling that Dillman refused to smoke while in his Franciscan garb out of respect for the saint he was portraying, showing his own willingness to put his all into the production. However, he was more than happy to have Dolores Hart light him a cigarette on set while he was in his chivalric attire…and even have the photo man capture the moment on camera!

    Delores Hart has a particularly resonant voice and elegant beauty that makes her a perfect Clare. Interestingly, the actress herself eventually became a nun, and is today Mother Dolores Hart! I must say that the delivery of her lines sounded rather stinted at times, but nothing really serious to complain about. Overall, I thought the acting in this film was very well done. Again, I’ve heard some people accuse it of not being “dynamic” enough, but frankly, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse laid-back of some failure merely because they choose a different style of acting.

   

    I personally love the tender and charming moments in this movie, including Francis’ repartee with the animals, blessing the children’s pets, charming birds from the trees, and even making friends with some very hungry-looking cheetahs! Also, who can help but love the child-like innocence of Brother Juniper, played by Mervyn Johns? Another one of my favorite parts is when Francis and his brothers walk to Rome to ask for the Pope’s blessing on their new order, singing hymns of praise as they go. Then when they reach the gates, Francis miraculously manages to walk into the Vatican unopposed during the changing of the guard!

    And I’m going to enthuse about Finlay Currie again: he’s such a great character actor, and I think he makes a great “Papa” of the Church, whether he be St. Peter in Quo Vadis or Innocent III in Francis of Assisi. Of course we’re pretty sure that these historical characters didn’t really have Scottish accents (more like Hebrew and Italian!), but who’s gonna have the gall to complain about that? Finlay’s lilt is too wonderfully musical to listen to! I’ll also take the time mention here that the Catholic Church and Catholics in general are portrayed very well, with reverence and sympathy, but not hiding the flaws either. We see opulence in the Church hierarchy, collusion among the Franciscan Brotherhood, and an unreasonable streak in Francis himself when the letter of the law proves unlivable for his growing Order.

    We also see the dark side of the Crusaders-gone-wild (not romanticized at all really), and are allowed a sympathetic view of the Sultan Saladin who spares Francis’s life. I find their dialogue quite intriguing, allowing Francis to approach the Sultan in the name of love as an emissary of the God of Love, and willingly offers to prove the reality of his God by walking through a fire pit. Saladin is deeply impressed, and comments that although he has not made a convert, he has made a friend. Francis responds that that is the first step.

    Stuart Whitman is totally memorable in his role as the fictional Count Paolo of Vandria. Arrogant, hot-headed, courageous, and impulsive, he’s a great contrast the wistful, contemplative Francis, both as his friend and later rival. One cannot help but feel sorry for Paolo who is so caught up with his own emotions that he fails to take Clare’s feelings into consideration, nor even respect her spiritual quest. Her rejection of his advances wounds him deeply, and turns him into an embittered, and deeply hateful man, chasing after “booty and beauty” as a disillusioned crusader. While in the Holy Land, he happens to run into Francis (just chalk it up to coincidental screen-play-writer intervention!) where he disparages him as a sanctimonious hypocrite who failed to convert the Sultan or keep his Order living by the strict Rule of Poverty.

   In the end, he does make something of a come-back at Francis’ deathbed, but I'm afraid (to my eternal frustration) that Francis fails to give him as warm a reception as I might have hoped! He does mutter something like, “May God grant you His peace”, but that sounded way too distant for all they had gone through together. Can’t help but be reminded of the chilly way Moses treated Nefretiri in The Ten Commandments…and she wasn’t even being particularly repentant, but rather trying to get him to have an affair with her! But aside from this, I found Francis’ deathbed sequence moving, especially when Clare bids him a final farewell after his death, blessing him with the greeting that turned his heart to God so long ago: “Pax et Bonum.”

    So my summation: Francis of Assisi is a gentle, clean, deeply moving classic. I personally think the modern obsession with “grit” in period pieces is just another fad that will pass by, leaving movies like this behind to be enjoyed by all ages. Accuse me of being an incorrigible nerd; I like old-fashioned religious flicks! In fact, I LOVE old-fashioned religious flicks! While some may claim they lack “realism”, I return to challenge, and say that many modern attempts at religious epics are often sorry affairs, bereft with bad attitudes, 1990’s hair-dos, an unnecessary emphasis on guts and grime, and pathetic method acting! There, I feel calmer now. Now I’m ready to say the Prayer of St. Francis (that he evidently didn’t really write, but who cares?!): Lord, make me an instrument of your peace…;-)

Clare (Dolores Hart) is received into the Franciscan Order by Francis (Bradford Dillman)

God's Not Dead

Year:  2014

Filming:  Color

Length:  113 minutes

Genre:  Christian/Drama/Inspirational

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Shane Harper (Josh Wheaton), Kevin Sorbo (Professor Jeffrey Radisson), David A. R. White (Reverend Dave), Benjamin Ochieng (Reverend Jude), Trisha LaFache (Amy Ryan), Hadeel Sittu (Ayisha), Marco Khan (Misrab), Cory Oliver (Mina), Dean Cain (Mark), Paul Kwo (Martin)

         

Director:  Harold Cronk

Personal Rating:  1 Star

***

    I’ve been hearing advertisements for the new Christian independent production God’s Not Dead since it first came out this year. The title certainly caught my attention, and I had hopes that this might be a constructive that would make people think about the possibility that a Prime Mover does indeed exist. Perhaps it would move hearts towards the love of God, with gentleness and reasonability. Sadly, not only did the film fall short of these expectations, it actually set a perfect stage to turn non-Christians further away by contrived characture, constant proselytizing, and haughtiness totally contrary and detrimental to the Christian message.

    Our tale of woe begins with one Josh Wheaton, played by Shane Harper, a Christian college student who finds himself a very nasty mess indeed. His philosopher professor, Jeffrey Radission, is a rabid atheist who wishes to dispense with formalities by having all his students scribble “God is dead” on scraps of paper before the beginning of the course. Although all the other students do as they are told in order to avoid the time-consuming study of theism, Josh refuses to comply. In turn, his professor challenges him to prove to make his case that God’s not dead to the class. If they vote in favor of his argument, he will receive a positive grade. If not, he will be failed.

    Josh’s blonde and thoroughly annoying girlfriend tries to discourage him from taking up the challenge, playing the Eve role she was meant for, and threatening to leave him if he risks his grade on such a fool-hardy venture. But Josh remains undeterred and makes his case in a series of presentations before the class, making Radisson grow more and more obsessed with beating his student at his own game. He even goes so far as to seize him by the arm in the hall and threaten him (cheesily, of course) to destroy his chances of becoming a lawyer if he does not abandon his debate. As if there isn’t already enough going on to keep the viewers focused, we are jostled amidst a slew of awkwardly interlocking sub-plots.

    One of them involves a Muslim girl, Ayisha, who eventually is thrown out of the house by her traditionalist father for converting to Evangelical Christianity. Another subplot involves a liberal journalist, Amy, her struggle with cancer, and ignoble break-up with her big-bad-boy-friend, Mark (who is bigger and badder than we can credibly believe; I mean, even the meanest people I know would not respond to someone telling them about their cancer, “Couldn’t this wait?”). Yet another deviation involves Radisson’s girlfriend, Mina, who happens to be a sister of Mark (making the connection now?) and inner turmoil about staying with Radisson; and last but not least in ridiculousness, we are introduced to these two preacher guys with a busted car, supposedly introduced for comic relief purposes.

    To cut to the chase, Josh and Radisson eventually have a final show-down in the school room, and there is an attempted rehash of the conclusion of Twelve Angry Men, whereby it is revealed that Radisson really does believe there is a God, but he hates Him because his mother died when he was still a little boy. Needless to say, his students aren’t particularly impressed by this reasoning, and unanimously (quite a bit overdone on percentage, I would say) vote Josh to be the winner. But there is a final twist that allows us to meet the Christian Rock sensations “The News Boys” (all shouting and spinning lights on stage, making them anathema for someone who suffers vertigo!) and “The Duck Dynasty” (sorry, I’m with the liberal journalist on this one; how can they go through life with a clear conscious knowing they’ve killed all those innocent ducks?), and leaves Radisson flat on his back…er…literally?

    God’s Not Dead is an independent Christian film, and the genre pretty much has to be taken for what it is. And most of the time, it’s below sea level, if you take my meaning. Now, some are superior to others, but sadly the majority would be laughed out of town by a non-Christian audience for poor production quality and miserably preachy plots. Visually, this film was pretty average, with a certain desperation to be hip in setting. It lacked the innovative camera angles of October Baby, and was mediocre to the max. Acting ability was sketchy, with some moments revealing some ability, and the majority revealing nothing more than actors acting, which is exactly what actors should not look like they are doing!

    The initial plot premise was intriguing. There definitely are instances of atheistic heavy-handedness in our modern culture and the world of academia, and this story was supposedly loosely based off of a true one. Executed properly, this movie could have been portrayed as an exhilarating high stakes battle with full-bodied arguments on both side. There were a few scenes where Josh did make some impressive statements that do indeed prove helpful for Christian apologetics in showing that our faith is not irrational. But the tension and realism ultimately fell by the wayside for a number of reasons.

    The first one is the confusing style in which the plot was constructed. Instead of focusing exclusively on the debate between Josh and the Professor Radisson, the plot hops all over the place, and the characters connect far too late to make any sense out of it. The second truly unfortunate flaw in the movie is the underlying arrogance and triumphalism that will give non-Christian audiences a very shoddy picture of the essence of Christ’s teachings. The plot writers typify atheists as warped individual struggling with inner demons and personal tragedies that cause them to hate God. Christians, on the other hand, are shown as being consistently confident, somewhat obnoxiously straight-laced holy-rollers, who never seem to go through any personal doubts or dry spells in their spiritual life.

    Also, not enough quality time is spent with Josh to get to know him. What are his likes and dislikes, frustrations and heartaches, strengths and weaknesses? We don’t know. We don’t even get to follow his thought pattern as he pieces together the material for his debate, and are never allowed access to his true self at all. Not knowing him as a real person beyond his clean-cut, Christian cardboard image, it’s quite hard to feel for him. Besides, he doesn’t seem to go through much suffering at all. I mean, his girlfriend ditches him, but he doesn’t make much of a fuss over it, especially because it’s indicated she was pretty much of a shrew and didn’t really love him anyway.

    But there is something even more sinister at the root here: in the midst of all this intellectual debate, there is a noticeable lack of love in sharing the Christian message. Josh fails to show a visibly caring spirit towards his professor, even after it becomes evident that Radisson is suffering from various personal issues. Josh never even expressed his condolences for the death of his mother, whose loss propelled the professor down his atheistic path. The only real love shown to this guy in the film is revealed in a letter he finds from his late mother. But that’s it. Is it possible that we as the audience were never meant to feel compassion or kindness towards him at all?

    In contrast, there is a sense that we are supposed to want the professor to be run out of town on a rail, to beaten down and showed up in front of his class because he is the big-bad-atheist and therefore almost sub-human. We are also supposed to want him to be stripped of all earthly comforts, including his fiancée, who he actually does seem to genuinely love in spite of his selfishness. While I would be the first to agree that sometimes a person really most go through being emptied out before they can experience a spiritual awakening, all of that is in God’s hands. It’s not something that should be wished on anyone.

    The most shocking scene has to be at the end, when the professor is killed by an oncoming car as he tries to find his girlfriend who recently left him in a lurch. Lying in a rainy street, dying, the two itinerant preachers with the bum car get him to say The Sinner’s Prayer before he conks off. This is contrasted by the garish scene of all the Christians, including his ex-girlfriend, partying at the News Boys concert. Frankly, that is the one point in an otherwise extremely predictable film that I didn’t see coming. It was a mix of unexpectedly brutal and laughably hoaky, making the whole thing surreal and hard to swallow.

    What exactly are we supposed to take away from this? A sense of victory that “the bad guy” met a miserable, lonely fate only to be coerced into heaven at the last minute by “the good guys” so they can get another merit badge from God? The whole scene felt utterly repulsive, as it was so unnaturally enacted. If I ever came upon a man grievously injured, my first thought would be to try to do what I could to get him help and ease his pain, not proselytize him to death! If I thought he would die, I might ask if he were of any particular religion so that I could get the appropriate minister or pray with him, but I would not start rattling off Scripture verses in an attempt to shove my beliefs down his throat!

    Perhaps my main point is that the true sign of a Christian is the love that he/she shows for the people around him/her, as a natural flow of goodness and divine grace from one to another. It is not our mission to save as many people as we can just so we can make up a cute little list to present at the Pearly Gates. Also, it is extremely unfair to atheists and non-Christians of every stripe to paint them as monsters. Some atheists I am friends with are the kindest, most sensitive and considerate people I know. And this, I believe, is very much a proof of God and the soul made manifest through them, because they are indeed made in His Image and Likeness. Plus, to assume atheists secretly believe in God but hate Him is not always (although certainly can be) the case. There can be intellectually honest conclusions on both ends of the spectrum.

    The movie also makes a supposition that science speaks so clearly in favor of Christian perspective, that people who don’t embrace it are just plain dumb. This really is not the case. The fact is science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, nor should it be able to. If there is an Omnipotent, Omnipresent Being, how on earth would we mere mortals be able to measure Him as a quantity with our scientific instruments? Let’s get real! But by presenting the case as if there is anything more than indirect indication for the existence of God, Christian apologists are bound to get a walloping. Josh himself does say this in the early stages of the debate, but by the end, it is extremely watered down. 

    So my case in point: God’s Not Dead was a good idea, but received a bad treatment. Actually, a worse than bad treatment; with a touchy subject like this one, harm is the only thing that could come from some of the blatantly un-Christian attitudes and ideas laced through the movie. To put it bluntly and definitively, it is one of the worst “Christian” films I’ve ever watched. Now it’s our job as living, breathing Christians to do damage control, and act like normal human beings instead of proselytizing robots. The very best way to evangelize is through example; it’s all about relationships, not shiny stickers we are trying to earn. We should want to help people, physically and spiritually, because we care about them. It should come naturally, and never be forced.

Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) faces down Professor Jeffrey Radisson  (Kevin Sorbo)



Amazing Grace

Year:  2006

Filming:  Color

Length:  117 minutes

Genre:  Biography/Drama/History/Inspirational

Maturity:  PG (for mild language and intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Ioan Gruffudd (William Wilberforce), Romola Garai (Barbara Spooner), Benedict Cumberbatch (William Pitt), Michael Gambon (Lord Charles Fox), Albert Finney (John Newton), Rufus Sewall (Thomas Clarkson), Youssou N’Dour (Olaudah Equiano), Ciaran Hinds (Lord Banastre Tarleton), Toby Jones (Duke of Clarence), Bill Paterson (Lord Dundas), Nicholas Farrell (Henry Thornton), Sylvestra le Touzel (Marianne Thornton), Jeremy Swift (Richard the Butler)

         

Director:  Michael Apted

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

      There are pathetically few movies that are able to deal with political/legal themes and still maintain a human touch that transcends the specialist category. But one of them on the top of the list is Amazing Grace, a biopic of the man who was instrumental in bringing an end to the British Slave Trade. As a period piece, it excels for good taste, balance, and a keen ability to connect the past with the present. As a story, it succeeds in intriguing, inspiring, and warming hearts with hope for humankind.

    Ioan Gruffudd stars as William Wilberforce, an energetic young Member of Parliament, who experiences a spiritual reawakening and becomes an Evangelical Christian. Discerning whether or not he should withdraw from the world and peruse the ministry, his friend William Pitt convince him to stay in politics by connecting him with abolitionists seeking to put an end to the British slave trade. Deciding to use his talents for the good of all, Wilberforce takes up the challenge, but his participation in the controversy makes him increasingly unpopular among powerful parliamentarians who have a vested interest in the trade.

    Working tirelessly to change the hearts and minds of the British people and show them the great inhumanities of the trade, Wilberforce makes allies with honest yet unkempt activist Thomas Clarkson, the former-slave turned elegant man-of-means Olaudah Equiano, and even the self-serving political survivor Lord Charles Fox. Together, they gather thousands of signatures in favor of abolition to present before the parliament. He also makes a point of impressing upon the powerful landed classes the plight of those suffering under their very noses, bringing to light how African men, woman, and children are made to endure a horrendous sea voyage and sold to sugar plantations to be worked to death.

    But in spite of the evidence, many politicians such as Lord Dundas decide to play it safe and refuse to vote for complete abolition. Even many of Wilberforce’s supporters fail him by going to a comic opera instead of turning up to vote. When the French Revolutionary Wars begin, Parliament shoves the issue on the back-burner, and Wilberforce is accused of being unpatriotic. Disillusioned, he considers resigning from his position in the government, and some of his supporters adopt revolutionary sympathies. But then Wilberforce meets his future-wife, Barbara Spooner, who encourages him to persevere in the face of any and all obstacles. From that point on, he is a newly driven man.

    This movie adroitly captures the dangerous ebb and flow of the political world while at the same time bringing out personal stories against the backdrop of epic historical events. The characters are portrayed in a very human light, whether they are from the upper or lower classes, pro-slavery or pro-abolition. The costuming and overall setting is exquisite and manages to capture the right balance between realism and flourish, accessibility and old-fashioned flare. We get to see fine dining halls, charming country estates, stuffy parliament chambers, dingy city streets, and bustling docks, getting a full-scaled panorama of 18^th century Britain. The music score is also top-notch (highly recommend you get the CD!) which managed to bring out the flavor of both British and African cultures, interweaving past and present instruments flawlessly.

    Ioan Gruffud is at his acting best in his portrayal as William Wilberforce. Like Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, the character is so full of depth and humanity he seems to literally come to life through the actor depicting him, and by the end of the film, we can’t help but be an admirer of him. After all, he’s an affable and intelligent young man with a great career ahead of him, but he risks scuttling it in order to aid the oppressed and nearly destroys himself physically and emotionally in the process. He becomes a suffering soul, and a living martyr for those who have no voice. Gruffudd captures all these things with great passion and grace.

    Romola Garai makes a wonderfully warm and witty Barbara Spooner, urging Wilberforce to come out of his slump and return to the parliament floor. Her chemistry with Ioan Gruffudd on screen is delightful, especially their desperate attempt to find something to argue about in front of their match-making friends! One thing that bothered me, however, was the low-cut neckline in the dresses she usually wore in the production. I know that this could just be attributed to late 18^th - early 19^th century fashion, but I just thought it was a bit revealing and purposely seductive. It’s a Hollywood thing, but I must admit I was hoping for better.

    Rufus Sewall’s portrayal of Thomas Clarkson is lovably bluff and scruffy, revealing a good heart but also a dangerously passionate streak that threatens the whole enterprise. He gets into confrontation with Wilberforce over how best to handle their repeated defeats in parliament. Clarkson suggests that a revolution might be their only hope, but Wilberforce forcefully reminds him that he has taken an oath of loyalty to the king (who I do we wish would have made an appearance at some point in the film!). Clarkson retorts that the king is insane, and that he intends to go over to Paris to mingle with the revolutionaries. After several moments of tense listening, Wilberforce cuts him off, and orders him never to speak of revolution in his presence again.

    This is such a British moment in the film, because it exemplifies the realization Wilberforce experiences, and that the British people throughout history have clung to, that they must “hold back from the brink”; that needed changes can come through the due process of law, without shattering the governmental structure. Indeed, the film-makers evidently understood the importance of this project to the way people perceive the British People and their history and culture, because they made sure that all the filming would be done in Britain and that all the actors cast for the movie were British.

    The other great thing about Amazing Grace is the way that spiritual themes are handled without being preachy. Wilberforce is a deeply religious man, and the virtue of this shines through his actions and world view, but the script never reads like a proselytizing pamphlet. It’s sincere; it’s real; it’s naturally moving. I love the way he is portrayed as praying simply and openly, and the motif of the spider web symbolizing his love of The Creator and all His Creation. This point is also brought to the fore when he gets out of his carriage on a rainy night to stop a man from beating his horse, and the man listens to him because name of Wilberforce has now come to be respected by many as a symbol of principle.

    Getting to see Ciarin Hinds portray Banastre Tarleton in his post-revolutionary years was quite a treat. I must admit it took me a few minutes to make the connection between the pro-slavery MP and “Bloody Ban” of wartime infamy. But when he held up his hand to reveal missing fingers that he had lost fighting with the American rebels, it suddenly dawned on me, and I yelped, “It’s Ban!!” Nice to see him depicted as a well-rounded character, instead of the over-the-top villain in The Patriot. And at least this sets the record straight that he didn’t get impaled by Mel Gibson, but moved on to greener pastures in career as a consistent un-huggable.

    There are a few other moments in the film that hearken back to the American Revolution. One is when Wilberforce speaks out in favor of ending the war and making peace the rebels. It is often forgotten that there was a whole movement within British parliament opposing the taxes levied in America and seeking to give her representation in the mother country. When things began to look increasingly hopeless about politically reuniting, they urged a swifter peace to avoid further bloodshed. Another interesting moment in the film is when a legless beggar crawls over to Wilberforce in the street, saying that he “lost his legs fighting the Yankee rebels”. I wonder how often people ever think about the human cost of that war for Britain, and the social aftermath of it on both sides…

    Benedict Cumberbatch makes a wonderfully erudite and elegant William Pitt. One particularly good line is when Wilberforce exclaims that it is next to impossible for Pitt to become prime minister in his 20’s, to which he responds, “We’re too young to realize certain things are impossible, which is why we will do them anyway.” In reality, Wilberforce was never able to visit Pitt’s deathbed as shown in Amazing Grace, and they were actually somewhat estranged over some political differences at the time. But the portrayal of their friendship is touching nonetheless, and in reality, Wilberforce always seems to have treasured the memory of it. 

    I’ll admit that Albert Finney as John Newton looks rather different than I pictured him and that his portraits portray him, and I do sort of wish the film focused a bit more on his personal experiences since he is the one who wrote the title song! But he still does serve as a powerful example of the older generation passing on the mantle to the young, with his impassioned exhortation to “blast the slavers out of the water”. It is also deeply moving when he weeps and wonders if all the people he sold into slavery had names, and supposes that they must have been “good African names.”

     In connection with that, Youssou N’Dour as Olaudah Equiano puts a face and a voice to the millions of unnamed victims of the slave trade, whose lives were cruelly misused and cut short by the greed of others. Although Equiano pours himself out in the abolitionist cause, he tragically does live to see it succeed. Nevertheless, Thomas Clarkson does visit to grave when abolition is on the brink of passing, tells him the good news, and “shares a bottles” with him, drinking some and pouring the rest into the ground.

    One of the ironic inaccuracies of the movie had to do with the fact that the traditional tune of "Amazing Grace" is believe to have been added to Newton’s hymn at a much later date than the events depicted in the film. In spite of this, Wilberforce is shown singing the hymn to this tune and having it played at his wedding! While on the subject, it must be noted with some pain that, unlike the real Mr. Wilberforce who was said to have a glorious voice, Ioan Gruffudd really can’t hold a tune, and it shows when he stand up on that table belts out the beloved hymn before the unsympathetic throng! Oh, well. Chalk it up to good intentions gone awry?

    The finale is always a tear-jerker, when the trade is finally abolished and Wilberforce, struggling to contain his emotion, is given a round of applause. He exchanges a knowing look with his beloved wife in the balcony, realizing that without her, he may never have seen the cause to completion. The end credits are set against a rousing rendition of “Amazing Grace” played by a military pipe and drum band, and we get to see the kilted players lined up in rows outside Westminster Abbey, where both William Wilberforce and William Pitt are buried. I mean, how British can you get?

    Thinking about the injustice of the Slave Trade and how difficult it was to end, I cannot help but make a comparison to the ultimate injustice of our own era: Abortion. While it may be hard to visualize it being abolished now, perhaps a generation or so hence, we shall look back on the killing of the unborn with the same horror as we now look back on the buying and selling of slaves. What we really must pray for is that we may be given more leaders like Wilberforce and his associates to bear the pressure of an unsympathetic society and see the cause through. That is why stories like this one really must be told, and heroes like Wilberforce must be remembered. That is why I am so grateful this movie was made and is able to communicate his story in our modern era. It stands as proof that faith and endurance can overcome the most strident opposition. It is a manifestation of truly amazing grace.

William Wilberforce (Ioan Gruffudd) address the House of Commons