BEFORE: I faced another linking dilemma today - do I follow the Angelina Jolie link, which would lead me to "Original Sin" and "Maleficent", two films recently added to the list? My tendency is to stick with the chain I've already planned, because it's going to get me all the way to my Comic-Con break and beyond, and the Jolie track links to a few other films, but then for all I know, it could turn into a dead end. I haven't checked - but I'm letting about 10 or 12 films linger at the bottom of the list, without linking them to anything, because it seems like those will be the films I push off until next year. I've got a secondary plan for how I want to end THIS year, and it involves clearing films like "City of Angels" first - so Nicolas Cage carries over from "Gone in Sixty Seconds".
THE PLOT: Seth, an angel watching over Los Angeles, begins finding his job difficult as he falls in love with Maggie, a beautiful heart surgeon.
AFTER: Yesterday I mentioned the categories I use to keep track of my watchlist films, which might be different from the ones a video store or IMDB might use. Some would file this film under drama or romance, but I had it under sci-fi/fantasy. That's because I'm treating the appearance of angel characters the same way I'd treat aliens or monsters - an angel's just the opposite of a demon, right? Anyway, I don't have a "religion" category. There's sort of a fine line between "Starman" and this film - both have cosmic beings taking human form, and then relying on a woman to help them understand the world.
The way angels are portrayed here, they're mostly invisible, unless they choose not to be, and they're essentially spying on us all the time, even when we're undressing or showering. How is this not as creepy as having a stalker? People can't feel their touch, but they're somehow influenced by them - so, can they touch us or not? There are more rules about how the whole thing works then you'd see in a vampire or werewolf movie, and a lot of them seem contradictory. They don't show up on photos, they don't bleed, people can't become angels when they die, etc. etc.
I realize that to make a film about angels, you've got to establish how they function, but to me this all seems rather arrogant and ill-advised, so I'm thinking Hollywood should just stay out of the religion issue, because once you open the door with angels, you're saying that there's a higher power, and THIS is the way the universe works, and THIS is what happens after you die, and you don't in fact know that at all. Movies should probably stick to monsters and elves and such, so as not to turn off segments of the audience that don't adhere to the Judeo-Christian philosophies.
As I said before, I'm not an atheist - I probably identify as agnostic, though I know to some people this is like keeping one foot dry while going for a swim. I just don't think religion can properly explain itself, and while I admire science, there are many things science can't explain either - like what was here before the Big Bang? What space did the universe get created into? And science can't even fall back on that whole "mysterious ways" crap that religion uses - but in both cases, there are so many unanswered questions about life and death that I tend to think we're not asking the right ones.
What if, instead of asking, "What happens after we die?" we started asking ourselves, "How can I make the best use of my time, just in case there's nothing after I die?" Wouldn't that be a more powerful motivating tool? I mean, pray if you want, but hedge your bets. Get those items crossed off your bucket list, whatever they are. And stop asking the higher power for help, unless that's your way of identifying the things in life that you want to work for yourself.
Anyway, back to the film - how many NITPICK POINTS am I limited to? How come the angels represent some kind of higher power, but they just don't seem to be able to do much? And if humans have free will, then what happens to the free will when the angels do intervene in emergencies? Doesn't that run contrary to humans being able to learn from their mistakes? And if the angels have been watching people for thousands of years, why does it seem like they still don't understand us very well? Shouldn't they have figured out why people do certain things by now?
And if the angels are higher beings, then why would one want to lessen himself by becoming human? That would be like me wanting to become an insect or something. And even if I did want to do that, that doesn't make it possible. Now we get into whether God is as perfect as we're supposed to think he is, but if there are little loopholes, then he's not perfect, is he? And if God's got a plan for us, and we each have a "time to go", and we're supposed to respect that plan, then we shouldn't have heart surgery or any life-saving procedures, because that interferes with the plan, right? Ridiculous.
Overall I reject the premise, because it just assumes too much. Same with "What Dreams May Come" or "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" - they all start from a point of assumption, taking for granted that there IS a heaven, when we have no evidence other than what we've been told. So that's why I take this as fantasy, like I would a film about aliens, since we've got no hard proof of UFOs or alien visitations either.
This film was a Hollywood remake of "Wings of Desire", and I've got a copy of that film, too. For a long while that film was next to this one in the line-up, so I could watch them back-to-back, but I've since reorganized the list - so I'll watch that film in about a week and a half.
Also starring Meg Ryan (last seen in "When a Man Loves a Woman"), Andre Braugher (last seen in "Primal Fear"), Dennis Franz (last seen in "Popeye"), Colm Feore (last seen in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2"), Robin Bartlett (last seen in "Dangerous Minds"), with cameos from Amy Brenneman (last seen in "The Face of Love"), Nick Offerman, Elisabeth Shue.
RATING: 3 out of 10 library books
No comments:
Post a Comment