web
counter
 

Forgive Me Father For My Movie is Sin

By Seth Freilich | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (18)



salvation-boulevard.jpg

Almost all of the films Dustin and I saw at Sundance this year were press and industry screenings. Before most of these screenings, there’s usually a PR flack who offers up “press notes” to those who want them. These press notes are packets with a bunch of info about the film — a relatively spoiler-free synopsis, bios of the cast and director, usually a statement from the director and/or writer, and sometimes interviews or other types of information. Dustin doesn’t bother with them, but I like them because they offer the filmmakers’ take on what they think they’re giving us (and so, in response to a commentor’s question about how I could speak to what the filmmakers intended to do or how smart they thought they were — in those cases, I could speak to it because I had their words to that very effect).

I mention this because when it comes to Salvation Boulevard, I wish I could I just give each of you a copy of the press notes, which are about as clever and interesting as the film itself but have the bonus value of taking less of your time and making for an amusing wall hanging, to boot (I’ll explain, below). Salvation Boulevard, an intended satirical look at Evangelical Christianity, has an excellent cast: Pierce Brosnan, Ed Harris, Greg Kinnear, Jennifer Connelly, Marisa Tomei, and Jim Gaffigan. And in light of this cast, Salvation Boulevard has to be the most disappointing film of the 2011 Sundance Film Festival because how do you not make a good film with this batch?

Salvation Boulevard is about Carl (Kinnear), a former Deadhead married to Gwen (Connolley), a proud member of the Church of the Third Millennium. This is a suburban mega-church headed up by Pastor Dan Day (Brosnon). Pastor Dan is not a charlatan; he’s a true believer that he hears God’s voice and is doing His work. And because Gwen is a true believe in Pastor Dan, Carl has become an awkward and slightly reluctant born-again believer and member of the Church and, in the process, a bit of a poster-boy for the Church. As for the plot, let me excerpt from the press notes synopsis:

Carl’s new belief system is turned upside down when he witnesses a sinful act that Pastor Dan’s doughy henchman (Jim Gaffigan) aims to cover up. In the meantime, Carl finds himself on the run, torn between Honey (Marissa Tomei), a security guard who still follows the Dead and partakes in those pleasures, and his militantly devout wife (Connelly).”

Throw in Ed Harris as a staunch and vocal atheist author who engages Pastor Dan in public discourse, and you have what should be a decent film. And it starts off decent enough, with a satirical-light vibe, more of a “heh, that’s pretty amusing” than an “oh my god, that hilarious.” There’s a decent-enough scene early on where Pastor Dan and Harris’ professor engage in a public debate, which works particularly because Harris is wonderful as always (though sorely underused in this film) and because Brosnon wears the preacher role pretty well. The scenes with Tomei are similarly amusing, or at least cute, because she makes such a lovely Deadhead (of course, she’s a lovely anything). And when we get a tour of some of the Church’s facilities, there are some very amusing bits, like the use of the facilities’ gym pool for baptisms, and the “Pastor Dan Day’s Jesus & Me Coloring Book” (the press notes are fashioned like this coloring book, which is why they make for an amusing wall-hanging and will, in fact, be hung in my lawyerly office). And even though the film was able to make excellent use of a scene from Legend, that scene actually kick-starts the plot with Gaffigan and Kinnear’s Carl-on-the-run, and that’s where Salvation Boulevard quickly loses whatever little charm it had going for it.

Director and co-writer George Ratliff says that there is “delight and humor” in watching Job-like characters get torutured, and he’s right, in theory. And though Kinnear plays the role Job-like role well here, there’s just not much delight and humor in the most of what happens — it all just falls flat. And that’s the answer to the question of a how a film with this cast can fail — the blame lands primarily on a script that never finds itself. It attempts to jump back and forth from being a broad comedy, a sharp satire, a light-hearted observation of the Evangelical mindset, and a bad on-the-run action film, and none of it really sticks. By about an hour into the film, I found myself praying that it would soon be over. And glory be, thirty minutes later I saw the light of the credits, and the film was over. Praise Jeebus.

Salvation Boulevard premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



It's About To Get Meat Up In This Biznatch | Will Smith To Remake Annie | I Must Be Tripping Balls









Comments

Fuck. Shame.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 27, 2011 8:49 AM

Thinking about it, if the characters were more Gob-like rather than Job-like, we might have had a winner.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 27, 2011 8:53 AM

Is it just me, or have about half of the films reviewed from Sundance this year been some sort of an critique/satire/whatever of American Christianity/churches/whatever?

Posted by: bachelor at January 27, 2011 9:14 AM

At what point in her career did Jennifer Connolly decide "I'm only taking parts that portray women with no sense of humor?"
Because it seems that description applies to anything I've seen her in for the past 7-8 years at least (including the horrific He's Just Not That Into You or some name close to that).

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 27, 2011 11:03 AM

Where are the movies that take a satirical look at atheism?

Posted by: , at January 27, 2011 11:58 AM

Where are the movies that take a satirical look at atheism?

I'm not sure how you would do that. By definition, atheism does not have an arbitrary moral code that can be used for or against something.
It's one and only tenet is that there is no God, Allah, Ganesh, Zeus, Isis or any other supernatural being.

Posted by: Simon at January 27, 2011 1:33 PM

It's one and only...

Bugger! What is that apostrophe doing there?
My humble apologies for the grammar slip-up.

Posted by: Simon at January 27, 2011 1:36 PM

What a crying shame. The plot sounds unique and the cast is comprised of several of my favorite actors. Don't you wish there was some way that they could get 'do-overs', where the film makers just scrap the director or script-writer or whatever and get a second shot at it? Remakes don't count.

Posted by: Viking at January 27, 2011 2:32 PM

What a crying shame. The plot sounds unique and the cast is comprised of several of my favorite actors. Don't you wish there was some way that they could get 'do-overs', where the film makers just scrap the director or script-writer or whatever and get a second shot at it? Remakes don't count.

Posted by: Viking at January 27, 2011 2:44 PM

"Is it just me, or have about half of the films reviewed from Sundance this year been some sort of an critique/satire/whatever of American Christianity/churches/whatever?"

Yeah...exactly what I was thinking going into this. How about some diversity? We've seen the CHRISTIAN satire done to death. Change it up a little. There are other major religions that have barely been touched.

Red State is the only thing I'm interested in, and I don't think that's going to count as satire.

Posted by: Parker at January 27, 2011 2:49 PM

By definition, atheism does not have an arbitrary moral code that can be used for or against something.

And yet "The Invention of Lying" essentially is a proselytization film for atheism.

Posted by: bachelor at January 27, 2011 10:46 PM

And yet "The Invention of Lying" essentially is a proselytization film for atheism.

How so? I'll admit to not having seen it, but the plot synopsis includes Gervais fabricating a man in the sky and creating an arbritary guide to getting into the afterlife.

Admittedly the finer points may have escaped me there, but that sounds like it's satirising organised religion rather that proselytising for atheism.

Besides, even if it does recruit viewers to Atheism, my point still stands. Atheism itself does not have a moral code - it does not tell you how to behave, it only states that there is no deity.

Posted by: Simon at January 28, 2011 2:57 AM

Where are the movies that take a satirical look at atheism?

"I'm not sure how you would do that.

Easy. Pick an atheist belief to satirise and do your satire thing. Are there no famous atheists? Are there no atheist foundations? Atheist philosophies?

By definition, atheism does not have an arbitrary moral code that can be used for or against something."

By definition 'atheism' references only a lack of belief in God(s). Any moral codes that atheists believe in are indeed arbitrary moral codes that can be used for or against something. So you're not making any sense here.
So you still want to satirise? Then satirise Atheist moral nihilism. Don't want to satirise moral nihilism as few atheists follow that code? Then satirise the moral codes they actually follow, and the fact that there is no evidence for them, or satirise atheists that believe that they follow self-evident logical morality yet disagree with other atheists on what the 'correct' moral conclusion is.
Satirise Atheist opinion formers such as Richard Dawkins, who recently sued an old disciple that he had hired to run his American shop without an official contract, on the strength of their shared beliefs and anti-theism. Unfortunately as it turns out not all atheists are not lovely moral people, and may disagree about who should be getting most of the money coming from the shop. Plenty of room for satire there: "They believe without evidence" guffawed Richard Dawkins, "That is why atheism is so much better than religion, we don't make those leaps of faith!" as he signed the delivery order for his American shop. 'Soon the money will be rolling in. Thank goodness I found such a logical and trustworthy fellow to operate it'

Posted by: Ender at January 28, 2011 6:14 AM

Haha, atheists hurt ender's feelings. Now that you have taken Dawkins down, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down around those godless heathens.

Posted by: Douchebag McGee at January 28, 2011 7:41 AM

Well I come back to add a little and what do I see... Douchebag McGee living up to his name.

I'm guessing you see it as some sort of 'attack' that I suggest things that could be satirised about Atheism. You do realise I was answering a question right? People weren't like "Isn't it a nice day?" and I didn't burst in with "Here's why Atheism sucks!"

Atheism and atheists are not rubbish just because there are things you could satirise about it and them, just as Theism is not rubbish because there are things you can satirise about it.
That you see this realistic view that there are things worth satirising as an attack suggests that your own faith is weak, and you are worried that a tiny shove could bring it all tumbling down. Relax; either you've got a good basis for your opinions and satire will be like water off a ducks' back, or you don't and it's for the best that the satire will tear you a new one. Either way, you win.

p.s. for anyone with Douchebag's level of intelligence "you have taken Dawkins down" and "the whole house of cards will come tumbling down around those godless heathens" are Douchebag's words not mine. Those are words he put in my mouth because he's too much of a fucking inbred to realise that he can't read minds and that he doesn't know everything that everyone else is thinking. And that was not what I was thinking.

Posted by: Ender at January 28, 2011 8:11 AM

Oops, my previous reply was sent in for review. That is adorable that you came "back to add a little" to your thesis on satire and atheism. Doesn't a satire about a lack of belief sound incredibly boring? Your suggestions in your first post show precisely why there are so few satires on atheism. Hard to hit a target that doesn't really exist.

It is fun to read your pseudo-intellectual bullshit mixed with you calling me a "fucking inbred" though, keep reaching for those stars Ender!

Posted by: Douchebag McGee at January 28, 2011 11:23 AM

Thanks, the little I was going to add was "of course there's little reason to satirise it, unlike evangelical Christianity which has dangerous political influence" but it's adorable that you still think you can read minds.

My suggestions may not meet your high standards, but their mere existence answers the question first asked.

I'm glad you're having fun, I guess that makes up for your inept initial attempt to read my mind, and your try-hard attempt to reinterpret history. So far: My contribution - answering someones question
Your contribution - failing to read minds like a third rate magician and getting offended on behalf of your idol Dawkins.

Well played sir, you have contributed to this thread.

Posted by: Ender at January 29, 2011 7:02 AM

Wot no comeback? No more 10-dollar words and condescension? I guess you tapped out. A reasonable choice given your posts so far.

Posted by: Ender at January 30, 2011 7:40 PM