I usually like Roger Ebert’s movie reviews. Usually. But one part of his review of “Lovely Bones” struck me as odd.
He complains that there’s a heaven in the movie. Really. I’m not kidding.
I don’t have much interest in the movie as I was unimpressed by the book and am not a huge Mark Wahlberg fan. But the entire movie “The Lovely Bones” is narrated by a dead girl so there kind of had to be a heaven or at least an afterlife in the film. Sorry if the idea of an afterlife offends Mr. Ebert.
And if that wasn’t weird enough, Ebert took an especially odd turn when he said he didn’t like the idea that Heaven was a happy place.
Here’s what Ebert wrote:
The makers of this film seem to have given slight thought to the psychology of teenage girls, less to the possibility that there is no heaven, and none at all to the likelihood that if there is one, it will not resemble a happy gathering of new Facebook friends. In its version of the events, the serial killer can almost be seen as a hero for liberating these girls from the tiresome ordeal of growing up and dispatching them directly to the Elysian Fields.
Uh. So a movie that’s narrated by a dead person has to give equal time to the possibility there’s no afterlife or heaven? What’s that about?
And then the twisted thought that if heaven is seen as a happy place in the movie that makes the killer a hero for sending them to a happy place?
That’s what Christians mean when we say “They’re in a better place.” Does Ebert want the afterlife to stink? We don’t want the people we love to die but we are comforted that they are in the presence of God. And we don’t see killers as heroes for putting them there.
Mr. Ebert seems to be working through some of his own issues in his column I guess. I wish him well and hope he finds peace.
January 18, 2010 at 6:19 am
Perhaps he is suggesting that heaven is only for a few, and that the girls are not necessarily there?
January 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm
He was equally troubled by demons in his review of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" which I read over the weekend. He easily spent 50% of his review trying to pass on his own ideas of the plausibilty of the whole thing. He should read Pascal.
–Christian
January 18, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Mr. Ebert, God bless him, is one of the most tedious and banal writers working today, and that is a feat that proves his amazing skills especially in this Age of Tedious and Banal Writers.
January 18, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Was his Twilight review similar?
The makers of this film seem to have given slight thought to the psychology of teenage girls, less to the possibility that there are no vampires, and none at all to the likelihood that if there is one, it will not resemble an angsty conflicted teenage boy.
If he considers something to be fiction, then he should review a movie containing that aspect with the suspension of disbelief needed to accept the premise and thus fairly evaluate the movie not on the basis of his personal beliefs on that premise but on the merits of the acting, script, cinematography, costumes, etc.
January 18, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Ebert's writings over the past year have struck me as those of a man who believes his own death may be fast approaching (he has been quite ill), and as such, he seems desperate to convince everyone he can (especially himself) that he made the correct choice when he declared himself too intelligent for religion. Call me naive, but I'm not convinced it's too late for the scales to fall from is eyes.
January 19, 2010 at 12:23 am
Isn't he just complaining about the cheap, unsatisfying and unimaginative heavens in cinema? Save us all from Facebook heaven. Friend request denied!
Even the best expressions human genius can muster of heaven will always fall pathetically short of its wonder… Ebert must feel this acutely, especially now, facing death, when there is so much to think about and so much to fear. I hope he gets a happy surprise.