Tag: allegory

SNOW QUEEN AT LAKE CHARLES LITTLE THEATRE – FEBRUARY 7 – 23, 2020

SHORT TAKE:

Delightful musical retelling of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale The Snow Queen.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Early to mid teens  and up. Though nothing inappropriate for the younger set, at two hours and with the somewhat erudite themes, story structure, and production, the littler kids might get restless.

LONG TAKE:

The Snow Queen has been produced under many guises: story, play, movie, opera, anime, science fiction novel, video game, radio play, ballet, and several musicals from a multiplicity of countries. This pop/rock musical version, directed by the wonderful and warm Bacot Wright, and aided by her heroic battery supplying husband Greg, and exhausted assistant director Dan Sadler, without whom the sky might literally fall from the ceiling, is being performed at Lake Charles Little Theatre from February 7 through February 23, 2020, (tickets HERE). This Snow Queen is from a book/stageplay script adaptation by Haddoon Kime with music by Kime, Kirsten Brandt & Rick Lombardo.

Based on the Hans Christian Andersen’s classic The Snow Queen, the tale is spun about a young heroine, Gerda, who endures a long perilous journey to free her neighbor and playmate, Kai, from the enticements of The Snow Queen and the evil spell of the Devil himself.

Many have theorized that The Snow Queen is the story upon which Frozen was based….very loosely………very VERY loosely – though the one in Frozen who needs rescuing is combined with the villain character from Snow Queen, and the one in need of “rescuing” in Frozen is a woman instead of a boy, and the main characters in Frozen are estranged sisters instead of playmates…and the adventures are almost unrecognizable from the source story…and the sister isn’t exactly enchanted but is mostly just having an identity crisis…but if you squint REALLY hard…..

Now, there is a definite echo in the character of the Snow Queen from the White Witch in the Chronicles of Narnia, as both live and thrive in cold and snow, call up enchantments, freeze people and their souls, and seduce their victims with sweets – the Snow Queen with kisses which give a kind of ecstasy, the White Witch with Turkish Delights.

The Little Theatre troupe embraced the challenge of music which is often dissonant and contrapunctal. From the rich harmonies of the ensembles to the counter point duets and the strong solos, all the singers bring great beauty to a variety of styles employed to enhance the mood of the scenes: from Lily Brady’s hip hop Robber Girl’s “I Want That”, to Heather Foreman’s Broadway perk in the Princess’ “Never Give Up”, Louis Barrilleaux as Reindeer and Hunter Becton’s Gerda operatic style duet “Aurora”, Cole Becton’s Kai singing the “Equations” lament, ensembles like “Flying”, Taylor Novak-Tyler’s Snow Queen’s Phantom-like aria “You Are Mine” – all are performed with the requisite vocal precision and confidence essential to these demanding songs.

The sets are cleverly minimalist – evoking the diverse ranges of: castle, river, cottage, flying in the sky – mostly just with light and sound and singing against a bold multilevel backdrop.

Almost all the cast members do multi duty. Katie Becton, in real life the mother of Hunter and  Cole plays both the grandmother of Gerda and Kai as well as the Robber Mom. Louis is at turns a Prince, a Troll and a Crow as well as the aforementioned Reindeer. Heather is Princess, North Witch and Garden Witch. Lily is the Robber Girl and a talking/singing Rose.  Timothy Smith is creepy as a Troll King and endearing as the aging but courageous British Old Crow. Cagle Kaough “flys” between Lady Crow and Flower. Everly Spears is adorable as a chatty Narcissus and pigeon with some well timed coos. Crista Corbello is charming as flower and pigeon. Supratik Regmi and  Antonio Dre do triple duty as Trolls, Robbers and Crows.

This musical covers a gamut – insightful philosophy, musical fantasy, adventure and all with a sense of humor, especially notable in the scene stealing garden flowers and  Pigeons.

Some say the story is an allegory for a girl’s maturation as she moves from the clingy shelter of her mother (the garden), to the temptations of pubescence (the robber’s den), the winter of old age (the North Witch’ hut) and even death (the ice castle). Others that it is reminiscent of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress as our protagonist must over come many and varied obstacles, climbing ever upward, to save a soul – in the case of The Snow Queen, not her own but that of her friend. It could also be seen as simply the imaginings of two children who, having heard of a darkly magical fairy tale just at bed time, dream themselves into it as the main characters in all its vivid detail. I think it is all that and more, a testament to the story both sparse and multi-leveled that each audience member can take away something different and personal, depending on their individual perspective and stage of life.

So go see this delightful, funny, enchanting musical tale of fairy tale heroics, adventurous self-sacrifice, and introspective wisdom – a library all in one play –  at Lake Charles Little Theatre – tickets HERE.

 

A WRINKLE IN TIME – RE-REVIEW – A GLOWING EXAMPLE OF LIBERAL COMMON NON-SENSE

I have long maintained that liberals in Hollywood were willing to throw money away on financing abyssmal movies if they think it will further whatever agenda they are after: socialism, destruction of the definition of marriage, sexualization of children, artifically inflammed racial divisiveness, atheism. I have had a lot of conversations with people who don’t believe me – that they think “Hollywood” will learn their lesson when this or that movie fails.

I hate to disabuse them of the notion that liberals have the slightest bit of common sense but one only needs to read the following article on the deserved thrashing A Wrinkle in Time is getting to understand how far liberals will go: A Wrinkle in Time:…$100 million…Disney…Bomb

In this article you will read quotes by the sneering and smug Ava DuVernay, a stridently vociferous anti-Trump liberal and the director of this $100 million turkey. “I don’t care what anybody thinks about it,” she told the Times. “I know it’s $100 million for the studio. They’ll be fine.” In typical liberalese – she doesn’t care that Disney may have just lost $100 million so she could display her little propaganda tantrum – why SHOULD she care? It’s not her money she is wasting.

For a more detailed review about the movie in general go to my previous review of this waste of celluloid at: A Wrinkle in Time – Disturbing and Repulsive

I don’t feel sorry for Disney. After all they knew what they were getting into when they funded this bomb. But let’s be clear about what it is they have done.

Many of the reviewers went right along with Ms. DuVernay’s sentiment, bending themselves into pretzels attempting to avoid saying A W.I.T. is a BAD movie:

Marie Claire of the Hollywood Reporter: “’A Wrinkle in Time’ isn’t a great movie, but that’s completely irrelevant.”

Yolanda Machado, a free lance film journalist said, “Because of this film, my daughter will never question that she can be strong.”

The FOX article reads: “One reviewer called it a ‘big bold beautiful mess’ before praising DuVernay for ‘swinging for the fences’ with a ‘not great’ script.'”

Ms. DuVernay CLAIMS she is trying to demonstrate that black women can be shown as strong leaders. This is all a massive load of what Biff Tannen and his relatives kept falling head first into in the Back to the Future movies.

For the purpose of the following points some acquaintance of the original book’s story is necessary – check out: Wikipedia Synopsis of: A Wrinkle in Time

First, Meg’s race is irrelevant. Storm Reid is terrific as Meg. The only ones who care what race she is are the liberal racists. The story of A Wrinkle in Time depends on a daughter’s love for her family and not at all on the race of the family members. As long as the genetics are logical or there is a mention of adoption, the young lady could be Chinese, Hispanic, white, black, Indonesian, Aleusian or any combination. (As in, if two white people have a black baby or two black people have a white baby some mention of adoption would need to be thrown into the script for the sake of practicality.) Meg being black has NOTHING to do with the story one way or the other and I couldn’t have cared less. All that is required is acting ability which Ms. Reid has. Meg’s race is irrelevant.

Second, the original story HAD a strong female character that everyone followed. At the risk of SPOILERS, in the end, not even Meg’s father could go back and save Charles Wallace. ONLY – and I repeat this emphasized emphatically ONLY Meg could or was even allowed by the Mrs. W’s to return for her younger brother. Meg was the only one whose love was strong enough. (It was explained that her father had not seen his son in four years and Calvin had only just met him.) Calvin, in the book, followed Meg like a puppy the entire way. He was a strong character in and of himself, but recognized Meg’s purpose and inner vigorous soul. What Ms. DuVernay proposed was nothing Madeleine L’Engle had not already put in the original source material. In other words DUVERNAY IS TAKING PLAGERISTIC CREDIT FOR SOMETHING ALREADY IN THE BOOK!

Third, and most importantly, even if what Ms. DuVernay said was true or even believed was true – that she had sought to make a movie which showed a strong black woman in the lead – there was ZERO reason to make the single change which has made this movie such a spectacular BOMB. Ms. DuVernay has stripped the flesh off of the reason the story was written. She deliberately, and I believe with malice, removed every iota of Christianity there was to be found in what is essentially a Christian allegory.

I really didn’t care one way or another about The Golden Compass. The Golden Compass was another child’s story which was filmed as an anti-religious tome and bombed. The G.C. was written by Philip Pullman, a self-described atheist, as an atheistic yawner and was so filmed, receiving the attention it deserved – earning less than half of its production budget.

But A Wrinkle in Time was created as a CHRISTIAN allegory by a devout CHRISTIAN and DuVernay has gone out of her way to brutalize it. You’d think Disney, if not the agenda-driven Ms. DuVernay, would have exercised more foresight and not dumped quite so much money into a movie which shoves a middle finger in the face of the very demographic who made the source book a children’s classic. I mean – from a business P.O.V. alone you’d think they would have filmed it with the intent with which it was written to bring in the moolah from the audience who liked the book in the first place! But, in keeping with longstanding liberal “ethics,” as long as it is someone else’s money, they do not care if it is thoughtlessly and carelessly fizzled away.

Yes, make the lead child a black girl – make her Tibetan or Hawaiian – who cares one way or the other?  I LOVED Storm Reid as Meg. She brought a fierce intensity to the role as the determined and dogged young lady who devotedly goes to rescue her father in the face of tremendous uncertainities and great evil. It is a tragedy that DuVernay took a great performance and threw it away on her trash fire of New Age proselytizing.

DuVernay is a poster child for my now proven assertion that Hollywood is willing to throw away a fortune to foist their own ungrateful dystopian indoctrination into the very culture that tolerates them the way no other culture would. And until and unless they manage to chokehold us into sponsoring their ideologies through taxation or forced attendance, the movie going public will likely continue to vote with their closed pocketbook.

To sum up – Ms DuVernay is using the race of this lovely child actress as a smoke screen to hide her anti-Christian agenda. And to me this is not just nonsense – it a demonstration of racism, child abuse and religious bigotry. SHAME ON YOU MS. DUVERNAY!!!

A WRINKLE IN TIME – DISTURBING AND REPULSIVE ARE NOT TOO STRONG

SHORT TAKE:

Child's classic story brutally stripped of all vestiges of the originally intended Christian allegory, amateurishly directed with irritatingly constant close-ups, lackluster adult performances, and distractingly stupid costumes. This new A Wrinkle in Time is a glittering dead heap of New Age pseudo-philosophical jargon. But the kids were cute.

LONG TAKE:

To say this movie was a disappointment would be one of this year’s great understatements. To say it was a laughably bad movie would be falling short of a full expose. To say it was offensive to Christianity in general and the Christian faith of its author would not be amiss. There is so much wrong with the new movie titled A Wrinkle in Time (it would be an insult to the source material to call it a filmed version of the book) that I have to do it by category.

Unlike most awards shows or Johnny Carson’s "lists" I will start with the most important first.

The ORIGINAL BOOK premise is that a teenaged girl, her friend Calvin and genius little brother go on a quest to find the teenaged girl’s father. The father, Mr Murray, was captured four years before by a great ubiquitous evil (presumably original sin) while trying to travel through the universe by "wrinkling" space with his mind. The time "wrinkle" of the title is supposed to work the same way and allows them to get back five minutes after their adventure begins. The children are aided by off-world/other-wordly angel-like creatures who masquerade as Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatzit, and Mrs. Which, quirky little old ladies here on Earth.

THEME

Book

The author Madeleine L’Engle was a devout Christian. She served as the librarian and writer in residence at New York City’s John the Divine Episcopalian church and her faith informed everything she wrote. Sarah Arthur, author of a biography on Madeleine L’Engle expressed it this way: "It was the wonder and humility of scientists, especially theoretical physicists like Max Planck and Albert Einstein, who eventually convinced [L’Engle] to become Christian. If the Creator of a vast and surprising cosmos could love this small planet enough to become one of us…that was a faith worth clinging to." L’Engle herself is quoted in a 1979 interview with Christianity Today: "I believe we can understand cosmic questions only through particulars. I can only understand God through one specific particular, the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth." Then, again, in case there is any vestige of doubt as to her perception of Jesus: "To believe that this Creator took on human vesture, accepted death and mortality, was tempted, betrayed, broken, and all for love of us, defies reason. It is so wild that it terrifies some Christians [this]…wild wonder of God’s love, a love we don’t even have to earn."

Keep in mind I was never a fan of this author or this book. Nothing against either – I had just never read anything of L’Engle’s until I blitzed A.W.I.T. to get perspective on the movie. It quickly becomes obvious, to even the casual observer or non-believer, that L’Engle intended a CS Lewis-style Christian allegory.

For example, the angel-like winged creatures which inhabit the origin planet of the three other-worldy Mrs. W’s fly and dance singing constantly. What they sing is: "Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the ends of the earth, ye that go down to the sea…the isles…the inhabitants…the wilderness…the cities…the rock…let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the Lord."

When the three Mrs. W’s explain to the children they will be fighting a terrible evil darkness, they ask who they can think of on Earth who has fought the darkness. Mrs. Who herself quotes John 1: 5, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." To which one of the children immediately shouts: "Jesus! … Why of course, Jesus!" Mrs. Who then asks the children who else might be those who fight against the darkness and the list is: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Bach, Pasteur, Curie, Einstein, Schweitzer, Gandhi, Buddha, Beethoven, Rembrandt, St. Francis, Euclid, and Copernicus. All of these are people who have fought and some who died to alleviate suffering, bring beauty into the world, and help comprehend the intricacies of the world’s Intelligently Created order.

Mrs. Who usually speaks in quotes of the famous: Shakespeare "We are such stuff as dreams are made of", Pascal, Dante, Seneca, Perez, Horace, Cervantes "Experience is the mother of knowledge", Delille "How small is the Earth to him who looks from Heaven", Euripides "Nothing is hopeless, we must hope for everything", the Bible, and Goethe – the Good Book plus European and British poets, philosophers and authors. She speaks in: English, Latin, Italian, Spanish, German, French, Portugese and Greek.

Movie

In 1959 Charlton Heston starred in Ben Hur – a movie about an unjustly imprisoned man and his family who, through direct encounters with Christ, are redeemed, learn forgiveness, and find healing in soul and body. At the end of the movie the main character’s sister and mother, diseased with leprosy, are cured by touching the blood which flowed from Christ on the Cross through the rivulets of water during the storm following Jesus’ death. There is no question, as John Wayne’s character said in The Greatest Story Ever Told: "Truly this man was the Son of God." That was back in the day when even establishment Hollywood knew how to make a religious movie, when practicing Jewish producers, directors and writers respected the faith of their Christian brethren and vica versa.

In 2006 Ben Hur was divested of all reference to the Divinity of Jesus and reduced the character to —- well, he was a very nice man. No cure for the sister and mother, no major revelations.

New Ben Hur was disappointing at best, offensive at worse, right? But 2006's Ben Hur was by far a more theologically rich movie than 2018's travesty of A Wrinkle in Time because in the 2006 Ben Hur at least Jesus makes a guest appearance!

This 2018 A.W.I.T. is a twisting of the classic children’s book which skins and strips the living Christianity out of every iota of the story until it is a glittering dead heap of new age pseudo-philosophical jargon.

In Mrs. Who’s quotes they replace Pascal (mathematician), Dante (theological poet) – two extremely devout Christians, and Euripides – a classic Greek playwright whose works have survived the test of 2,500 years of time, with Gilbran, a popular but vague and muddled cult writer whose theology is so muddled together in an ecclectic stew of ideas as to be indecipherable, Rumi – a Muslim poet, included, no doubt in a syncophantic bow to Hollywood’s god of diversity, and ……. Chris Tucker "Dang". Chris Tucker? "Dang" is a quote? REALLY? How "in the face" of Western European Classic culture with a middle finger can you get than including a "quote" by a flash in the pan American comedian? And Outkast – they quote Outkast "You need to git out, git up and git something" – a modern American HIP HOP group! And Miranda from the pathetic excuse for a historic musical, Hamilton "Tomorrow they'll (sic) be more of us". Even their Shakespeare is vapid "When shall we three meet again" and is spoken by the EVIL WITCHES FROM MACBETH!!! How dumb are these people? They're having the good guys quote Satanically evil bad guys. Or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing and subtley endorsing the very evil the heroes of this story are supposed to be fighting!

What is WRONG with them?!? At least quote Americans who have something to say – George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Paine, Booker T. Washington, Emily Dickenson, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, even Groucho Marx who was at least funny!!!!!

Most egregiously – in the list of those who fight the darkness, Jesus, whose name is mentioned first and with emphasis by Ms. L’Engle and referenced directly and indirectly several other times, is never named. Not — even — once. Not once in the entirety of this whole misbegotten travesty of a movie. The writers of this script do not so much as mention the name of the Son of God for whom this entire book was written.

Instead of sound theology we get new age woman-hood-ness-ish nonsense – everything revolves around Meg and her blossoming into a "warrior", boosting her self-esteem and encouraging her to think better of herself. Do you know who, demographically, are the single group with the highest self-esteem? Career criminals. This is what gets them into trouble. They have little empathy or use for others. They think they are the center of the universe and when the universe, society in general and the criminal justice system disagree they end up in jail. THIS is the model they wish to set up as the New Age Princess? And, I guess, Calvin and her little brother Charles Wallace are disposable because they are boys, as demonstrated by her lack of concern after the rock tornado, as described below. And her father is useless because he "abandoned" them.

SCRIPT

The only thing that moves faster than light is darkness……..um what the HECK does that mean? Darkness is the absence of light, not a thing unto itself. This dumb concept isn’t in the book.

Having taken out all references to Christianity, including the home planet society of angels and their praise and worship of the Living God, the writers had to fill in time with SOMEthing. So they decided on stupid things which did nothing to further the narrative – like a rock tornado which chases the children, during which time the protective Meg incomprehensibly forgets all about her little brother. After the crisis has ended Charles Wallace’s sudden reappearance is taken with a ho hum shrug instead of the hysterical relief it should have merited.

Calvin in the book is always respectful and solicitous of Meg but in the movie has at least one moment of unexplained downright stalk-y creepiness after the rock tornado.

The movie contains, in a (presumably accidental) scene of accuracy to the book a street full of children who all bounce their balls in unison. Mothers call their children to come in simultaneously. In this scene from the book as well as other scenes in the book which emphasize the concept, Ms. L’Engle exposes the calamity of socialistic and communistic loss of individuality and the evil of the tyrannical requirement of cliquish uniformity. Apparently this hit way too close to home for the writers as the follow ups which made this one street scene make sense were cut out. Gone is the newspaper boy who throws newspapers with exacting rhythmicness, then explains he will be "reprocessed" if he does not. Excised are scenes where people in the downtown area move about in drab and anxious uniformity. I guess it would have expressed the evil of the hive mind too well.

DIRECTION

Apparently Ms. DuVernay went to the TV soap opera school of direction because every emotion – be it awe, fear, grief, joy, or surprise, was given a CLOSE-UP!!!!!!!! I mean a CLOSE-UP!!! so far in that you not only lost most of the top of their head but any connection to whom that person was talking. You get no reaction shots unless you cut to another CLOSE-UP!!!!! This gets tiresome after the first three or four DOZEN times she does this. There were so many CLOSE-UPS!!!! I thought I was going to get a nose bleed.

ACTING

You might laugh at the idea of Oprah Winfrey acting but I’ve seen her do a smashingly good job. Not only did she do a truly noteworthy job as the abused and abusive wife in The Color Purple, but she didn’t mind looking really ugly, dumpy and every worn mile of her character’s hard life. I thought at the time that she could have a decent career in performance. Alas it was not to be and this cringy amateur-ish mechanical reading of her lines is the result.

The kids are actually pretty good. I liked them. Not much they could do with the washed out script but Storm Reid was emphathizable as Meg, the grieving daughter, Levi Miller was charming and natural as Calvin, the friend, and Deric McCabe was quite believable as the prodigiously intelligent little brother of Meg, Charles Wallace. Unfortunately, most of the kids’ moments are ruined with the ubiquitous and unrelenting CLOSE-UPS!!!!!!

Chris Pine, who does a terrific job as the new Captain Kirk in the rebooted Star Trek movies, is totally wasted as Mr. Murry, the lost father. All he gets an opportunity to do is weep and look desperately sad in CLOSE-UPS!!!!!

COSTUME

Book

The Mrs. W’s were unassuming, mousey-looking, grandma-like little old ladies, going about their magical business in stealth and modest inconspicuousness. Mrs Whatzsit even goes so far as to "borrow" a neighbor’s sheets to make humble ragamuffin clothes.

Movie

The three "leads" were doodied up like Glenda the Good Witch parading on the Red Carpet during the Oscars. They were dolled up to be young, beautiful, wealthy and ostentatious – the exact opposite of what Ms. L’Engle intended.

Mrs. Whatzits' sheets, instead of the homemade hodgepodge they were to be intended, look as though they were designed by Yves Saint Laurent. Ms. Who wore large flashy bell like get ups I marveled that she didn’t fall and roll in during one scene where she was required to run mincingly down a hill. And Mrs Which – well if you like to see three story high versions of Oprah Winfrey dressed in reject Liberace costumes last used when he was King of Bacchus………

CHARACTERS

Book

In the book, when they arrive at Uriel, the home planet of the Mrs. W’s, Mrs. Who transforms into a creature one might encounter as an angel in CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce. In The Great Divorce, denizens of Purgatory are given a bus tour of Heaven including seeing angels. The creatures of Uriel are much like those angels – powerful and regal, much like a centaur with wings of shimmering filigree that take your breath away.

The Happy Medium is a ploy for Ms. L’Engle to let the children get a safe look at IT, the evil thing which inhabits all of Camazotz and hovers threateningly over Earth, causing strife and pain. The Happy Medium is a simple woman with a crystal ball who prefers to see happy things but willingly helps the Mrs. W’s and the children in a simple projection from her ball.

Movie

Instead of a majestic angel, Mrs Whatzit turns into a green stingray with the head of an artichoke and drops Calvin in mid-flight. This, of course, does not happen in the book but is another unnecessary waste of celluloid to fill the vacuum where Christianity once shone as the theme.

The Happy Medium is a man clown who requires silly ritualistic behaviors to project the needed images – they have to "center" and stand on one foot with their eyes closed on teetering rocks over an abyss – no really this is what he tells them they have to do. I kept expecting him to say he was kidding.

I could go on but I think you get the idea. This movie is a waste of time at best and a destructive piece of brainless propaganda at worst. It's certainly a waste of money.

Go read the book to your kids instead.

PASSENGERS – AN ALLEGORY FOR MARRIAGE

 
When my husband and I had been married for 15 years we volunteered to go through an Engaged Encounter Counseling training session. During that period of time we learned things about each other that we did not know! For example, his favorite color is blue. I thought it was tan. He always WEARS tan. Who knew?!
The process also reminded me about the dating/mating process. The early years when you become irresistably attracted. Then you wonder if you should take the risk of being a couple. After a time, as you consider you may be spending the rest of your life with this person – have I done the right thing? The infatuation. The sexual attraction. The sharing and adventure. The fun. And then you find out things maybe you hadn’t realized about the other. You fight. Maybe the fight seems to herald in the end of the relationship. But at some point you realize you would much prefer to journey through life WITH this person than without them – warts and all.
Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt star in Columbia Pictures’ PASSENGERS.
Perhaps it takes a personal crisis. Perhaps there is a moment when you see the resilient admirable core at the center of their being – the stuff that, even unknowingly, attracted you to them to begin with. Their morality. Their love of life. Their sense of fun….their courage in the face of life’s adversity. Something to which you can cling during the dangers and storms of life.
SPOILERS
In short, I have just synopsized Passengers. This movie is a brilliant allegory about just such a meeting, discernment, set of crises, resolution, determination and resolve that describe the stages of coming together in a marriage – not just the wedding, but truly the union of two people through thick and thin who commit selflessly to each other to face the life and death trials the world – or space – can bring.

Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) and Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) are strangers. Passengers on a deep space colony ship whose 5,000 colonists and 100+ crew are put into hibernation for the length of a 120 year trip. 32 years into the journey the ship has an unexpected, unplanned run in with a comet storm which causes damage which triggers the opening of Jim’s pod. It also causes other damage which will not be fully noticed for another 2 years.  Jim finds himself alone on a 1,000 foot luxury cruise ship with every amenity except companionship. There is the quirky addition of an android bartender

(Michael Sheen) but that’s it. He spends much of his time for the first few months: trying to contact Earth (round trip answer to even his cry for help would take 55 years), accessing the bridge (NOTHING short of a proper access code will get him entry despite the fact he is a mechanical engineer), reading manuals, trying to reactivate his hibernation pod. Finally he resigns himself to at least enjoying the amenities on the ship but after another few months he begins the slow descent into madness. He ceases to care even about shaving or dressing and finally is inches away from suicide when he randomly, if not Providentially comes across Aurora’s pod. He checks out her video profile and the books she has written and falls in love with her humor, her writing and ultimately…her. He struggles for months with the idea of manually opening her pod – even consulting Arthur, but his desperation is too great and he does what he realizes is the unthinkable – he awakens Aurora 87 years too early.

And so the courtship begins. The details of how the potential tragedy plays out, what her reaction is when she finds out what Jim has done, the reason why Jim's pod opened to begin with, and the resolution to their relationship I will leave to your watching of this amazing film.
Suffice it to say that I was captivated by the special effects, delighted by the story and impressed with the acting of two Robinson Crusoes and their bartender “Friday”. Pratt and Lawrence were terrific and Sheen endearing.
But it was my husband who recognized the analogy to marriage – how two people, against odds, found each other. That despite the hundreds of people around them it was up to ONLY the two of them to make a life for themselves, to overcome seemingly overwhelming obstacles and to triumph by self sacrificing to and for each other, recognizing their union may require foregoing other possible choices, binding themselves only to each other, and spending the rest of their lives making a life with each other. The perfect analogy of a courtship and marriage.
My only regret is that religion was sanitized out of the equation. There were Biblical elements: Jim willing to lay down his life for Aurora. Aurora willing to forgive Jim completely and his life becoming her life. They ultimately chose to cleave to each other, despite the fact Aurora was provided, by Jim, with another option. But there were no visits to a chapel, no praying to God in what was emotional extremity for Jim. No acknowledgement of the Hand of God and His Providence in their miraculously timed awakenings, finding each other or escape from mortal peril. And that’s a shame. Because with inclusion of the recogniztion of God this marital analogy would have been raised to the level of a sacramental union. There was even a clergy of sorts in the form of a Senior crewman (Lawrence Fishburne), who stood in the way of Captain for a time and who – before his demise – gave his “blessing” to them.
Despite this lack Passengers is a lovely, inspirational movie about the adventure of two people who bond for life…and who bond FOR life.