I saw the movie Fireproof a few months back and wasn't as impressed as the greater Christian community seems to be. Although I know it set out to do the opposite, I think it leaves the audience with a distorted view of the nature of marriage.
People I've talked to are inspired by the movie, expecting the main characters to stay married. But to me, it's not at all clear that their relationship going forward won't still be built upon a foundation of sand.
I have no beefs with the husband. He admirably stepped up to the plate and worked on issues in his life and in his marriage.
But we see his wife leave when (and because) her husband's behavior resides on the "worse" side of the "for better or for worse" ledger, and return when his behavior improves. The wife's transformation, if you want to call it that, comes across to me as merely a response to being loved and pursued. Perhaps she actually responded to her husband's change by repenting of her unfaithfulness and her embrace of a worldly, conditional view of marriage (as her husband did). But we aren't shown that.
That detail, I would argue, is pivotal. It is the difference between pursuing happiness and pursuing what's right. Those that place happiness over doing what's right are not likely going to stay married. "For better or for worse" becomes "as long as things are going well." And I have yet to hear of a marriage that hasn't had periods of "worse."
Regarding where we leave the couple at the end of the film: What is going to happen when their second honeymoon phase is over? The movie seems to imply that becoming a Christian means the honeymoon won't end. But that simply isn't true.
There is no substitute for willfully keeping one's vows in spite of the temptation to do otherwise. In the husband's case, we see that Christ empowered him to do that. We don't see that in his wife.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mike,
As in any movie you cannot cover every element and play it all out on the screen. In regards to Kat and her husband they are shown standing before the cross and and I believe we can assume that Caleb is sharing his faith with his wife and also the mutual re commitment of their voes to each other in the last scene.
As a result of this film 100s of marriages and been saved.
> As in any movie you cannot cover every element and play it all out on the screen.
That is true. However, the audience was certainly privy to seeing a lot of what was going on in the wife's life. I can envision the same movie where the wife wasn't caught up in infidelity herself, in which case, there wouldn't be the need for a shift on her part from conditional to unconditional commitment.
But this movie was a realistic representation of how things sometimes transpire in these situations. The impression I got was that the only thing needed in the situation was for the guy to become consistently unselfish and woo his wife back. The path I've walked in life underlines the fact that one party's commitment and efforts are not adequate to restore a marriage. It may act as a catalyst, but it is not enough.
I can see an audience downplaying the wife's sin because of the empathy they feel for her in regard to the angry treatment she received. When harmed we can fall into thinking, "Because I was treated this way, it is somewhat understandable I got caught up in infidelity. I haven't really violated anything (my marriage vow) or anyone (God and my spouse)." But that reaction is as much, as the movie says, "leaving one's partner behind" as the husband's actions. And that kind of conditional attitude can even co-exist with a reconciliation (or a conversion, for that matter), like a disease in remission.
By making the wife's character unfaithful, and then not overtly addressing this issue, I think the filmmakers made an error in judgment.
Post a Comment