Sundance Movie Review: THE LEDGE

Writer/director, author and famous atheist Matthew Chapman’s movie The Ledge is one of the many films here at Sundance that deals with issues of faith. In this case, the villian in the movie is the fundamentalist Christian Joe, a wooden, creepy man who can’t help himself but to pound his faith into his atheist neighbor, the good-looking Gavin. To get even, and because he thinks she’s hot, Gavin begins to woo Joe’s unhappy but beautiful wife Shayna.

It works. Gavin gets the girl. But Joe wants to get even. He warns Gavin that Jesus didn’t cast any stones because the woman didn’t sin anymore; i.e., if Gavin quits sinning, he can live. But inexplicably, this isn’t enough for Joe, so he decides to hold Shayna hostage at gunpoint unless Gavin jumps of the top of a tall building. He has until noon to decide.

If Higher Ground was admirable for its depth, honestly and poignancy about crisises of faith, The Ledge was absurd and clumsy in its exploration of “what do you love so much you would die for?” question that Joe keeps asking. The character of Joe was absolutely one of the worst portrayals of a Christian that The Burner has ever seen. Vindictive, judgmental, self-righteous and psychotic, Joe balanced these traits out with some semi-believable prayers for forgiveness or guidance. The same characteristics could be said for protagonist Gavin, except that it is clear that his motives are to be judged as more honorable and laudable as compared to the hypocritical Joe.

It falls flat. The dialogue is laughable, the story uneven and forced and hope that it becomes an “reverse Passion of the Christ” and angry response to fundamentalist Christianity’s crimes against the GLBT community (the stated goals of director Chapman) is as illogical and untenable a hope for a movie as TB can imagine.

What is most sad about the film however, is that the attitude and preponderance of anti-religious themes becomes the foundation and the icing for the story–and who wants cement icing? Chapman uses this film as a polemic against all that he personally detests. It kills the movie along with an interesting question: “What would you die for?”

TB hopes to share a post on Monday about what happened during the post-film discussion with Chapman–the end of which was the most poignant, beautiful, meaningful and memorable experience of the whole week. Stay tuned.

 


  • 01-29-11
  • Print Print
 
 
  • Jessica

    I am just curious, seeing that this blog is almost as cynical and angry as the film itself, to know how we can respond to a film that embodies the very rejection we encounter on a daily basis. Fighting anger with anger, fire with fire gets us nowhere. I was touched to hear that one of my friends stood up during Q&A and responded with humility and grace to say, “I’m sorry.” Obviously the filmmaker is not making up bullshit but using real life disappointments and hurt to color this picture. As a pastor, a film like this convicts and challenges me to live a life of humility seeing each and every person as part of God’s creation.

  • http://theburnerblog.com theburnerblog

    Which parts of the post did you find to be cynical and angry? Let’s discuss.

  • Jessica

    I suppose the conversation is a bit unfair because I have not seen this movie myself. But, for fairness you say “The Ledge was absurd and clumsy in its exploration of ‘what do you love so much you would die for?’” Please explain more about how absurd or clumsy this may have been.

    Secondarily you write, “the character of Joe was absolutely one of the worst portrayals of a Christian…” I am assuming the director was using some pretty personal and realistic fodder for creating such a character, even if it was exaggerated for effect. The “reality” is not in the precision of how a character is portrayed but more the affect the character has on the viewer–the director seems to have been pretty convincing.

    I would appreciate you work with the film on the film’s terms to build an argument about how we can respond. It just seems that this blog is fairly critical in it’s estimation of the film. If you didn’t like it tell me why YOU didn’t like it, don’t tell me it just sucks.

  • http://theburnerblog.com theburnerblog

    One should care about his or her characters when writing the script; it seemed as if the character of Joe was merely there to be a villain and nothing more. He had no depth, no complications, no believable impulse for his character to do the things he did. His actions did not fit his professed belief system, just as a caricature is not identical to its inspiration.

    With regard to the absurdity and clumsiness of the theme of the movie, the protagonist Gavin was just as malicious and manipulative as the villain. To expect one to root for a hero that resembles the villian is absurd, as is the setup about a man on a ledge. Why didn’t the police figure out why he was up there? Where they stupid? The clumsiness came from a supposed love story about a hero bravely giving his life for his love and his beliefs. Instead, it truly played as a tragedy about the misunderstanding and myopia that deeply held beliefs can cause.

    The Burner agrees for civility in discussion about all beliefs, and you are correct that the tone of the blog might have been ironic considering other posts TB has written on the subject of civility. If the tone is what you say, then TB apologizes.

  • Cortes

    Nice review : ) Keep it up.