MovieChat Forums > States of Grace (2014) Discussion > Problems with the final scene

Problems with the final scene

posted 18 years ago by blueshades99
12 replies | jump to latest

Maybe someone can enlighten me on the customs of Live Nativity Scenes. Having just welcomed a new baby in my life two days before watching SOG, I could only be horrified at seeing a baby passed from mother to strangers...including one who was having an emotional breakdown, as some sort of audience participation program. Is this a custom that is just foreign to my culture, or more of a storyteller's liberty? I could hardly get past that reaction to appreciate the scene, and as hard as I tried, the scene left me unfulfilled. Watching the DVD narrative, Dutcher states that the scene ties all the movie together, and represents a gift to Jesus. I understand the need to have the characters turn to the healing power of Jesus as a resolution to their struggles, but the baby passing, weeping, and kneeling didn't strike me as connection of comparable depth to the rest of the movie. Seeing Farrell cry at the breakfast table made me feel his shame to the core. It evoked similar feelings I have had to different internal struggles. The grouping of characters kneeling at the Nativity didn't bring me a contrasting feeling to that degree. Not to mention the unbelievability of a missionary being discharged from the hospital back to his own apartment and next door to his partner in a scandalous affair. He would have been at the Mission President's home, safely away from the scene. Again, I can accept that as storyteller's liberty, and I am just wishing I could LOVE the movie in its entirety, but it's not going to work out that way. Still a good movie experience, and I look forward to Dutcher's next work.

[–] freshguy54 18 years ago

Well the whole passing of the baby was just symbology really, it represented Christ power of forgiveness. That part really touched me. but some might misinterpret the scene differentley.

[–] saintforlife3-1 17 years ago

I didn't like the scene either.

[–] neonatalneoplasm 17 years ago

I loved the final scene. This was actually, in my opinion, the most powerful scene of the movie. Of course there is director's liberty taken in a movie - this is necessary to make the story occur as it needs to for the effect and storyline you are after. I thought it was perfect. Thanks Mr Dutcher, Well done!

[–] wrightofcenter 17 years ago

I loved the final scene. It wrapped things up nicely for me....well mostly. I'd like to see how/if Farrell and Holly get together and what struggles these two "outcasts" may have to face on their "walk" down the "straight and narrow path".

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wrightofcenter 17 years ago

It would be God's Army 2 1/2...Cuz it would continue with Ferrell and Holly. How they cope with their new life...Do they stay together?, Does she join the church? Does he leave the church? Where do they live? How do their families treat them? What do you tell the kids about how they met? etc.

Dutcher seems to be working against LDS stereotypes. The way he mixes art and reality is beautiful. And doing it without the sex,drugs, and foul language is refreshing.

God's Army III should be set in South America.

[–] dorislg11 17 years ago

I met a couple of missionaries who fell for each other and we heard through the grapevine, they didn't have a successful marriage. Also, my sister got involved with a missionary who taught her the gospel and after his mission was over, they got together and it was an unpleasant experience. Missionaries live in a spiritual world that is far removed from the real world. That is why there is a no fratinazation rule against getting involved with the opposite sex while on a mission. It is devastating coming home from a dishonarable mission. It affects your life forever. Same as leaving the military dishonerably. It sticks to you till the end.

I agree with the comment that in real missionary life, Farrell would never have been put back in the damaging scene next to the girl he loved. I think Richard Dutcher didn't want to pay for another set where Farrell would have been kept. He mentioned that he uses whatever free place he can to cut down on the budget. I am sure the missionaries great view apartment was either his or someone close to him who allowed him to use it. Also, Richard Dutcher likes to use the Pacific ocean as his baptizmal font for the same reason. It is more dramatic and doesn't involve a church meetinghouse which would give his movies more of an LDS image. I also, think there is a rule against filming a baptism. Normally, a new convert has to go through a more routine interview and must follow the word of wisdom and the law of tithing and be baptized in a meetinghouse baptizmal font. If there is no font available then they can use a pool, ocean or lake etc. I love all the Richard Dutcher films so far. He does push the Mormon envelope and makes powerful movies about the foibles and weaknesses of being human and vulnerable especially when we least expect it.

[–] sestra151 17 years ago

I know a missionary who is now home and engaged to a woman he met during his mission. I met her at a missionary reunion and she seems to be very nice. They'll be married in July. I have also known missionaries who say that would never happen with them. I don't care except that they be happy in their lives. Not all RMs make good husbands nor do all temple marriages last.

As for the baptismal interview, I loved when the former gang member (names escapes) asks the elder how he can be friends with whites and mexicans. A question I wish didn't need to be asked. Yes there are rote questions that need rote answers but then the drama wouldn't be there. Tithing isn't important if you can't change your mindset to begin with.

[–] soneil12 17 years ago

I assumed that the normal processes were followed but just not shown. For instance it indicates that they taught him all the missionary lessons so I'd assume they covered everything important but it just wasn't shown so the film wouldn't get bogged down. Similar with the interview. The others commented on how long they'd been in there and I'd been under the impression that Elder Banks had already concluded a fairly normal interview before adding the extra advice which isn't uncommon. Basically a case of only showing what was important for the story which I guess is good directing.

[–] BlainN 17 years ago

I think the point of this scene was how all of these people, from all of these backgrounds, were united by the experience of having the Savior in their midst as a symbol of God's love for them. Farrell is drawn to the baby, and, when he cries, he's not crying with shame -- he's crying because, after spending his whole life learning about the Gospel and going out on this mission to teach the Gospel, for the first time, he's beginning to understand the Gospel, because he's understanding that it's about him. The scene is not about the baby, it's about Jesus, and the baby's just there to help us see Jesus as he looks on this broken-hearted young boy and smiles at him. Jesus came into the world as that innocent little baby to be killed to pay the price for sins like those of Holly and Farrell. Not so they could commit those sins, but so they could be forgiven of them.

That's the Good News, and it's what the film is about. That, though our sins be scarlet, though we might be gang members or adulterous, alcoholic ministers or victims of pornography or stupid white-bread boys from SLC that let ourselves be overcome by lust, they can be made as snow by the blood of the Lamb of God.

The scene was awkward because it was slow, and the pacing just didn't work (sorry, Richard, but it didn't). And it's a little odd to think of someone giving over her baby to be held by strangers -- I'll grant you that, and I thought the same thing. But there was something going on there that was out of the ordinary, and I think the point was that she felt inspired to offer the baby to those people so that what happened could happen.

[–] streetballa_4 17 years ago

Hey, I'm just curious about what "white-bread boys from SLC" are. :-P

I loved the movie myself, that was the only seen that I wondered about a little bit, but hey, it's just a movie. When he knelt down and cried I felt it though. I might point out another little thing that would be against the rules, near the end when the missionaries were consoling the grandmother, they aren't allowing the house with just one woman. But it would be tedious to have a 3rd priesthood there in the movie and try to explain why there was another dude in the storyline. Haha.

[–] playa_central 17 years ago

I think the final scene was more about where each of those people were at that point in their life in their relationship with Christ. I didn't take the scene literally. As each of the strangers passed the baby around, you could see the expression in their face and it told a story about how they felt about where they were at that moment in their lives as their secular self and spiritual self converged. I completely understood the kneeling part. I, like you, was a bit confused until the point in the scene where Scott goes to place the baby in the manger and then pulls the baby back to him in an embrace. It was a moment of understanding and forgiveness and of re-connecting with Christ.

I confess, there was some not so great acting in this film mixed in with moments of absolute brilliance. I loved the man who played the street preacher - I kept thinking he was so believable I wouldn't be surprised to find out the story he told was true. Unlike a previous poster I would not label it a classic or a masterpiece, but I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is struggling with the material world and physical desires and the path of righteousness.

It was still a two hankie film for me!