Lately there has been some controversy among Christians about a new romantic drama called, "Me Before You."
I haven't seen the movie, I'll admit. And that's not just because of the controversy, but this also doesn't sound like the kind of movie I would go see in theaters anyway, being a single guy. What reason would I have?
Anyway, the controversy did inspire me to do some research on it. From what I can gather, this movie is based on a romance novel about a guy who can't stand being handicapped. He decides he wants to end his life, considering himself to be just a burden to everyone he knows. He meets a girl who wants to take him on a journey and show him that life is still worth living. In the end, he still decides to go through with physician-assisted suicide, and the girl respects his decision. The movie, from what I've read, paints this as a noble decision, freeing his parents and girl from having to worry about him.
Before I go on, I would like to point out that I, and probably a lot of other people, would have never heard of this movie if a lot of Christians hadn't been drawing a lot of attention to it. And, yes, I am fully aware of the irony of me talking about it now, but I'm only using it to make a bigger point about my feelings of movies in general.
It was no surprise that the Catholic Church condemned this movie. For those of you who don't know, the Catholic Church has a movie recommendations system that goes like this:
A-I: General Patronage ("Toy Story," "Finding Nemo")
A-II: Adolescents and Adults ("The Sandlot," "Ferris Bueller's Day Off")
A-III: Adults ("Slumdog Millionaire," "Forrest Gump")
A-IV/L: Adults, with certain cautions ("The Shawshank Redemption," "Braveheart")
O: Morally Offensive ("A Clockwork Orange," "The Wolf of Wall Street")
"Me Before You" was given an O because of its seemingly positive depiction of euthanasia. Nobody was surprised by this, but here's my question: Would the movie be so controversial if it portrayed this matter in a different way? Let's look at another film which contains the voluntary death of a main character.
In "The Green Mile," a Depression-era Death Row film, we see a man who is falsely accused of the rape and murder of twin girls and sentenced to death. The guards learn that this gentle giant is an innocent man and later offer to let him go. The man, John Coffey, refuses. What did the Catholic Bishops think of this one? They praised it! They gave it an A-III, which means they feel safe recommending it for every adult. Not only that, but they also cited the film as one of their favorite films of 1999!
So, why was this one praised while "Me Before You" was condemned? For one thing, it's pretty common knowledge that the story of John Coffey is a not-so-veiled retelling of the story of Jesus. Like Christ, Coffey also has powers to heal, possesses a kind heart and willingly goes to his death for another's crimes. But, even leaving the religious symbolism out of the equation, this movie portrays the death in a very different light. Whereas "Me Before You" romanticizes euthanasia (and probably makes other handicapped people wonder if they should take themselves out), this one rightfully portrays the death penalty in a tragic light. Tom Hanks' character, Paul Edgecomb, tells us that after Coffey's execution, he and one of his buddies had to quit working on the "Mile." They just couldn't handle it anymore. Paul even says at one point, "On the day of my judgment, when I stand before God, and He asks me why did I kill one of his true miracles, what am I gonna say? That it was my job? My job?" God disapproves. What more proof do we need of this movie's intentions? While "Me Before You" is an agenda-driven euthanasia commercial (which if you think about it, is totally inconsistent with its initial plot of her trying to help him!), "The Green Mile" strives to be a well-crafted human drama that paints a very sobering picture of the reality of capital punishment. Seriously, nobody is pretending the ending of "The Green Mile" is happy. In fact, it's one of the saddest scenes in cinematic history!
So, it becomes not so much a problem of content, but context. Would "Me Before You" be looked upon more favorably if it showed the same story in a different light? Well, I can only speculate, but I'm guessing it probably wouldn't have been as much of a controversial lightning rod!
You could apply this to other pairs of movies, as well:
"Fifty Shades of Grey" vs. "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo": While neither would be appropriate family viewing, there is a difference. "Fifty Shades" invites you to revel in BDSM, while "Dragon Tattoo" is a riveting crime thriller that presents rape and other crimes against women as the horrors that they are and paints the men who do these things as the worst sorts of monsters.
"Million Dollar Baby" vs. "Gran Torino": Going back to the death thing, "Million Dollar Baby" has euthanasia as a deliverance as well. "Gran Torino," on the other hand, uses the voluntary death as a self-sacrifice to help out other people who are in danger.
And so on...
So, there is nothing wrong with portraying problematic content in media. It all depends on what your intentions are in doing so. Is it to show it for the sake of telling a good story and inviting viewers to think about why this content is problematic, or is it to OK bad things and push an agenda? It's all about considering context!
