Pete's Blog

A really, really amateur review. And it's long. Be warned. (At least I had fun writing it.)

Mona Lisa Smile (2003), directed by Mike Newell, with Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and others, acting in it.

I want to write something about this movie, because it really made me think. But first off, what motivated me to watch it: When it came out back in 2003 (before I was a Christian), I thought that it had such a long cast of well known actresses that it must be worth watching. But I never got around to it. Then, this week it appeared as one of the 99¢ rentals of the week on iTunes. So I decided to not miss the opportunity.

I can't make any analysis of the acting. There have been many times in the past where I've heard that someone's acting was terrible, and I thought it was fine (e.g., Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones), and other times where I've heard that someone's acting was fantastic and again, I thought it was (just) fine (e.g., Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind). The only time that I am confident in my evaluation of some acting, is when I think it's bad. If I think it's bad, it's definitely bad. Suffice it to say, the acting in Mona Lisa Smile was fine.

As a brief synopsis, Katherine Ann Watson (played by Julia Roberts) moved from California to Massachusetts (I think it was never explicitly stated that it was in Massachusetts, but there was a reference that made it seem to me that Harvard was nearby, but I could be completely wrong on this whole parenthetical note) to teach at a women's college named Wellesley. It's a school that was designed to enable women to be able to get a degree while they wait to get married and become house wives. Wellesley was highly traditional and tremendously scared to be challenged on its convictions.

Miss Watson moved to Massachusetts (I'm going to take for granted from now on that it is Massachusetts, but feel free to correct me) to teach history of art at the school. When she got there, though, she started challenging the status quo of all the students expecting to get married and give up any independence in order to serve their husbands.

That's it for the synopsis. Sorry for not being a better storyteller. Watch the movie if you're curious.

I'm going to start with the bad stuff because I want to get it over with and get to the good stuff. The fact that I am stating some bad things about the movie does not mean I disliked it. On the contrary, the movie had me nearly going to pull my hair out a few times, but mostly I felt really entrenched in thought (that's a good thing, in my mind).

The bad: The movie has this feel to it that sex is okay, regardless of relationship status, as long as two people consent, and that the only people who save sex for marriage are prudes.

Second, the liberal/progressive Katherine Watson's philosophy was challenged at every turn by Betty Warren (eventually Betty Jones when she marries Spencer Jones; she was played by Kirsten Dunst). What was bad about this was that it was not a good counterpoint. Miss Warren's arguments were always weaker than they could have been. It felt like the movie was setting up a straw man in Betty Warren to make it appear balanced.

That's it for the bad. Now for the good.

The movie challenged misogyny. Men are not women's rulers. Men do not have a right to cheat on their wives, much less to cheat on them and then cover it up with no consequence. I was happy that Miss Watson fought for women's rights.

Next: One of my two favourite scenes in the movie happened when Betty Warren was viciously attacking Giselle Levy (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal), calling her a prostitute in a variety of ways. (Miss Levy was very promiscuous in the movie and Betty Warren, for whatever reason, held it against her.) As this verbal assault progressed, Giselle approached Betty. Everything, from our past experience, to the look on Giselle's face, to the pace of the music, suggested that Giselle was going to hit Betty for causing her so much pain. But the most unexpected thing happens: grace.

Instead of slapping, punching, kicking or hair pulling, Giselle embraces Betty in a sisterly hug. Giselle had the wisdom to see that Betty was acting so harshly out of pain (Betty was typically harsh, but in this scene it appeared she wanted to cause pain in another). It was amazing. It was like grace was something you could touch. It was something to aspire to. Giselle did the exact opposite of what Betty deserved. It was God-like. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rm. 5:8).

The other fantastic scene was a dialogue between Joan Brandwyn (played by Julia Stiles) and Miss Watson. Miss Watson had tried to convince Miss Brandwyn to go to law school, but instead, the latter decided to become a stay-at-home wife. This dialogue takes place shortly after Miss Watson's discovery of this decision. It's worth quoting the whole dialogue here:

Katherine Watson: There are seven law schools within 45 minutes of Philadelphia. You can study and get dinner on the table by 5:00.
Joan Brandwyn: It's too late.
Katherine Watson: No, some of them accept late admissions! Now, I was upset at first, I can tell you that. When Tommy came to me at the dance and told me he was accepted to Penn, I thought, 'Oh God, her fate is sealed! She's worked so hard, how can she throw it all away?' But then I realized you won't have to! You can bake your cake and eat it too! It's just wonderful!
Joan Brandwyn: We're married. We eloped over the weekend. Turned out he was petrified of a bit ceremony, so we did a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. Very romantic.
[Katherine is stunned]
Joan Brandwyn: It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it.
Katherine Watson: But you don't have to choose!
Joan Brandwyn: No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice.
Katherine Watson: No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both.
Joan Brandwyn: Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?
Katherine Watson: Yes, I'm afraid that you will.
Joan Brandwyn: Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you.
Katherine Watson: I didn't say that.
Joan Brandwyn: Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want.

Miss Brandwyn's comments here were very important (as this dialogue evidences, she was married at this point, so she was technically Mrs. Donegal, but throughout the majority of the movie she was yet unmarried, so she remains with the name "Miss Brandwyn" in my review). Miss Watson's feminism was far more extreme than I think is healthy by biblical standards. Yet, I don't hold this against the movie because of this dialogue. Miss Brandwyn does a fantastic job of pointing out just how patronizing Miss Watson really was.

The whole movie Watson was trying to say that it was bad for women to be expected to be house wives. But Miss Brandwyn boldly stated that there was nothing wrong with a woman desiring to stay at home and manage her household. I appreciated that she showed how Miss Watson was trying to get other women to live her vision of womanhood, instead of fighting genuinely for women's freedom.

I appreciated that the movie did not portray Katherine Watson as perfect. It made her more real. If she had been perfect, she would have been easier to attack.

For example, at the beginning of the movie, Bill Dunbar (played by Dominic West) is hitting on her and when he finds out that she has a boyfriend he says that if he were her boyfriend, he'd never have let her get away. Her response was that he wouldn't have a say in the matter. When I heard that I began questioning what sort of relationship she was in. As I understand it, a relationship should develop with each invested party taking the other into consideration. Anyway, I thought that Katherine Watson's lifestyle was what the movie was suggesting was right for women to live by, but she wasn't perfect, so I can't conclude decisively that she was the filmmakers' model woman.

[Spoiler in the following paragraph.]

Upon further consideration of this, there were many different women seeking different lifestyles throughout the movie. There was a lesbian (I haven't talked about her in this review), a smart, competent woman who chose to be a stay-at-home wife (i.e., Miss Brandwyn), a woman who got a divorce (i.e., Miss Warren), and, of course, a progressive liberal feminist (i.e., Miss Watson). Given this array, I need to conclude that the filmmakers' thesis was to genuinely endorse any decision an individual woman makes, and that she shouldn't feel pressure from anyone to fit into a specific mould.

Obviously to a certain extent I take issue with this thesis. Namely, I do not condone divorce or homosexuality or the putting off of marriage. That said, I certainly agree with the thesis that all people (yes, I'm extending the thesis to all women and men) should make their own decisions (but here I'm going to modify the given thesis)—within the framework of biblical principles, of course—and not necessarily do what is expected of them.

At the very least, the movie will get you thinking about these things. Very interesting. Do I think everyone should watch it? No. But it's worth watching, nonetheless.

"Susan, Eve's Daughter," said Father Christmas. "These are for you," and he handed her a bow and a quiver full of arrows and a little ivory horn. "You must use the bow only in great need," he said, "for I do not mean you to fight in the battle. It does not easily miss. And when you put this horn to your lips and blow it, then, wherever you are, I think help of some kind will come to you."

Last of all he said, "Lucy, Eve's Daughter," and Lucy came forward. He gave her a little bottle of what looked like glass (but people said afterwards that it was made of diamond) and a small dagger. "In this bottle," he said, "there is a cordial made of the juice of one of the fire-flowers that grow in the mountains of the sun. If you or any of your friends is hurt, a few drops of this restore them. And the dagger is to defend yourself at a great need. For you also are not to be in the battle."

"Why, sir?" said Lucy. "I think—I don't know—but I think I could be brave enough."

"That's not the point," he said. "But battles are ugly when women fight. . . ."

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 160. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, chapter 10.

I don't really have any comment on this one. I do find it interesting that he included this bit (which is not to say at all that I disagree with the sentiment). I wonder whether Great Britain in the Second World War had some controversy going on over women going into combat.

There isn't a Bible verse to point to that explicitly says that only men are to go into battle. But when you read the OT, it's only men who are sent to fight.

On this subject, Mohler has written,

From a Christian perspective, the concern about women in combat goes far beyond the pollsters' questions. If we truly believe that God created men and women for different but complementary roles and shows his glory in the faithfulness of men as primary protectors and women as primary nurturers, the entry of women into combat roles is an open rejection of God's purpose. As military historians document, every society throughout history has normalized the military service of men. Though women have known combat in isolated cases throughout history, the fact that such cases are rare is the exception that proves the rule. This wisdom is part of general revelation and thus the moral wisdom shared by virtually all cultures.

When women are injected into combat, the dignity of women is undermined. In the extreme conditions of combat, women are exposed to the very worst that human beings can do and a physical violence that exceeds the imagination. There is no shortage of arguments against this practice. Biological arguments document differences of physical strength and stamina. Psychological arguments consider not only the psychological profile of women in combat but the difference the presence of women makes on men fighting alongside them. Sociological arguments and economic considerations focus on the costs of women in combat roles. These arguments are important, but not ultimate.

It's neat that when I was public school kid, we had to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Hopefully that'll keep happening and kids will keep being exposed to Lewis' Christian worldview.

--

I do concede that Jael found herself in combat engaged (Jd. 4), but she wasn't sent into battle. Are there any other examples of women in combat in the Bible?

On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." (Lk. 17:11-19)

I would be so bold as to guess that all the readers of my blog have heard this story before (and if not all then certainly most). It's always nice seeing new things in the Bible that you didn't notice before. I wish that I were smart enough or observant enough to have come up with this on my own, but I make no claim of originality for the following thought:

After the one leper returns (v. 15) he bows down to Jesus (v. 16). When I imagine a scene where a subject goes to his king, he bows down, then the king immediately invites him to rise. Jesus didn't in this case. While the cleansed-leper was bowing Jesus pondered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Only after pondering this out loud did Jesus then invite the man to rise.

I heard this in a lecture by Dr. Daniel Doriani, former professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (he's now a pastor), in his course on the gospels, which can be found on iTunes U. Dr. Doriani's point was that Jesus had no problem being bowed down to. He was comfortable with it. He truly thought He was worthy of worship.