From: cksvih01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: The Rapture ** SPOILER ** 
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:12:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.102709.8199@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> Mark B. Bendiksen writes:
>>
>>Robert McAulay writes:
>>
>>                                                                
>>>What the hell was this?  Some gratuitous sex at the start to attract
>>>the viewers and then some disconnected, badly acted and
>>>horribly frustrating scenes to finish.  I remember that the idea
>>>interested me at first, the imminent return of God and the fact
>>>that only a select group of people knew about it, but then it
>>>deteriorated into... I don't know what.                                      
>>>Any comments out there?  Did anyone like this movie?  Did
>>>anyone get a coherent message out of it?  I'd like to know what
>>>Ebert saw in it.
>>                                                  
>>>Mike. 
>>
>>I haven't yet seen the film, but as I recall Ebert really
>>admired the film on account of Mimi Rogers' performance more
>>than anything else. He kept rambling on about how Ms. Rogers
>>really took a risk by taking such a role that no other actress
>>in Hollywood wanted, etc. In fact, I don't remember him saying
>>anything substantial about the film itself.
>>
> Rogers was very good as the icy woman searching for something better.
> The movie's "message" seems grounded in the 19th century's reaction
> to the crumbling belief in an all good God: the Great Refusal. Basically,
> with sciences like biology and geology pointing out that "evil" (sickness,
> old age, death, the suffering of innocents, etc) were part of God's Plan then 
> He had better have a good explanation and some pretty darn good excuses
> when Judgment Day rolled around. Mimi played a woman who couldn't accept
> the traditional explanations and preferred to Just Say No. Even with
> Eternity on the line. Basically, it would have been a pretty racy film
> back in 1947 when Existentialism and bad coffee were all the rage.
> As it turned out, Rogers' performance is the highlight of the film.
> -- 
> Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Older than before.

I, too, liked Rogers' performance.  In Ebert's written review, he also cites
the film as being thought-provoking, sending its audience to argue out in the
streets, or perhaps over a cup of the bad coffee Mr. Davis cites.  Ebert is a
big fan of Mimi's, I think - read his comments on her small role in "The Mighty
Quinn" sometime - so maybe his praise of the film should include that filter.
I thought the film was a decent exploration of the emptiness of Rogers' life,
both before and after her conversion.  She goes from seeking fulfillment from
sharing sex with strangers, to seeking fulfillment in sharing religion with 
strangers.  In both cases, she surrenders her control and abdicates her personal
responsibility.  I saw the last part of the film as a hallucinatory episode
existing entirely within her mind.  I wish they'd have ended it a bit
differently - she never seems to accept the responsibility for her daughter's
death which is most assuredly hers and hers alone - but it's still better than
your standard car chase and freeze-frame-to-a-grin finale, which poses no
philosophical question other than "Why doesn't the Earth open and swallow
the purveyors of this tripe?"              

_______________________________________________________________________________
C. Kurt Svihla                            |                                   |
cksvih01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu            | "Just another Piece of the Main." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies