Jump to content

XF:IWTB analysis (contains spoilers)

Rate this topic


Guest Laurent.

Recommended Posts

Guest Laurent.

I can't stop thinking about this movie, and I had to create this new topic to allow those who have seen it to share their views on the movie without having to avoid spoilers. So please be aware that there are major spoilers coming up!!!

*******************************

At first, I kept thinking about the opposition of Mulder's and Scully's beliefs and their fight against their own nature. I soon realized how well this movie is written despite the disappointing (for me) main plot. I believe that the movie is, at the start, a basic opposition between good and evil, both represented by a couple: Mulder and Scully vs the gay couple. (Now I'd really like it if we didn't start arguing about how weird it was to have the evil couple being a gay one...). And there's a gray character in the middle: father Joe. So basically we have two triangles of characters sharing the same types of inner struggle.

Mulder, Scully & Father Joe triangle: The basic oppositions of the series: faith, science, paranormal, love & human nature.

-Mulder is drawn to the paranormal investigation going on, but his nature soon cause a huge problem in his relationship with Scully.. He soon finds himself with the difficult decision of choosing between his obsession and his love for Scully.

-Scully is stuck with the same dilemma as in the series. She's a scientist, and her knowledge could save a young sick boy's life with a painful new treatment. But as the (religious) hospital administration puts it: maybe her science is crossing the line. How close to playing God, even with good intentions, can science go? This is basically the main question of the movie, using the very real ethical questions behind stem cell therapy.

-Father Joe's struggle is much more problematic (which is exactly why he's such a "gray" character as I said). He's a man of God, a man of faith, yet a convicted pedophile. As he mentions to Scully, he did not chose his sick inclinations, it wasn't even a choice. Can we then blame him for his sick nature to such an extent as to refuse the help he could bring in saving the FBI agent's life?

Evil couple & Father Joe triangle:

-The evil couple is revealed to be not that much evil in the end, more a dark mirror of Scully's struggle... How far can they go to save the dying man's life? Science is offering this extreme possibility to save a life, and enforced by their respective love for each other; I believe they thought their actions were justified. But in doing so their creating a monster: the dying man is obviously turning into a modern day Frankenstein, built my human nature, love and science.

-Father Joe's role in this triangle is also mostly one of a mirror, as he reflects a much more real creator of man-made monster. He believes his dark side (pedophilia) was forced upon him by a higher power, but this darkness that lives in him brought him to create a monster. In the end, he blames himself for what the dying man has become. Father Joe's actions (caused by his human nature; his pedophilia) created a monster (albeit more human) just as much as the couple's actions (also cause by their human nature; their love and will to survive) created one.

*******************************

Shit! I have to leave for my soccer game! Haha sorry. I'll post this right now and I hope you'll share your thoughts!

I have to say, I have some doubts how much Father Joe can blame himself for his actions. I'm not a psychologist, but I doubt that many victims of pedophilia are turned into "monsters". In fact, I find it a bit horrible to even ask the question (mainly because of my wrong choice of word). But Father Joe truly seem to believe he was to blame... he surely though he had created a monster.

In my review, I said that the main positive point of the movie's plot was its ambivalence, that it can be viewed from a paranormal, religious or scientific point of view. But I now find it to be so much more.

This is just a skeleton for future discussion. I'll be back. Hehe! See you later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.

Too tired to post anything new, I'll just quote an interesting post on Frank Spotnitz blog.

From fans to Frank Spotnitz:

HOMOPHOBIA?

Having been devoted fans of the "X-Files" for many years, we are absolutely horrified and repulsed by 'I Want to Believe's' rampant homophobia and transphobia. The shockingly interwoven chain of associations of pedophilia, gay lovers, gay marriage, transgenderism, misogyny, harvesting women's body parts, and utter evil -- including the most evil gay villain on the screen in many years -- is both infuriating and unforgiveable. We will most definitely encourage our friends, colleagues, students, allies, GLAAD, and the lgbt communities at large to boycott this outrageously offensive film and all "X-Files" products. Perhaps this will sound hyperbolic to you; perhaps you don't care what our communities think. You should know that we constitute a sizeable market, and, moreover, we make formidable opponents.

Randy & David

Answer from Frank Spotnitz:

"I Want To Believe" is meant to be about faith and love. It would make me very sad if this movie in any way furthers hatred of anyone or anything. While it's true the villains in this story happen to be gay, it was not our intention to suggest that being gay, transgender or a victim of pedophilia is in any way villainous. It should go without saying that nothing could be farther from the truth. The sexual orientation of the villains, their connection to Father Joe, and the motive for their crimes were all intended to deepen the mystery, not to make any kind of moral judgment. In truth, theirs is a love story that is meant to parallel Scully's story (the lengths that both will go to save a loved one, the not-so-coincidental overlap in scientific research, etc.). If we have offended anyone, you have my deepest apology.

I think FS covers some of the points I made, so as much as I hate the current discussions about IWTB being homophobic, I though it was relevant to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laran...thanks for the post, i have also been hearing whispers and reading vaporous accusations that the film is, to a degree, homophobic...i concur with FS in that i dont think, especially in the liberal environment Hollywood works in that any ill intent was intended or insinuated...its amazing what people will read into things these days...

4th Horseman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.

I know it's also considered anti-Church, not against religion but mostly the establishment that is the catholic religion. I don't care.

On the "homophobia" matter:

People are asking: If they're just evil killers (which they aren't), "why make them gay?" (actual quote from XFU). My answer would be: why not? More and more people are openly homosexuals, so it's statistically not that "out there" to make the kidnappers gay. And as long as it's not implied that their crimes are brought on by their sexual orientation, what's the problem? Especially as they're acting out of love in the movie! A good number of horror movies' serial killers are said to have been abused in their youth, which was the trigger of their psychological conditions. Now it's pretty much, to a degree, the same in this movie (but in IWTB it's a bit more interesting than that), so just because they're gay it's wrong? I believe that when you're truly cool with issues of race, sex and sexual orientation, you see the person for what they are (criminals or not) and not for their skin color, what they've got between their legs or what they like to see between the legs of others.... haha sorry that was a bit childish... blame my lack of vocabulary. I don't care if a movie's killer is a woman, a black person or a gay... it's not like the criminal population of the world is only made of average class, white men. In IWTB case, the fact that they're gay just hides to most people's eyes that their motives could be love. I for one did not see it coming... so my verdict: good decision.

(...)

Anyway, someone (Russ Oz) on the XFU boards mentioned an interesting imagery that I didn't caught, shame on me:

-the dogs i think are like the hounds from/of hell(IMO)

From what I know, they're closer to the hellhounds of greek mythology: two headed-dogs guarding the entrance to Hades, the world of the dead. Which would make Skinner some sort of half-god for saving a mere mortal, Mulder, from the underworld. Hahaha I like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.

But Spotnitz's Night Stalker Hellhounds had only one head!

And speaking of links to other episodes; I liked how they mentioned the Luther Lee Boggs' and Clyde Bruckman's X-Files, but am I the only one who felt that Father Joe's "psychic connection" to the kidnapper/murderer was in fact a lot more reminiscent of Mulder's "psychic connection" to the kidnapper/murderer (John Roche) in Paper Hearts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Spotnitz's Night Stalker Hellhounds had only one head!

And speaking of links to other episodes; I liked how they mentioned the Luther Lee Boggs' and Clyde Bruckman's X-Files, but am I the only one who felt that Father Joe's "psychic connection" to the kidnapper/murderer was in fact a lot more reminiscent of Mulder's "psychic connection" to the kidnapper/murderer (John Roche) in Paper Hearts?

I watched Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose last night and saw the similarities to IWTB. Was'nt able to figure out the connection between CLyde and the killer but Bruckman was like Father Joe in which he doesnt know why he has this ability.

Bruckman didnt like being able to see how people died and Father Joe didnt care for his gift also.

I thought that episode of the X-Files was different from psychic connection. Somehow Roche got inside Fox's head, this is actually one of my fav. episodes. Roche was F#*@#ing with Mulders head

I was also joking about the hellhounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Laurent.
I was also joking about the hellhounds

But I'm pretty sure the idea of the two-headed dog guarding the crime-scene was Spotnitz's idea... Maybe he just liked his Night Stalker's pilot so much that he decided to bring some elements over to IWTB. Thinking that nobody watched NS anyway. :doh:

About Paper Hearts, Mulder said to Roche that he was able to describe his memories of Samantha's abduction because of some nexus between them. Mulder's got into Roche's head to capture him in the first place, allowing Roche to similarly get into Mulder's own mind and seeing what Mulder saw. I think it's a lot like in IWTB where Father Joe basically sees only what the bald man saw, because of their strong connection. Eventually, dying at the exact same time because of that link.

Someone on the IMDB forums suggested that Father Joe's visions really came from God who wanted to give him a chance to atone for his sins (like Joe prayed for)... when his job was done, i.e. when the killer died, Father Joe could now die as he was forgiven.

Now how's that for scientific/religious/paranormal ambivalence? I say the script is genius, even though the main idea is a bit bland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laran, i agree 100% with you about Father Joe and the script. I loved this story completely. I didnt figure out the relationship between the organ transporter guy and the bald headed dude till way later. I have been actually thinking about why in the world are the Russians setting up a chop shop in the middle of nowhere? Is there a Russian community there, i believe so in order for Father Joe to have molested him. You know I can't wait to actually purchase this DVD. there are some scenes i would actually like to look at again. Back to the Russian Chop Shop, where they collecting body parts to put Fagin Woodcock back together again or where they harvesting the parts to sell? and whats the deal with that name Fagin Woodcock? what was the deal with Father Ybarra ears? they are huge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SeanDubh

Yeah, the first time I saw it I liked it but I felt like it was a bit of a mess, but the second time around it seemed so rich and everything seemed perfectly paced... I think my own expectations messed it up for me the first time, but on furthur viewing I was able to see what a great little film it was. Definately deserving of a second shot by the naysayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using our website you consent to our Terms of Use of service and Guidelines. These are available at all times via the menu and footer including our Privacy Policy policy.