5th 04 - 2011 | 7 comments »

TOERIFC Returns April 6!

By Marilyn Ferdinand

Some of you may remember that Greg Ferrara, Rick Olson, and I started a film club a while back called The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club. It lasted for about a year, when life intruded on hobby and sent the club into limbo. Now, the energetic Adam Zanzie of Icebox Movies has shaken the wooly mammoth from its deep freeze. His discussion of Hall Bartlett’s 1973 adaptation of Richard Bach’s 1970 philosophical novella Jonathan Livingston Seagull begins tomorrow. You still have time to rent and watch the movie. I saw it last night, and think this film will generate some fascinating discussion on nature, religion, and the hippie ethos—and that’s just for starters. See you tomorrow at Icebox Movies!

21st 03 - 2010 | 61 comments »

TOERIFC: The Rapture (1991)

Director/Screenwriter: Michael Tolkin


By Marilyn Ferdinand

The 1980s and 90s were an interesting time, a time when the pendulum swung away from the rebellion and hedonism of the 1960s and 70s. In many countries, and especially in an already religiously oriented United States, God and traditional religion made a big comeback in the larger culture. On television, religiously oriented shows, previously confined to Sunday-morning children’s programming and preachy talking-heads discussions like “30 Good Minutes,” were developed for prime time. Dramas like “Highway to Heaven,” “Touched by an Angel,” and “Seventh Heaven” became big and enduring hits. Yet, while these shows were unabashed in their faith in God and angels, they followed the television formula of wrapping conflict up in a tidy bow by the end of the hour, leaving a warm afterglow of harmony and goodness without really engaging religious dogma and belief.

The big screen was slower to get on the religious bandwagon, and when it did, the films that resulted (for example, Dogma and Michael) engaged in feeble mocking of sanitized religion without really challenging it, or exploited scripture for titillation, as with Mel Gibson’s graphic The Passion of the Christ. Eventually, a subgenre of religious films that follow the television formula was established, with The Blind Side reaching the pinnacle of recognition for these efforts.

To my mind, the only film to come out of this period that truly, literally wrestles with scripture itself—not morality, not social problems, not biblical stories—is Michael Tolkin’s dramatic and thought-provoking The Rapture. Combining the apocalyptic predictions from The Revelation of John with a brand of evangelical Christianity, Tolkin explores the journey of a woman who literally fills her emptiness with belief in and love of God and Jesus Christ in the final few years before the end of the world.

Sharon (Mimi Rogers) is a directory-assistance operator who lives in Los Angeles and works in a windowless room of cubicles fielding hundreds of calls for phone numbers with a rote rapidity that make us feel as numb as Sharon looks. Sharon spices up her life after hours cruising with her male friend Vic (Patrick Bauchau) for couples to have sex with. They end up in a downscale bar, where they pick up Randy (David Duchovny) and Paula (Terri Hanauer). Tolkin lets us in on the preliminaries to sex, as Paula dances topless, and Randy, Paula, and Sharon eventually tumble into bed as Vic watches.

At work, Sharon becomes curious when she hears three coworkers talking about “the boy” in the lunchroom. One night, she and Vic meet a pair of married swingers. When the woman unzips her dress, she reveals an elaborate tattoo crowned with a pearl that fascinates Sharon so much that she ignores the husband grinding away at her and asks the woman, Angie (Carole Davis), about it. Angie says, “Don’t you know?” and then says the pearl is a sign that the Rapture is coming, and Christians everywhere are dreaming about it.

Sharon has started to see Randy regularly, though she’s dissatisfied with mere sex and wants to discuss her deeper problems of pain and emptiness. One night, she dreams of the pearl and overnight realizes a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In her uplifted zeal, she tries to convert the people who call her for phone numbers at work. When she starts proselytizing to Randy he retorts angily, “You hate your job; you hate your life; but you want to feel special. Instead of letting me do that, you’re rushing off to something that’s not even there.” Yet, Sharon meets people who believe in the coming apocalypse, including her boss (Dick Anthony Williams), who takes her to meet the boy (DeVaughn Nixon), a prophet who interprets God’s signs.

Six years pass. Randy and Sharon have married, have had a daughter they named Mary (Kimberly Cullum), and have devoted themselves to God. The boy is a teen now (Christian Benavis) and says the Rapture will be upon them within the year. Randy fires an incompetent employee who later comes back and shoots him and several other employees dead. Sharon hardly seems to grieve, believing that Randy is with God and that she and Mary will see him again very soon when the apocalypse comes. Yet, she sees photos of Randy beckoning her to come meet him in the desert. Certain that she and Mary have been called early, she drives them out to Vasquez Rocks County Park where they pray daily to ascend.

Only they aren’t taken. After more than two weeks, they run out of food. Mary asks Sharon why they can’t just take matters into their own hands and die. Mary, pleading how much she wants to see her daddy, how much she loves God, and how she doesn’t want to wait, eventually persuades Sharon to shoot her. Sharon, crying, fires the fatal shot, but hesitates to kill herself because suicides don’t get into Heaven. She is arrested for murder by the cop (Will Patton) who has been keeping an eye on her and Mary in the park and thrown in a holding cell. Then the first sounding of Gabriel’s horn rings out, announcing Judgment Day, the day Sharon has been waiting and praying for. And despite this, despite the evidence of her own eyes that God and Heaven exist, Sharon chooses to deny God and remain in the darkness. Forever.

The Rapture is a remarkable film that avoids the mundane, the extraneous. It’s not important how Randy and Sharon decide to keep seeing each other after their initial hook-up. Randy’s conversion isn’t important either. This isn’t a story about a couple or even a corrupt world. It is a story about faith—why people seek it, how they find it, and how they lose it.

Sharon’s desperately empty life is communicated economically. Her office environment is characterless and grey, her home spare and provisional, and her relationship with Vic, about whom we neither know nor need to know much, loose and convenient. The stepping stones to her conversion are in plain view, but she can’t pretend she has seen the light until she actually has. Mimi Rogers’ entire demeanor changes the morning after she dreams of the pearl, moving from an affectless shadow to a woman glowing with happiness and self-possession. Her conversation with Vic about falling in love with Jesus is coy, in the language the pair understood before Sharon’s conversion. It’s a clever scene played with conviction that sets up Sharon’s future actions.

Rogers’ sincere central performance makes the questions Sharon asks worth considering, even for an atheist like me, because they are asked without irony from a place of deep yearning. Why do we have to suffer the pain of the world? Why does salvation have to come through Jesus Christ and not any of the other world religions? Why does God demand that we love Him? Tolkin doesn’t answer the questions he poses with reason, but rather by showing that the prophesies of John were true. The apocalypse does come as it was foretold, therefore Christianity is the only true religion. Tolkin’s depiction of the darkness enveloping the world is eerie. Close-up shots of hooves and their hollow clopping stir a real terror before we share with Sharon the dread sight of Death perched upon its white horse, its scythe at the ready. When Sharon makes her fateful decision to refuse God, then, we really feel the gravity of that decision whether or not we are Christian believers. Tolkin’s Rapture is a persuasive cinematic tour de force.

But what of Sharon’s decision? All she has to say is that she loves God and she will never be parted from her beloved daughter and husband again. Is God’s decision to let her kill her daughter really so grievous considering that He overrules His own law against murder to give her a chance to enter Heaven? Was it even God who put her in the desert in the first place? The boy prophet said that Sharon’s visions of her husband in the desert might have been the work of the Devil. Who was Sharon to decide that it wasn’t?

The Rapture dignifies free will even as it ruefully illustrates the disasters of pride. Killing Mary ruptures something in Sharon that had gotten shaky as she waited in vain for God to call them to Him. Is faith that fragile, or is it asking too much for a mother to abandon concern for her child? Humans live in the world, not in eternity, and a loving mother does not want to see her child go hungry, does not want to see her child die before her, and certainly does not want to be the instrument of that death. When faced with what seems like the petulance and immaturity of a god who demands to be loved, Sharon can only protest His cruelty and His pride through refusal.

Although John is a New Testament book, the God of the Revelation is the God of the Torah, who shares a good deal in common with the Greek and Roman gods. That is, the God of Israel is vain, demanding, cruel, capricious, and not as loving of His creations as they are of Him. It has been said that a person who marries for money pays for it every day of married life. Had Sharon accepted the riches of God without feeling love, she would have paid for all eternity. Her choice, to accept the happiness she had before the desert as enough, was, in fact, the right one.

Of God and Sharon, Sharon is by far the better parent. And if our goodness is known by how we treat the least among us, Sharon is the one who belongs in Heaven, not God.

16th 03 - 2010 | 1 comment »

TOERIFC’s March Movie: The Rapture (1991)

By Marilyn Ferdinand

“What if everything those blessed-out, door-to-door Bible thumpers claimed was true? What if the end really is nigh, and those who don’t repent and pledge their souls to the Lord are subject to His wrath?” asks Scott Tobias in his review of Michael Tolkin’s audacious directorial debut The Rapture.

Join The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club Monday, March 22, 9 a.m. CT, right here at Ferdy on Films as we discuss this controversial look at hedonism, faith, and the end of the world. All you have to do is watch the movie before the discussion and show up with your thoughts and ideas. We’re looking forward to seeing you! l

16th 06 - 2009 | 2 comments »

TOERIFC: Someone to Love (1987)


By Marilyn Ferdinand

Philosophy, sophistry, symbolism, and 1980s fashion disaster. Henry Jaglom’s Someone to Love’s got it all and Orson Welles, too. Join The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club Wednesday, June 17, over at Flickhead as we take up the middle film of Henry Jaglom’s navel-gazing trilogy starring himself and all his friends. Don’t worry if you haven’t seen the film; you can’t be any more confused about it than I am. l

17th 05 - 2009 | no comment »

TOERIFC: Dancer in the Dark


The TOERIFC Movie for May: Dancer in the Dark (2000)
By Marilyn Ferdinand
Pat at Doodad Kind of Town has chosen a doozy for the May discussion of The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club. Having just finished watching Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark for the first time, my head is just swimming with thoughts, impressions, feelings, and opinions I can’t wait to share with my fellow TOERIFC members and all interested comers. If you know this film or want to see what TOERIFC is all about, show up at Pat’s place Monday morning. Our previous club meetings have been lively, opinionated, fun, and enlightening. We welcome EVERYONE to take a spin around this dance floor.

20th 04 - 2009 | no comment »

TOERIFC’s April Movie: The Serpent’s Egg (1977)


It’s Hatching TODAY


The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club’s discussion of Ingmar Bergman’s The Serpent’s Egg starts today at 10 a.m. ET at The Kind of Face You Hate. If you’ve seen the film recently or know it very well, we welcome you to the discussion. If you haven’t seen it, you’re still going to want to follow the discussion because this is one weird movie.
We hope to see you there.

5th 01 - 2009 | 13 comments »

Get Ready for TOERIFC’s First Film: The True Meaning of Pictures



By Marilyn Ferdinand

I’m back at work after a 12-day break, so posting may be a bit sparse this week as I catch up on the stuff that pays the bills. But I want to remind you that The Oldest Established Really Important Film Club (TOERIFC) kicks off next Monday right here at Ferdy on Films, etc. with Jennifer Baichwal’s intriguing documentary The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams’ Appalachia (2002). I have already written my review and hope that club members have been able to get their hands on a copy of the film. Remember, you don’t have to be a member to watch the film and participate. I encourage everyone with an interest in images (and isn’t that all of you?) to join in as we discuss the many issues this film explores. Go to the TOERIFC link for all the details.

As a warm-up, here’s a teaser from my review and a few questions to consider:

“There’s a saying that a picture’s worth 1,000 words. While this statement is a bit vague, I think I’m safe in saying that, generally, it means that a photograph can convey more information instantaneously than can be gotten from reading 1,000 words on the same subject. Photos are documents—living memories, even—of what we looked like at a certain time of life, where we’ve been, things we’ve seen, and people we knew and met. They tell us truths about ourselves that the vagaries of memory may have erased or distorted. They bear witness. But is a photograph a reliable witness?”

1. Should Shelby Lee Adams’ Appalachian photographs be as controversial as they seem to be?

2. What are all the factors that make them controversial?

3. Does Adams have the right to use human subjects for his own purposes and enrichment?

4. Does Adams have a moral obligation to share his financial gains with the poor subjects of his photographs?

5. What do the consumers of these photographs think and feel about what they are viewing?

6. What other photographers have incurred the wrath of the public and their subjects? Why?

7. Does the artist create his or her own moral universe?

8. Why should we trust Shelby Lee Adams’ view that he is a respectful Appalachian insider?

9. Why should we trust the portrait of Adams and his subjects that director Jennifer Baichwal presents?

10. What is the true meaning of pictures?

What others say about us

"You put a lot of love into your blog." – Roger Ebert, Roger Ebert's Journal
"Marilyn and Roderick … always raising the tone." – Farran Smith Nehme, The Self-Styled Siren
"Honestly, you both have made me aware of films I've never seen, from every era. Mega enriching." – Donna Hill, Strictly Vintage Hollywood

Subscribe to Ferdy on Films

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts


Chicago Resources

Collected Writings

General Film Resources