This Review Reveals Minor Details About the Plot.
The Entrepreneurs
Plot Overview
Sumptuous seventeen-year-old
Alison Rotunno (Andie Falconi) is enrolled at Sisters Of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary way out in the boonies where she's a nun wannabe preparing
for seminary school in Santa Barbara. She exchanges holiday cards
with her dad Bill Rotunno (Timothy Bottoms) who is a televangelist
running for governor. In the “Have a blessed summer” she
stays with her mom in town. There she has discovered boys and turned
into a closet nymphomaniac (“Je suis fou.”) To seek fresh meat on a bicycle
tour of Europe, she's studying French, Italian and Spanish. To fund
her trip abroad, she writes her father for the money claiming it's
a religious pilgrimage to various shrines to get away from the sexual
temptations endemic here at home.
Low-lifes Martin
(Nathan Anderson,) August (Brian Hooks) and Ray (Jimmy Fallon) have
decided to up their rogue game by robbing the mailman of what's
in his bag. They take Alison's letter at face value that she's a good
girl ripe for the plucking. When they discover her father's a public
figure, they go to a tabloid with their scheme to expose her “in
the act.” Armed with her letter they persuade yellow journalist
Xavier Felix (Bruce Weitz) to advance them start-up costs and seed
money for this enterprise. Ray makes contact with her after she's
been rejected by her dad, and she becomes a gold digger after his
money while he's simultaneously trying to compromise her in the sack.
Their schemes get complicated when they fall for each other (“I'm
in love.”)
Ideology
We observe the father Rotunno in his
study contemplating the passage (Psalm 18:32) “It is God who arms
me with strength and makes my way perfect”—NKJV. In Deleted Scenes we see him struggling mightily
with sexual temptation, even with his plain, no-nonsense secretary.
He advises Alison, “I want you to look to the Bible and look
to the Lord, because he is your guidance and he is your strength.”
She picks up the Bible in the hotel room handling it as one familiar
with the book. Her wise Italian tutor advises her on her trip, “A
good Catholic girl should have an escort.” She has a friend
from school to ground her, and of course there is the religious
instruction itself. There is reason to hope she may get over this
permissive period in her life.
Ray on the other hand has performance issues when he's plagued by guilt (“She looks so pure.”) But his friends cum partners won't let him fail. Be that as it may, this could be the start of something big, which raises the question could a cloistered, wandering nun be happy with a barfly? Or there's the broader question, is a Christian ever allowed to marry a non–
Conventional wisdom has it that if a body is already married to a non-christian when the former converts, she is allowed to stay with him and try to save him. He's a nice guy to begin with, otherwise she wouldn't have married him. But a Christian girl should not select a non-christian for a mate, because he's an ogre. I can't help but think we're not comparing apples with apples here. We can do better.
Date: First Corinthians was written in the spring, probably in 57 ad, though it could have been as early as 54 ad Second Corinthians was written some six months later. In 50 ad Paul reached Corinth on his second missionary journey (Acts 18:1-4). In an eighteen month stay (Acts 18:9-11) [& then some (Acts 18:18) for ≈ 2 yrs. per Chuck Smith] a church was established. … He had received questions from the Corinthians (1Cor. 7:1) and wrote the letter known as First Corinthians as an answer to those questions. At the time, Paul was in Ephesus (1Cor. 16:8), near the end of his three-year stay there (Acts 20:31) and before his departure for Macedonia (1Cor. 16:5, Acts 20:1).
In answer to the
Corinthians' questions regarding the
mixed marriages they'd entered during that time, the apostle Paul
writes of same as an occasion for Christian influence on the unbelieving
spouse, (1Cor. 7:16) “For
what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or
how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”
Paul was not doing any matchmaking, but let us try ourselves
for an apple-to-apple comparison. A man has two daughters, say, and
being just and fair he lines up matches of equal integrity for them
both. Daughter A is to get married in June and daughter B June the
following year. This is during the two year window when Paul is preaching
nearby. Before B is wed, though, the sisters attend a meeting and
become Christians. A is obligated to try to convert her spouse, and
B wanting to follow her lead wants to go ahead and marry her guy,
too, and try to convert him as well. He isn't any worse to start off
with than her sister's husband was for her.
The apostle's authority was already expressed in: (1Cor. 3:21-22) “For all things are yours; Whether … the world, … or things present, or things to come; all are your's.” Sister A's husband of the world is hers to keep (“things present”) and so is sister B's husband “to come,” as long as they are willing as we suppose they are. By apostolic decree, then, a Christian is allowed to enter a mixed marriage if that's what they want.
There would undoubtedly be occasions of Christian duties interfering with family obligations. Paul mentions that in, (1Cor. 7:32-33) “But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.” Because he allows that family duties are unavoidable, he recommends not getting married in the first place, but concedes celibacy is not for everyone. He wants the married men to make the best of their situation wrt God's kingdom. (1Cor. 7:29-31) “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” A married man must balance obligations.
Something similar applies to women. (1Cor. 7:34) “There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Here, however, Paul does not tell a married woman to act like her unattached single sister, not until he addresses the widow, that is. (1Cor. 7:39) “The wife … if her husband be dead, is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” To marry “in the Lord” means to keep her priorities straight, to moderate pleasing any new mate for the sake of “be[ing] holy both in body and in spirit.” This is from its proper context.
There are a lot of looser
translations available now. These “dynamic translations”
implement idea for idea translation rather than word for word as
in the formal equivalence ones. The NIV adds extra words to say of a widow's new spouse,
“but he must belong to the Lord.” The translators believed that,
so that's what their book says though the apostle Paul didn't say it.
In “The $cheme” this idea is represented when Alison retrieves a Bible from the drawer and it is topped by a layer of party-joke rubber vomit. People have read the apostle and not digesting him properly have regurgitated their own ideas onto the Bible over what he actually said.
In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul says he's, (2Cor. 4:2) “... not handling the word of God deceitfully.” An example of deceit can be found when, (Gen. 34:13) “the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully.” They told them they were allowed to intermarry but used it as a ruse to gain an advantage, because actually they weren't. Paul wasn't being deceitful, so after he tells them in First Corinthians a mixed marriage is permissible, he's not going to tell them in Second Corinthians it's not. Modernistic bibles don't use a specific plural ‘ye’ in, (2Cor. 6:14) “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: ...” so their number-nonspecific “you” is co-opted for a singular application prohibiting individual (mixed) marriages rather than go to Paul's following rhetorical question matching (singular) case with, (2Cor. 6:15) “what part has he that believeth with an infidel?” It's a rhetorical question to be answered in the minds of the ones addressed. If a couple is far enough along to consider marriage, then they can ask themselves the question of how religious differences would affect their individual Christian commitments and act accordingly, rather than accept some kind of group prohibition that doesn't even apply.
The context of Paul's “not unequally yoked” statement includes, (2Cor. 6:11-13) “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.” Paul was expansive towards the Corinthians and laissez faire regarding their mate selections. They in return had been self-constricted. Unfortunately, when the modern Bible versions leave a ‘you’ understood in the expression to “be not unequally yoked,” the uptight reader inserts a singular ‘you’ in the phrase, being “straitened in [his] own bowels”, and forbids such a religiously mixed marriage. But the couple who even gets that far to consider it has then the option of exploring whether or not it would work. Unfortunately, a couple's usual season of courtship occurs in their youth when they've yet to master Bible translations. Instead, they rely on what Bible they hear used in their church or fellowship, or sister congregations for that matter. That's why I feel it's important to use the King James Version (KJV), or at least make it understood that these modern versions should be checked against it.
In our movie the bad guys infiltrated a “nice restaurant” in order to spike Ray's drink with an aphrodisiac they obtained from Chinatown. This ended up in an orgy between the legitimate staff and phoney staff. That's where the “not unequally yoked” passage could apply.
Production Values
“” (2003) was directed by Marcus Gautesen. It was written by Kamala Lopez. It stars Jimmy Fallon, Nathan Anderson, Brian Hooks and Andie Falconi. Falconi's so captivating she can do no wrong. The whole cast worked well together.
MPA rated it R for language and sexual content. Its script had free rein. Some of the subtle special sound effects are noteworthy. It would work as a cartoon without needing any more stretching of reality. There was a parallax error in my DVD that interfered with the readability of line text but was negligible otherwise. The Deleted Scenes were pristine, so it probably happened in a transfer process and might not affect every medium. Runtime is 1½ hours.
Review Conclusion w/a Christian's Recommendation
This was a very entertaining film. It depicted Christians as needing to struggle against temptation. The ending was all wet.
Movie Ratings
Action factor: Well done action flick. Suitability For Children: Not Suitable for Children of Any Age. Special effects: Well done special effects. Video Occasion: Good Date Movie. Suspense: Keeps you on the edge of your seat. Overall movie rating: Three stars out of five.
Works Cited
Unless otherwise noted, scripture is taken from the King James Version. Pub. 1611, rev. 1769. Print. Software.
Scripture quotations marked NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION or NIV are taken from the
HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.
Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. Print.
Scripture marked NKJV is taken from the New King James Version, © copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Web.
The Criswell Study Bible. Authorized King James Version. Nashville | Camden: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1979. Print.
bibles.n7nz.org