Fireproof Review, Part Three

Not All Cheese

Most of the problems with Fireproof came in the form of over-acting, poorly constructed dialogue, or odd, rough editing (thus the cheesiness). There was, however, one plot problem, at least as far as I could tell. This is a minor quibble, but I didn't think that the reconciliation story-line with the mom was necessary. Of course they had to resolve it, considering the fact that Caleb was a jerk to her throughout the movie. I just didn't see the need to include that storyline at all. Reconciliation among family members is great and is a natural outcropping of conversion to Christ. But it seemed outside the scope of this work. The theme in Fireproof was not reconciliation, but martial reconciliation.

The Good

Despite my taking to task some of the elements of Fireproof, I still hold to my contention that it was a good film. O, how can I count the ways I love thee, Fireproof?

1. I thought the acting was (relatively) excellent. As we watched, my wife and I tried to determine who had been hired and who hadn't been. No, the actors were not A-listers, but at least a handful of them seemed professional (others had obviously come straight from choir practice). I was shocked to find out later that only Cameron was a pro.

2. Kirk Cameron was annoying in the Left Behind movies. Not so here. He showed some serious acting chops. And the dude can cry at the drop of a hat.

3. I'm sorry, but if you think those action sequences were anything less than brilliant, you are a snob. I was in suspense both times I watched the car and fire scenes. They might not have had the benefit of million dollar special effects, but it didn't matter. They made me appreciate firefighters even more than I already do.

4. As I said in the previous post, humor is hard to pull off. And Christian humor tends to be the cheesiest (usually for good reason). But Fireproof was different. I was only able to put on the too-cool-for-school act for a while before I burst out laughing a few times. For example, the scenes with Cameron destroying the garbage can with the audience of his neighbors were truly funny. Especially the "It takes one to know one" line. I also liked the scene interaction when Catherine and Caleb explained themselves to their friends. Lighthearted and well done.

5. Yes, the conversion scene was slightly stilted. But they did about as good of a job as is possible. The theology was solid and the buildup in music, camera movement and acting all seemed to make it work pretty well.

6. But more than that, it was placed in the plot expertly. Christianity Today's review of this movie, on the other hand, argued that the conversion scene felt "tacked on." I disagree wholeheartedly. In fact, I don't think the movie works without it. Peter Chattaway wrote, "What if someone were to follow the steps outlined in The Love Dare without being a Christian?" The answer to that seemed obvious in the film. Caleb could not have made the book, or his marriage for that matter, work on his own. The whole point of her coming back to him was not that he cleaned up the house, got rid of the computer, or bought her parents the medical equipment they needed. The reason she came back was because Caleb was a changed man. "I want what has happened to you to happen to me" she says near the end of the film. So his trusting in Christ was the true impetus to love his wife, not the book.

7. The theme of the movie was that marriages don't break, people do. This was all right-on and edifying. Husbands and wives need to learn how to make their marriage work. And that takes hard work. Caleb, and even Catherine to a degree, were highly selfish, working only for themselves. Christ changes people in such a way that they are able to make marriages work despite extended periods of difficulty. This movie was a slap in the face to the modern, western conception of love and marriage. Thank you.

8. CT also disregarded the blow-up scene between Caleb and Catherine. Chattaway writes:

Then there are the arguments that Caleb and Catherine have at home. These scenes are necessary, of course, because without them, we don't understand why their marriage is on the verge of collapse, or what hurdles Caleb will have to overcome in order to win his wife's love back. But when Caleb finally blows up at Catherine—his explosive anger being the thing that finally pushes her to seek a divorce—the outburst is completely out of proportion to what has come before. Yes, arguments have a way of escalating, but nothing we see of Caleb before or after that scene seems to suggest he has that sort of rage coiled up inside him. Instead of seeing a character, we see an actor playing one scene differently from all the others.

I am only picking on CT to make a point. Personally, I don't know if I have ever been so uncomfortable watching a movie in my life. No, I don't blow up like that. But I have said cutting things before, things I wish I could take back. It all felt too real, especially sitting next to my wife. The writers/director know exactly what strained marriages look like.

Per the comments from Chattaway, I totally disagree. (1) Married life means that normal social barriers no longer exist, and that is both a good thing and a bad thing. It is a good thing because you should have great intimacy with your spouse. It is a bad thing because comfortableness will allow you to say things to each other you would say to no one else. Volatile marriages don't need much to set off extreme anger. (2) And it is obvious why Caleb was set off. Catherine was poking at his most secret, most embarrassing flaw: lust. Whenever anyone uncovers our deepest sin, we either recoil, or we lash out. That's what happened here. All in all, I thought it set up the rest of the movie beautifully.

More numbers and a conclusion in a final installment later.