HEREAFTER

Hereafter OOO
Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements including disturbing disaster and accident images, and for brief strong language.

This is my fourth review of what used to be referred to as a first run picture, and the previous three have all been negative.  (I'm not counting my take on "There Will Be Blood," since that's been out two years on video, at least, and I gave that a positive notice.)  I don't want to seem like a negative Nellie who just takes delight in tearing movies apart.  I love the cinema, and have been since I was a child.  When I was about 14 I saw Jean  Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bête," Orson Wells' "Citizen Kane" and Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" within a few months of each other (yes, I was too young to see the last picture; please don't tell my parents or the MPAA).  It was after that combined experience that I knew I wanted to be a motion picture director.  So, what did I do?  I became a Catholic priest; go figure.  This is a long way around to say, I love movies, and go to them wanting to like them, wanting to be inspired, or at least slightly amused by them. It's just that this has been a tough goal to fulfill lately.


I went to see Clint Eastwood's new movie, "Hereafter" really wanting to like it.  Eastwood is a fine director; arguably a better auteur than actor.  It deals with the afterlife and near death experiences in a sensitive and sympathetic way.  There were parts of the story that moved me deeply, especially episodes concerning a boy who lost his twin brother.  Eastwood has a subtle touch, and can be tender and even sensual in an understated, graceful way.  There was much in the style I loved about this movie. But in the end I was left empty by a resolution that seemed both forced and shallow.

The film traces the story of three people who have either had near death experiences or lost a loved one whose death has proven difficult to get over.  Matt Damon plays a psychic who has quit the the business, Cecile de France plays a French journalist who survives a tsunami and Frankie and George McLaren play British twin brothers, one of whom dies in an accident.  About three quarters of the way through the three streams intertwine and tie themselves up in a nice and frustratingly neat bow at the end.

Considering the subject matter, I tried not to look at the film as a critic but as a Catholic and a priest.  Besides, at this point of his career I doubt Eastwood is capable of making a bad movie from the technical standpoint.  I was curious about how he would handle the topic of an afterlife considering the rampant scepticism with which such things are handled today in film.

That Damon has these powers is offered as a give in, while it's recognized that there are many fakers out there.  I found this openness to the supernatural refreshing, but what I didn't was the movie's all too predictable treatment of organized religion.  There is a funeral scene that left me shaking my head.  The priest (I'm assuming he's supposed to be from the Church of England) isn't cruel or damning, a stereotype we see at times, but rather totally disengaged, uttering trite statements about heaven that he doesn't even seem to believe.   Then it's out with one funeral and in with the next like they're on an assembly line. The vast majority of the funerals I do are for people I don't know, and St. Athony's is known for having many of them, sometime three a day.  I don't know of any situation where we'd treat an event such as a funeral with such pro forma sterileness.   When the young boy morning his brother searches the web for answers about what happens after we die he's immediately repulsed by any site that advocates a religious answer.  Again, they're not bombastic Bible thumpers, just well meaning frauds.

But there was something fraudulent about the picture itself.  While the life of the boys is given a veneer of grit, there still seems like something cleaned up about the portrayal of the heroin addict mother, so concerned they are to make her a sympathetic character and set up the happy ending. They pursue the theme that skepticism over the after life is some organized conspiracy by the media and scientific establishment, but it is never really developed and the journalist arguing the case comes off sounding a touch paranoid.  Damon admits that his psychic readings aren't infallible, but you'd never know it from how he works.  I know someone who has "the gift," and he can tell you that this is an imperfect "science."  Even mystics like Catherine of Siena got things wrong once in a while.  But Damon is hearing things loud and clear.  It was also disappointing that every coincidence, every clever happenstance had to be explained.  I'm assuming this was done to drive home the point that Damon's powers are real, but it actually deprives the audience of the opportunity to think and make up it's own mind about what they're watching.  Much like this past summer's "Inception," "Hereafter" takes a messy subject and treats it way too neatly.

In the end the movie isn't really about the after life, but about the here and now; coming to peace with the life you have, and finding happiness with people who share your experiences (I'll leave it at that since I don't want to give too much of the ending away). This is not a bad message, but it sheds little light on near death experiences or our beliefs on what comes next, which is what the film was suppose to be about.

I left "Hereafter" again disappointed, as I have been by so many American films lately.  It wants to be both artistic and serious while appealing to popular taste. It was afraid to be ambiguous and let the audience think.  "La Belle et la Bête," "Citizen Kane" and "Raging Bull" were all movies that left you thinking; about human nature, the meaning of life and what it means to be happy.  Two of the three had decidedly unhappy endings.  But they weren't afraid to delve into the inner reaches of the soul.  I wish "Hereafter" had had the same courage.