Movies
Movie Night: Amazing Grace
by Jimmy Hopper
Last night’s Riverwood Movie Night featured the movie, Amazing Grace. It depicted the life of William Wilburforce and the ending of the British slave trade. The movie was very thought provoking, and the issues raised by the film resonate with Christians today. Below are listed some potential questions and issues raised by the film. Give us your thoughts on these, and any others that come to mind.
• After the conversion of Wilburforce, he struggles with a choice as to whether to devote his life to God in Christian service or to enter politics and fight for the abolition of the slave trade. Is there a sense in which this is two versions of the same choice? At one point, Wilburforce is told to “be in the world, not of the world.” How does this relate, if at all, to the previous question?
• John Newton, after his conversion, became a popular and successful minister of a London church. He was very happily married, and his wife was obviously a large part of his life. In the movie, he is shown as guilt ridden, monkish, virtually alone, and filled with remorse. Is this the message of the hymn, Amazing Grace? Should, or even can, this be the true situation of the converted Christian?
• The lines of dialogue spoken by the Newton character; “I remember two things: I am a very great sinner and Christ is a very great Savior” were actually written by Newton. How can these be applied to the character as portrayed in the movie?
• Barbara Spooner tells Wilburforce that, as a young girl, she told her father that the sugar he gave her “had slave blood in it.” Can a comparison be made with third world labor in our day? In what ways are the issues the same and in what ways are they different?
• Wilburforce overcame an opium addiction that was fairly common in those days since it was an often prescribed pain medication (remember the poet, William Taylor Coleridge.) The movie indicates three sources for his victory over the drug: the cause he fought for, the support and love of Barbara, and his faith. Was this victory overplayed? Underplayed? Was it realistic?
• For a time, William Pitt dropped his support for the abolitionist cause due to his national responsibilities in the Napoleonic Wars. Should moral issues be set aside because of national issues? Would a French victory have impacted the cause of abolition positively or negatively? Do these type issues arise today? Is patriotism, or the perceived lack thereof, still evoked in today’s issues? You may want to consider the discussions about the previous movie, Hotel Rwanda as you consider this. Did Wilburforce accept Pitt’s decision?
• One of the stronger portrayals in the film was that of Charles Fox. He was shown as a crusty, effective politician who still had a heart for right. Are such types still around? How pervasive is the corrupting influence of power now? Is this related to a diminishing of Christian influence? Was Christianity the driving force for Fox as portrayed in the film?
• The British Empire’s economic dependence on the slave trade is a significant part of the dynamics of this movie. Are answers given in the movie to the money/politics conundrum? As in America’s “Great Depression,” was war the only answer to resolve the economic issues?
• Wilburforce was truly a committed Christian totally apart from the slavery issue and wrote several books on Christianity. These were not referred to in the movie. Was this lesser focus on Christianity necessary for dramatic continuity in the movie? Would giving his faith a greater part in the movie helped or hindered the theme and message? Did you feel that the Faith was well served in the movie?
• Many of the characters portrayed in the movie would be considered “dangerous liberals” in America’s current evangelical climate. Is there a sense in which true liberalism has changed? Is there a sense in which evangelistic Christianity has changed? Have both changed to a degree, and how?
Posted by Jimmy Hopper at March 17, 2008 10:24 AM
Question: Barbara Spooner tells Wilburforce that, as a young girl, she told her father that the sugar he gave her “had slave blood in it.” Can a comparison be made with third world labor in our day? In what ways are the issues the same and in what ways are they different?
I think that this is a very appropriate question, Jimmy I think maybe even our resident economist (Patrick Cooper) can weigh in, too. I have heard arguments both ways. I have heard the argument that foreign workers (those that provide Walmart with all their trinkets) have a better standard of living than the rest of their countrymen. I have also heard the other side: where these manufacturing centers do no need to comply with Western standards for production (health care, age, work hours, etc…) I have weighed this quite a bit in the past. And it seems to me that when americans say “we improved their standard of living,” we are assessing that standard by our own set of cultural values. We have assumed that efficiency is a spiritual trait. We have assumed that busyness, timeliness, and wealth are all markers of a “healthy” nation/culture. And I think we may have done just as much damage as good. I think Patrick or Clay recently pointed this out to me recently: It is precisely because of the glut of imports, that human-right issues have been once again prominent (esp. areas like China) Point taken.
Modern slavery is alive and well. 200,000 children from West and Central Africa are sold into slavery every year. There are debt slaves, sex slaves, serf slaves, and marriage arrangements. Eastern Europe has recently exploded with human trafficking. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand have been playgrounds for predators who specialized in securing and selling thousands of children. The fight is not over by a long shot.
BTW, I loved the line from the Prime Minister when he said, “Who thought of this plan?” The reply: “A laywer.” Clay would have loved it.