Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to our youth through you,
their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
MAR22019
Dragonfly (2002), PG-13
Analysis Date: February 23, 2002
CAP Score: 58
CAP Influence Density: 0.75
Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A service to our youth through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word MAR22019 Dragonfly (2002), PG-13 Analysis Date: February 23, 2002 CAP Score: 58 CAP Influence Density: 0.75 |
|
DRAGONFLY (PG-13) -- Such mumbo-jumbo... Distributed by: Universal Pictures Director(s): Tom Shadyac Producer(s): Gary Barber, Roger Birnbaum, Michael Bostick, James D. Brubaker, Mark Johnson, Arlene Kehela, Tom Shadyac, Janet L. Wattles Written by/Screenplay: David Seltzer, Brandon Camp, Mike Thompson Cinematography/Camera: Dean Semler Music: John Debney Editing: Don Zimmerman I am surprised Kevin Costner would get involved with performances of the "campfire spook stories" or "pajama party poltergeists" caliber, but he did a fairly good job nonetheless. The story opens Dr. Joe Darrow (Kevin Costner) and his pregnant wife, Dr. Emily Darrow (Susanna Thompson) as a commanding medical team at a Chicago hospital. He as head of the emergency department and she serving the terminally ill children's ward. He as the brain and she as the heart. Living together in professional excellence, Emily decided she must go to Venezuela to serve the people there with the Red Cross, no matter what Joe felt or said. Once on location in Venezuela, unrest escalates into a very serious danger to Emily and her cohorts. All Red Cross personnel are to be evacuated. A rickety old school bus is dispatched to collect the workers. During a severe rainstorm, the workers are transported along a corkscrew mountain road carved into the side of a mountain. A landslide avalanche takes out the road and the bus with it. Emily is killed. All are killed. At least each whose body was not found was presumed dead. Presumed dead. How can one be assured a victim is dead if the death must be presumed? There lies the fodder for the 100 minutes of feeding doubt. And when doubt is inflated, speculation and grasping run rampant. Now Dr. Joe is emotionally devastated. He cannot accept that Emily is dead. His doubt overcomes him and he starts to experience odd and eerie happenings, all suggestive of his wife trying to communicate with him from beyond the grave [Deut. 18:10 - 12]. All Dr. Joe's interactions with people suffer. He is a walking emptiness. He is given to "cowboy" disregard for standard procedures. He even says (essentially) to a recovering suicide patient who threatens to do it again to go right ahead and see who cares. I have heard of treatment programs for suicidal patients that take that approach but I am not a counselor and do not know if such coldness is used or whether it is effective. This is a movie. And movies are the only influences that can get away with planting dangerous and potentially fatal thoughts. If I were to suggest that people should or should not take the "who cares" attitude about suicide I could get into real trouble. But do the movie writers and actors/actresses get into trouble for planting such thinking? But as events continue happening that suggest Emily is trying to tell Joe something from the dead Joe becomes more and more disconnected with his world. Joe keeps seeing a strange line art representation of a "wiggly cross", suggestive of the dragonfly shape. One of the "messages" Joe receives is to visit his wife's terminally ill child patients. The kids' rooms walls are covered with drawings of the wiggly cross. There he finds a young boy in clinical death who has arrested several times but spontaneously resuscitated each time, even after being pronounced dead ... each time with a new "near-death experience" story. (Of course, the boy's father is discounted as closed minded when he rebukes his son's stories.) Soon after Joe walks in the treatment room the clinically dead boy spontaneously resuscitates again and has another story to tell. But this time the story strikes close to home for Joe. The young boy tells Joe he has seen Emily and that she is trying to tell him something. Before the boy resuscitated, Joe thought he heard the boy calling his name several times. Was it Emily using the clinically dead boy's voice? There is much that happens in Joe's life after the boy tells Joe that Emily is trying to tell Joe something. Visions. Events that can only be due to something familiar to Emily. A bird speaking only what Emily taught it and only when Emily was present. A packed away paperweight that suddenly appears in its previous spot on Dr. Joe's desk -- a paperweight with a dragonfly in it. Dr. Joe even riles the police as he visits a nun (Linda Hunt) who had studied near-death experiences of the children at the hospital. Joe has had enough and heads to Venezuela. There was also an unusual departure in the plot from the norm of this genre. When asked, one of the tribal elders said "We were not able to save her body, but we were able to save her soul." If you chose to watch this movie, you will likely be surprised by what the elder called Emily's "soul." Such is the "path" of this movie. A path that explores communicating with the dead, by the dead and through the dead. Bad news! A typical thriller but definitely contrary to His admonitions for us. But that is not likely the most invasive property of this film. Such mumbo-jumbo, while having a real potential for endangering the Spiritual development and allegiance of a child, is clearly fantasy and likely can be satisfactorily explained as the mumbo-jumbo it is by the parent or grandparent who is at least half way sincere about honoring His Word which condemns communicating with, through and by the dead and all other such activities [Deut. 18:10-12, Eph. 5:11] The violence in this movie is probably much more indelible. Little Johnny or Janie watches it and it, for him or her, is real because it is happening right before his/her eyes. They see it. Right there! On the screen. Bigger than life! No matter what your words say, some entertainment behaviors may become a template for future behavioral choices. Maybe think twice before taking your little ones to see this movie? While violence and unholy matters are the leading presences in Dragonfly, there are a few uses of impolite vocabulary. Sexual issues are infrequent, but one is of the showing of the nudity of third world peoples, some of them adolescents. Also, one of the secular reviews claims the part of Joe's neighbor is lesbian. However, I heard nothing in the script to indicate so. Her hairstyle was typical of the stereotype of the lesbian practitioner, but a hairstyle does not make the host lesbian. Please consider reading the listing in the Findings/Scoring section before deciding whether to watch Dragonfly. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. *******Food for Thought******* As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W): Impudence/Hate (I)(1): Sex/Homosexuality (S): Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O)(2): Murder/Suicide (M)(3): |
 |
 |
 Christian Media News |
 Biblical based Management Consulting |
 A Singles Christian Network |
 |
 |
 |
| NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth. |
| "There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our nearly seven years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
