CITY OF ANGELS

 

TWO STARS - Unsettling

 

 

        Is falling for a fallen angel a good thing? 

        In this world of confused spirituality, it is not surprising to see a film in which evil and good are intertwined.  It is also not surprising to have an increasingly uncomfortable experience in viewing such a film.

        But what is surprising is that even those who are not believers in God dislike this film.

        It is not that the acting is poor.  It is not.  Nicolas Cage, as the sensitive angel Seth, is believable.  The stylish way in which these angels-in-overcoats watch over the city is engaging.

        Meg Ryan as the lonely cardiologist, Maggie, is also seductively played.  She portrays the subtleties of such a profession so well that we not only feel her pain as she struggles with the loss of a patient, but we want to reach out and comfort her in her sorrow.

        But what is disconcerting is in fact the spiritual premise on which the film is based.  It is spiritually dysfunctional and emotionally unsettling.

        Playing on the name of Los Angeles, the story weaves together the physical and spiritual world by giving form to the guardian angels who watch over the city.

        Living not in the churches but in the public library, the film has these angels watching over the air-traffic controllers to keep their minds on their jobs, as well as watching over the children who have fevers in their homes.

        These angels both protect life and accompany people at their time of death into the world to come.

        Seth is an angel whose compassion and curiosity compel him to become attached to those over whom he is watching.

        It is on one occasion when he has come to help a heart patient pass over to the next life that he comes face to face with Maggie, the passionate heart surgeon.

        In the operating room, Maggie is confronted with the inadequacy of her naturalistic belief that physical life is all there is.  As she sees the physical body of her patient in good health, she nevertheless faces a force greater than her medical skill as her patient is taken from her.

        This force from the spiritual world is represented by the messenger-of-God, Seth. 

        But as Seth sees Maggie’s passion as she fights for the life of her patient, he falls in love with her.

        This is the first thread of spiritual dysfunction which brings an increasing discomfort with the film.  As an angel who can not only hear our thoughts, but walk through walls, Seth becomes a celestial stalker of Maggie.

        Though angels are not human and have no physical sexual desires, the film portrays Seth obviously aroused as he watches Maggie take a sensuous bath.

        If this were true and angels had sexual desires for humans, it is an unnerving idea.  In the privacy of our own homes to be watched over by beings who have their own purposes and sexual needs implies a vulnerability which is intimidating.

        But this implication is greatly heightened when Seth meets Mr. Messenger (Dennis Franz).

        Messenger, which is what the word “Angel” means, is a former angel who describes himself as “fallen” into a “hedonistic” life as a human.  Forsaking the spiritual life God gave him, Messenger has chosen to be someone he was not created to be, and “takes the dive” into being a human being in order to experience the sensuousness of our physical bodies.

        Though played with humor in which Messenger’s self-proclaimed gluttony has endangered his health, the seed of temptation is planted within Seth to do the same.

        Although the romantic notion that Seth loves Maggie so much that he would give up being an angel in order to have her is powerful, it is so preposterous as to make a theologian wince.  This idea is much more reflective of Greek-Roman mythology than Judeo-Christian beliefs.

        Though we won’t spoil the end of the story by telling what happens after he falls, it is also unsettling that Seth has no scruples about sex.  In that respect, he is truly a creation of Hollywood and not of God.

        “The City of Angels” could have presented concepts that would have enriched our understanding and comforted our souls.  Instead, we are left with the uncomfortable feeling that we are being watched voyeruistically by unhappy and unfulfilled beings who would rather have one night of physical pleasure than be messengers of God.

 

 ________________