Charly

Grade:

"...tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope..." (Romans 5:3-4)

Opinion:

Charly is a good, yet uneven movie that has much to recommend it even though it's not nearly as effective as it perhaps could have been. I haven't read the popular book by Jack Weyland on which the movie is based (yes, I admit it; I'm culturally illiterate...at least as far as LDS fiction goes), so I can' t say for sure to what extent the movie is faithful to the book, and whether any flaws in this production were caused by the book-to-movie transition, or inherent in the source material. Charly is a basically a romance between the non-member title character and a Utah Mormon boy named Sam. While one doesn't have to be LDS in order to understand the movie (love--and romance movies--being universal), it would probably help since some underlying church doctrines (specifically eternal marriage) are a fundamental part of the movie's 'message'.

The movie does make a distinct change in tone near the end of the movie (which, not having read the book, I was not expecting). While this ending section is an essential part to the "Charly"'s message, the characters personalities and interactions seem to change with it, and it almost seems like a completely different movie. (People change, of course, so I guess that's excusable.)

The acting is generally good, especially from the title character, played by Heather Beers. Also strong is Adam Johnson, who plays Charly's original boyfriend Mark. The 'other guy' in romantic comedies are frequently reduced to mere caricatures, painted in broad strokes and usually bad strokes at that, since, of course, you're not supposed to want the girl to end up with him. Mark's character, though, is...well, a character--one that's fully rounded and feels 'real'. He's a nice guy, funny, full of personality, and treats Charly well when they're together--a far cry from other romances where his character would be primarily on the screen to elicit boos from the audience.

Charly's parents don't turn out quite so well, remaining underdeveloped for the most part. Charly's dad makes special mention that he doesn't like Mark because he's a "jerk", but doesn't go into detail, and we never see Mark acting like a jerk in the movie so that whole issue is kind of a non-starter. Her dad also mentions he doesn't like Mormons, but doesn't go into detail there either. A little more fleshing out would have made him a stronger character. The other main character, Sam, is a little more hit-and-miss. He's good in the beginning (in fact, the banter between him and Charly early on is the best part of the movie), but some scenes near the end are almost cringingly bad (see: the 'throwing things against the wall' scene) that dilutes the intended emotional impact.

Dialogue is a strong point of the movie, with some witty exchanges between the rambunctious Charly and the conservative Sam. Mark has some good lines too, within his small role. The movie handles both the light-hearted, comedic scenes and the more serious scenes well, with an appropriate balance (at least until the end).

On the negative side, Charly's conversion to Mormonism is given short-shrift. While her gaining of a testimony of the gospel isn't really the point of the movie, more attention to the conversion process would help ease her character from the flamboyant yet worldly girl in the beginning to the more spiritually-minded person at the end. As it is, the change happens almost instantaneously and leaves the audience wanting to know more about how she feels about the gospel and why she decides to be baptized.

Also, the incidents at the end of the movie raise an important and key question about God's plan, which the movie doesn't answer. In fact, the movie seems to be saying there is no answer, when in fact there are a number of uncomplicated explanations and it would have been nice to see "Charly" at least attempt to provide a more complete philosophical answer.  (see In-depth Analysis section below for my take). Still, the movie gets points from me for even attempting to bring up some deep spiritual issues instead of being satisfied with being 'merely' a light LDS romantic comedy. In conclusion, the movie's (admittedly minor) flaws aren't fatal and I have no qualms about recommending "Charly" to others, whether or not you're familiar with the book.

Content Analysis:

PG--Church movie, so no major 'objectionable content' issues. There may be a 'damn' or a 'hell' here or there (I didn't count), and some brief glimpses of 'nude art', but nothing inappropriate for young kids. Not that you'd necessarily want young kids to see Charly anyway, since they'd be turned off by the romance ("Is this a 'kissing' movie?"), and the minor discussions of sexuality issues (while clean and 'Church standard') may be too much for a young age group. Pre-teens/teenagers would be the best starting age, in my opinion.

In-depth Analysis:

"It was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness." --Alma 42:8

So, why do people die? Why good people fall prey to disease and death, even at a young age? The movie raises the issue, but doesn't present much of an answer. Here's my thoughts:

The purpose of death itself is clear. We're here on this earth for a short time to learn and grow and then go on to other things. Death is the gateway by which we travel to other planes of existence--the next step in our eternal progression. Death is also vital in order to bring about the resurrection; the old body must be shed before the new body can be obtained. The concept of death remains nebulous and vague for most, and that is also accordance with God's plan. Joseph Smith had a saying that (paraphrasing) if everyone knew exactly what it was like beyond the veil, they'd do everything in their power to try and get there, but the Lord gave people the fear of death so that they might 'cling to life' and accomplish the Lord's purposes.

A common question about death is 'why does the Lord allow good people to be killed by bad people'? This has an easy answer: free agency. The Lord will not force anyone to be good, and mankind wouldn't be able to learn about the value of life if the ability to take life was taken away from them by some divine mandate. (In other words, you must always have the opportunity to choose evil, if choosing good is to have any meaning.)

But what about diseases, birth defects, and other natural causes of death? These usually have nothing to do with free agency, but instead seem to be an integral part of the Creation. Why would God allow children to be born with severe diseases which cause them to die young? Why would God allow young mothers and fathers to be struck down in the prime of life? Why would God allow older people to grow frail and weak, needing constant care and nursing?

Let's assume the opposite for a moment: what would happen if God suddenly decreed that everyone would live to a proper age (say 75) and then peacefully pass away, and that no one would be subject to any untimely deaths from accidents or disease. What if you knew exactly what day you were going to die? How would that make your life different? Would the world be better or worse?

In Alma 34, we read:

33 ...I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

If we knew the exact length of time until death for us and everyone else, wouldn't we see tremendous procrastination?  Everyone would think, "I can be bad while I'm young because I know I'll have plenty of time to 'repent' and be righteous again later in life..." Family members would put off reconciling with other family members for years since they would know they weren't going anywhere and there was still plenty of time to overcome personal conflicts 'later'. Under this new plan, untimely deaths and the accompanying sadness would be reduced, but righteousness would also, with more costly consequences on human souls. It's important in terms of God's plan and our own eternal destiny that there be some uncertainty. If we don't know if we're going to be alive tomorrow, then we need to take care of things today; put our personal lives in order so that we'd be prepared to 'meet God', etc... If I don't know for sure what will happen tomorrow, I'd be more inclined to make sure I tell my wife I love her, or spend more quality time with my son today. Disease and other forms of untimely deaths (such as car accidents), while tragic, are necessary to give us the incentive to do good today, not tomorrow.

Plus, illnesses give us opportunities to serve others and grow spiritually. After Charly's death, Sam may be sad, but the early passing of his wife allowed the two of them to treasure the moments together more (admittedly, Sam doesn't take advantage of the short time they have left due to personal issues at first, and that's an important lesson as well). Although he probably would have passed on it if given a choice, Sam will have become a better person for the experience (see the scripture from Romans at the top). The movie does a good job of portraying the difficulty of dealing with the loss of a loved one (and also notes the benefit of eternal marriage) but doesn't really answer the question of why things like this happen, and what part they play in Heavenly Father's plan. At one point, Sam demands a 'miracle', saying he's been worthy for a long time and Heavenly Father 'owes him one' essentially. This is flawed reasoning, of course: God didn't save from death any number of people more righteous than Sam, including His own Son.  God didn't cause Charly to die as a 'punishment' for Sam (or Charly), but it's all part of the plan, and the movie would have been more effective if it had emphasized the answer to this concern more.

[Note: for a more complete explanation of death and its part in the plan of salvation, see "Gateway We Call Death" by Russell M. Nelson]

Click Here for Reader Comments