Last night I was fortunate enough to attend a sneak preview of the new Will Smith film Seven Pounds (trailers). Going into it, I was intrigued by what I had seen thus far. The ad campaign has been pretty effective, engendering a palpable curiosity in the viewer: “What the heck is this movie about?”
Part of that curiosity is directly a result of Will Smith’s impressive turn as a mysterious figure engaged in some sort of enterprise involving several strangers; whether this enterprise is nefarious or benevolent in nature remains largely a mystery even until the end of the film’s first act.
It’s hard to address my reaction to the film without discussing specifics as I will do below; however for those of you who don’t like to know the details of a film, I’ll do a quick spoiler-free recounting. This movie is, to put it bluntly, morally repugnant. It is a sneak attack on the very foundations that lead to the ascendency of western society, and sadly many people are going to fall for it. If you are a church attender, you will most likely hear Smith’s character’s actions compared to the sacrificial actions of Jesus Christ. Don’t buy into it. Go into this movie with the knowledge that it puts a very attractive face on an insidious worldview. This deceptive message, prevalent in our culture, elevates individually perceived reality as dictated by emotion coupled with (an admittedly admirable) concern for life above any transcendant principles of ethical behavior.
The central question of the film: is Will Smith’s character a hero, or a fool? To answer that, I will delve into spoilers. Don’t read further if you don’t like them.
The movie is basically as follows. Will Smith’s remorse following his negiligence in an auto accident (in which 7 people including his wife die) leads him to decide that he is going to kill himself and donate all his organs, money, house, etc to 7 people to ostensibly make up for his mistake. Also important to note is that he is in a lot of emotional pain because of what happened, and this is made clear by Smith’s look-at-me-I-am-in-pain face (of which I grew somewhat tired of within the first 30 minutes). However he doesn’t want to help just anyone, but wants to choose those “who deserve it- good people.” Although he does just want to end it all, his desire is depicted as a noble one because he wants his death to mean something. In the process of picking the person who he wants to receive his heart (he is a very rare blood type), he ends up falling in love with a dying girl. Faced with the choice between living a short time with his new love (who is doomed to die) or allowing her to live on by sacrificing himself, he chooses the latter, and in the process also donates his corneas to a blind Woody Harrilson (who by the way probably delivered the best performance in the film), his beach house to a battered Hispanic woman and her children, bone marrow to a child, kidney(s?) to a token old white guy, pieces of his lung to his brother… the list probably goes on.
I hated it. And here is why. As I said above, the message is not merely morally questionable but a morally repugnant one: disdain for one’s own life is called virtue, and death is called life. His ultimate selfish act of suicide, we are emotionally manipulated to believe, was a heroic act because of what he did with all his worldly possessions (his body etc). This is bullshit. To understand why suicide is so morally reprehensible in almost every situation (I withhold judgment for people in egregious physical pain that can’t be alleviated- I don’t know what I’d do in that eventuality), I defer to GK Chesterton in the chapter “The Flag of the World” of the book Orthodoxy:
Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes — for it makes even crimes impossible.
Smith’s act is not heroic, it is cowardice. He is not unusually noble; he is atypically selfish. His pain-face makes something very clear: the real reason he is killing himself is because he doesn’t want to live. All of the other things he does in addition to taking his own life? Semantics. Rationalization. What about all the pain his suicide inflicts upon the rest of his family, and on the woman who he supposedly loves? What about all the other good he could have accomplished over the course of a long life? What about the fact that life is itself a gift given by God that is not ours to throw away? No, ultimately Smith is elevating his perception of reality through his emotional pain above any claims the world (his family, God, society) has on him, and as Chesterton makes clear, this is in a very real sense, a purely evil act.
Now you will hear Smith’s character compared to Jesus- I guarantee it. But
this is a lie. He was not a martyr, he is a suicide. Jesus was not a suicide, and the idea that he was a suicide is an ancient, thoroughly refuted heresy. As Chesterton goes on to note in his book, the line between suicide and martyrdom is one of the most important distinctions to make in Judeo-Christian ethic, and in fact in many ways it is THE defining difference between the moral codes of Christendom and all other moral frameworks, i.e., fraudulent moral systems. This movie is trying to blur those lines. I’m not falling for it, and neither should you.
Tags: GK Chesterton
December 19, 2008 at 9:06 am
OH PLEASE….. TAKE THE MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS ENTERTAINMENT. WAH, WAH, WAH. YOU NEED TO RELAX.
December 19, 2008 at 9:10 am
I do. It’s probably in my top 5 films of 2008. It’s very well done.
I simply feel that its message is one that needs to be addressed. And let me just say, if you don’t think I’m relaxed about this, you obviously don’t know me. I’m relaxed to a fault.
December 19, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Very well thought-out review. Selfishness disguised as heroism. I don’t think our society really knows what a hero is anymore.
Did you like “The Dark Knight?” I can’t remember if we discussed this already, but I think a real hero was presented in this film in the character of Batman. He continues to do what is right even though it is difficult and increasingly unpopular. Anyway, time to leave for our trip. Talk to you soon.
December 25, 2008 at 5:14 am
You must be kidding, in a way you simply contradicted yourself halfway into your “well thought-out review”. I quote:
“His ultimate selfish act of suicide, we are emotionally manipulated to believe, was a heroic act because of what he did with all his worldly possessions (his body etc). This is bullshit. To understand why suicide is so morally reprehensible in almost every situation (I withhold judgment for people in egregious physical pain that can’t be alleviated- I don’t know what I’d do in that eventuality).”
In your parenthesis you state “egregious physical pain”, but unless faced with a situation as Will Smith’s character was emotionally faced with, you must (to look at the situation in a fair and unbiased manner) withhold judgment as you said you do “for people in… physical pain”. The emotional state one can be put into can be as painful or even far more painful then any physical pain one could imagine.
I believe that either way, Smith’s character could not emotionally handle living with himself for the rest of his life due to what he caused to his wife and those 6 other people. So instead of committing suicide to end the pain selfISHly, he instead committed suicide selfLESSly, by giving all of his material possessions away as well as his body to those he deemed genuinely good people.
Yes, you can make the argument that if he were to live he could do a lot more for a lot of people, but you don’t know his emotional state he is in and if in fact he could suffer through each day picturing his wife everywhere he went and every time he closed his eyes, including those other 6 people he killed flashing into his head when he closed his eyes. Even more, he wouldn’t be able to give the blind man sight, his heart to the woman with a failing one, a kidney to the man who donated his time to the Hispanic youth, part of his liver to the woman who worked in Child Protective Services, his brother one of his lungs, his house to the abused Hispanic woman and her two kids, and lastly, bone marrow to a little boy.
Those are acts of ultimate selflessness, especially for someone who cant stand to live on this earth any longer with the pain and knowledge that he not only ruined his life, killed his wife, but killed 6 other people and devastated the lives of those peoples families.
December 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Suicide is the most evil act of a all.For this horrific act there is no excuse,repeat NO EXCUSE!!!Who don’t understand this simple fact,he don’t understand life at all.
December 26, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is a horrible review. You have no clue what you are talking about in defining this as an immoral movie. Your stance on suicide comes clearly from a pathetic narcisist who knows neither the anguish of losing one close to you from it, or understanding it’s reasoning. Smith portrays the perfect Christ figure (who, like it or not…willingly allowed himself to be killed aka suicide) And if you do not see that, then you do not see Christ. I pity you.
December 27, 2008 at 5:51 am
then what do you say to the choice of enlightenment. When – and if – attained, the world of senses is left for a world of unity. this decision voids all flowers and leaves, birds and buildings. Is this choice a mortal sin?
I do believe suicide is a grave act that encompasses negativity, yet the portrayal of an “enlightenment of love” is depicted as Smith’s reasoning for taking his life. If Smith could no longer find the joy his body parts had once offered, why is it not righteous to offer them to others who could? In this sense he is a martyr.
In this case, the circumstances of Smith’s life are relevant to his decision. Much like every individual in existence. Who carries the power to create such overarching judgements as you have done? You excuse the mortally ill for you cannot understand their pain, yet insult those suffering from the degrees of emotional pain as if this pain is not real. (“Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act.”) And still you argue that no man can ever have a righteous desire to die. The choice of a parent to save his/her children. The act of teachers in Columbine saving lives of students. The will of Jesus to die for all of mankind. Your argument classifies all of these situational suicides as undignified. Do you believe only Jesus is a martyr?
Avoiding Ad Hominem statements, I see fault in your argument in its framework of bipolarity. Life is unique to all. And all have their own decisions that are equally justified to yours or mine. It is not for anyone to discriminate the acts of others, lest they be judged.
Skeptics such as yourself and I may never agree, but I caution you that it is not wise to understand in only black and white.
December 30, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I thought that 7 Pounds was a fantastic movie, and i disagree with this review. He couldn’t live with his pain and knowing the pain he had caused others. First it started out that he just wanted to help out seven different people to make up for what he did, but than it turned into something much more. After he met the dying girl he fell in love with her and was not only sure that she deserved his heart, but that he was sure he wanted to go through with his plan. Very good movie and i loved it! Also, I wouldn’t compare Smiths character to Jesus either, just a man doing what he felt was right, and as far as suicide goes, i don’t agree with it but if he was going to do it anyways i think 7 Pounds was the way to go.
January 1, 2009 at 4:45 am
If nothing else, this movie gets people to think and hopefully discuss what they really believe. I didn’t think the movie was ALL good or ALL bad. It was complex… like life… like the world. Will’s character was fallen, humans are fallen. Life is messy and painful and confusing.
I think it’s important to note that Ben’s motivation for committing suicide shifted once he fell in love with Emily. Before he met her, he saw his “sacrifice” as merely penance for his “sin” and an end to his emotional anguish. He saw no value in his own life. He hated himself. He commented to Emily in regards to his life, “Unremarkable would be an upgrade.”
Emily helps him see life beyond loss. And she helps him see his own worth. When he tells her that he hasn’t been taking very good care of himself (due to his shame and self-hatred), she says, “You should start.” Ben begins to envision life beyond his pain. He wants to live. He wants to be with Emily. Ben only follows through with his plan once he is convinced that he is Emily’s only chance for survival. His motivation then shifts from self-hatred to sacrificial love. When he actually “does the deed” I don’t believe he sees himself as “paying for his sins” any longer. This is not to say that I agree with his actions. However, sinful or not, he sacrificed himself for the woman he loved.
“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13 ASV. This was Jesus’ exhortation to His disciples. I guess they weren’t supposed to take it literally? What did Jesus mean by “lay down his life”? Was He merely encouraging them to be loving and selfless? I’m honestly not sure, and I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Also, how would you respond to a man who took a bullet in the chest to save a friend? Or pregnant woman who chooses her baby’s life over her own? Are these scenarios completely different, or do they hold some similarities?
This all makes for some very interesting discussion. I don’t completely agree with your review, but I appreciate your insight. It made me think.
Take care.
March 8, 2009 at 6:34 pm
It seems lots of people are falling for the lies in this film, but not all. That’s somewhat encouraging.
Hi Erika. You said:
“When he actually “does the deed” I don’t believe he sees himself as “paying for his sins” any longer. This is not to say that I agree with his actions. However, sinful or not, he sacrificed himself for the woman he loved.”
If this were true, then I might agree. Of course laying one’s life down for his friends- as Jesus taught and did, or like taking a bullet for a person- is a moral act. Yet these acts are not suicide, they are martyrdom or sacrifice. And this interpretation misses the point of the film; not only that, giving the film this benefit of the doubt misses the larger message that the film is trying to reinforce in our culture.
Our culture is one that has embraced moral ambiguity to a level of insanity, and we are all largely engaged in a sort of group cognitive dissonance when we participate in that paradigm. There are certainly gray areas and moral/ethical dilemmas in life. However, from a Christian perspective (which is the only perspective I claim to have in the review above), suicide is not one of them. As I paraphrased GK Chesterton’s insight above, the line between suicide and martyrdom is in many ways THE defining difference between the moral codes of Christendom and those of humanist frameworks. It is NEVER moral to end one’s life by one’s own hand, no matter the reason, the emotion, or the circumstances behind it. Is that clear enough a stipulation?
The film is teaching the polar opposite. The entire POINT of the film is to bring into sharp focus a presumed tension between suicide and martyrdom, a tension which simply isn’t there. The film is saying: “well, suicide and martyrdom are sometimes the same thing… accomplishing good through what is normally an evil act converts that act into a moral one.”
Can anyone deny that this is what the film’s entire upshot is supposed to be? In the words of scripture, the film is attempting to paint in a favorable light a world in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes”, and it is “calling what is evil good”. It is for these reasons that I continue to call the film morally repugnant.