Hello...
I watched the film on the advice of a close friend of my fiance.
When we went to the theater, we were surprised that it was obviously filled with quite a few Christians from a wide variety of denominations. There were pentecostals, Assembly of God, Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, non-denominational evangelicals, non-denominational charismatics, non-denominational pentecostals, etc... There were even a few apparent Mennonites. Most of them appeared quite awkward, as you could tell that they were "out of their element."
The film was actually well made. It tells the story of a relatively unknown but remarkable individual from history. William Wilberforce was central in the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom. As a wealthy young politician, William Wilberforce was one of the most notable evangelicals of his time. While the film does not reveal some of the more evangelical zeal or beliefs of William Wilberforce, it doesn't hide his faith in God either. And yes, the film does mention the name of Jesus.
The film begins by showing the toll that the 15 year struggle against slavery took on William Wilberforce. Both his health and demeanor were obviously affected. He was a bright young figure in the UK's political scene. The movie then shows the journey that took him to this point in his life. He was converted after college and after he was already involved in Parliament. We also learn that he had faith while still a child, Wilberforce regressed during his adolescent years.
While the film didn't show his actual conversion, we understood that it took place shortly after obtaining a position in Parliament. We see that Wilberforce would remove himself into his property in order to find a lonely place for prayer. He would lay down in the wet England grass and speak aloud to God. The film shows that his butler finds him doing this, and he begins to share his thoughts to the butler.
We learn that one of his best friends from college (William Pitt) is going to become Prime Minister. Pitt recognizes Wilberforce's witt, talent and understanding of the political structure, and he desperately wants Wilberforce to support his cabinet. However, Wilberforce is considering "dropping out" of politics in order to focus his life on preaching the Gospel.
Finally, Pitt invites a group of ministers to a dinner held at the Wilberforce home. Wilberfoce reveals his dilemma. He has been undergoing an intense inner-struggle. He wants to choose between a life of ministry and a work in politics. These men convince Wilberforce that he can do BOTH. They remind him that he can use his abilities and position in Parliament to fight against certain sins and unjust activities (such as slavery). Finally, Wilberforce agrees.
The film shows that young William Wilberforce was a dear friend of John Newton, the former slave trader that became a minister. Newton, of course, wrote the lyrics of [i]Amazing Grace[/i]. The film portrays the strong conviction that Newton felt for his role in barbarically transporting 20,000 slaves. History tells us that Newton continued participating in the slave trade for a few years following his conversion (even though he was morally and spiritually opposed to it). The film shows that, as an older man, he held deep sorrow for this. He encourages Wilberforce to "sink the ships of the wealthy slave traders" by his participation in Parliament. As he grew old and blind, John Newton dictated his intensive knowledge of the slave trade as a testimony to help in Wilberforce's work.
The film does show Wilberforce's late courtship and marriage to Barbara Ann Spooner. Wilberforce was in his late 30s, and Miss Spooner was an encouragement to continue his fight against slavery. As someone noted, the clothing that Miss Spooner wore in the film was somewhat revealing (at least in one scene, because of a low cut top). I'm not certain how "authentic" her dress was, but I imagine that it was reflective of the times. However, I certainly doubt that a woman would have worn such a dress in front of a very zealous evangelical Methodist!
The film concludes by showing Wilberforce's strategy in ending the slave trade. Instead of attacking the practice -- he laid the "axe to the root" of the problem. He keenly cut off legal protection for ships flying the British flag into the West Indies. This cut off about 80% of the slave trade. Shortly thereafter in 1807, Parliament ended the slave trade by a vote of 41-20 in the House of Lords and 283-16 in the House of Commons. This is remarkable in that it was nearly 60 years before slavery became illegal in the United States! The British became the first world power to outlaw slavery (even though Scotland had outlawed it a few decades earlier).
As far as the use of profanity, I believe that there were two instances. None were used by believers in the film, and since one of them was British in nature, my fiance didn't even recognize the word. Yes, it was disappointing to have heard a film using profanity. However, I might point out to the critics on this website that [i]The Cross and the Switchblade[/i] uses two clear instances of profanity as well (including the same word). Yes, use of profanity is quite sad and a display of an unclean mouth. But so is the pretentious backbiting, gossip and slander that is sometimes seen in these forums. I'm not "defending" the use of profanity (by no means!), but I simply want to display the hypocrisy of pointing out a "mote" while neglecting the "beam." If someone has the audacity to watch a football game (and commercials) on Sunday afternoons ("paying" for it with their time, energy and devotion) and then criticize a film such as this -- then they might want to inspect themselves for "beams." In my opinion, this film was far less blatant than Sunday afternoon football -- or even many "Christian" books.
I admit that I liked the film. However, I must stress that I was not [i]entertained[/i] by it. I found that it was simply a "moving historical text." There are a great many people (particularly Americans) who have never heard of William Wilberforce and his contributions against slavery and animal cruelty, as well as toward free education and church missions. It was nice to see a secular film display evangelicals in a good light -- and particularly the contributions that a believer made against a moral evil. The world seems to have lost the knowledge that morality has historically been shaped by God's Word. So I would approach this film from an educational aspect rather than through an evangelical approach.
:-)
