Resurrection (1980): A Conservative Look at a Misunderstood Classic

Prepare yourself for a cinematic experience that promises to defy your expectations and perhaps even rile up your sense of political sensibility. 'Resurrection,' a film released in 1980, is a hidden gem that seems to have been lost under the wave of Hollywood blockbusters that focus on explosions rather than emotional dynamism. Directed by Daniel Petrie and starring the formidable Ellen Burstyn, 'Resurrection' explores themes that are as provocative as they are divine.

Set in the scenic backdrop of a Midwestern small town, the film follows Edna McCauley, played by Burstyn, who discovers she has miraculous healing powers after surviving a near-death experience. What makes this film compelling is not just the supernatural elements, but the manner in which it provocatively discusses spirituality, faith, and a kind of healing that challenges the traditional religious narrative. A film like this begs us to consider: where do we draw the line between divine intervention and human capability?

First and foremost, let's talk about Ellen Burstyn. Her performance isn't merely acting; it's a masterclass in embodying a character who walks the fine line between sainthood and skepticism. Now, if there ever was a film that gets under the skin of our liberal counterparts, this might be it. Amidst a dominantly secular culture that tries to underplay spiritual discourse, this film trots out a protagonist whose life is turned upside down by forces beyond her comprehension or, by some accounts, her personal belief system.

Imagine this: your average liberal family in their 'all dogs have rights' T-shirts watching Edna McCauley perform what can only be described as miraculous acts of healing. As she heals emotional and physical wounds, she challenges modern perceptions of faith in ways that no lecture on existentialism can match. Edna doesn’t question the source of her healing powers vehemently, leading us to interpret that maybe a little faith in things unseen could go a long way.

And let's not ignore the splendid craftsmanship of Daniel Petrie. A director who doesn’t cave to the godless narratives that leave theaters feeling empty once the credit rolls, Petrie’s work in 'Resurrection' is a testament to purposeful filming that can amalgamate faith and the fantastic without an ensuing identity crisis.

The supporting characters, including Richard Farnsworth and Sam Shepard, provide layers to the film that help unfold this extraordinary narrative. Their performances add a delightful complexity that enables an authentic exploration of how different characters react to Edna's abilities. Farnsworth plays Edna's endearing father, contrasting sharply with Shepard's character, who is more of a skeptic, if you will.

Let’s face it—'Resurrection' is a classic piece of cinema that pushes the boundaries of understanding and accepting that not everything in life can be rationalized by science or secular discourse. It takes us back to an era where films allowed you to sit back and be confronted by challenging questions without an impending agenda thrust into your consciousness. A time when complexity wasn't equated with pandering.

Now, does the film dare to provide a definitive explanation for Edna's abilities? Absolutely not. The beauty of 'Resurrection' is that it invites you to engage with your worldview while empowering you to ask questions that others might find uncomfortable. It is precisely this open-endedness that captivates—a point to ponder for audiences who've become accustomed to spoon-fed narratives.

So why hasn't 'Resurrection' been hailed as the quintessential American classic it deserves to be? The answer lies in the self-inflicted cultural veto that avoids cinema which dares to suggest that miracles are possible or that faith might manifest in tangible ways. Cultural narratives often dismiss films that embrace spirituality unless it adheres to a very specific, mainstream-approved narrative.

The film’s resolution is not about showing off a grand miracle but delicately portrays the subtler, yet profound, transformations that occur in the lives it touches. A story of courage and resilience, and an argument for the virtues of trusting the inexplicable routes that life sometimes steers us through.

'Ressurection' is more than just a movie; it’s an experience that shakes off the cobwebs of predisposed notions about spiritual phenomena. It valiantly straddles entertainment and existentialism—prompting viewers to question whether the answered prayers come from the divine, or perhaps, from a deep-seated potential within that we’ve abandoned in our race toward ‘progress’.

This film is a challenge, a throwback that dares today's over-intellectualized, under-spiritualized culture to revisit the conversation of faith, and maybe rethink the power of belief in shaping our destinies. It's a film conservatives can appreciate not for its overt messages but for the implications it barely conceals under its surface. Like a stone thrown in the waters of doubt, 'Resurrection' sends ripples of thought-provoking content through the viewer's mind. Let liberals have a go at stirring their coffee in those mugs with slogans like, "Science is real." But remember this next time they question the power of belief: in the world of 'Resurrection,' anything is possible.