TIME CHANGER

REVIEWED BY BRETT WILLIS

Our rating: 5 out of 5

Rated:

It’s 1890, and Bible College Professor Russell Carlisle (D. David Morin, The List) is about to publish a book on The Changing Times. The Dean (Hal Linden, TV’s ‘Barney Miller”) and the rest of the faculty give their approval to the book. But Professor Norris Anderson (Gavin MacLeod, TV’s “The Love Boat”) has been sick and absent from the meetings; and according to school rules, there must be unanimous consent from the faculty before a member may publish. The Dean is about to move to exclude Anderson as unavailable, when Anderson shows up and throws a monkey wrench in the works. He does NOT approve of the book, because of one tiny passage that advocates a “new” approach to Evangelism. After a half hour of screen time is burned up with legal maneuvering, Carlisle finally goes to Anderson’s home as he was requested to do. And there he learns that Anderson has seen first-hand the fruit of Carlisle’s message. He’s seen it because he has a Time Machine and has traveled to the beginning of the 21^st Century.

Carlisle thinks Anderson is crazy; but before he can escape Anderson’s workshop, he too is sent to the future. The “fact” of time-travel is shocking to him, as is the advance in technology. But most shocking of all is the change in lifestyles and moral standards. Needless to say, by the time Carlisle is returned to 1890 he intends to rewrite that passage in his book. The nature of the offending passage? Not some radical statement of inclusivism or situation ethics, as you might assume. Just a proposal that when it’s not practical to actually preach the Gospel, it would be beneficial to at least teach some moral standards. Problem is, that’s really situation ethics in disguise. Because when you teach the moral standards of our Lord but don’t give Him credit for authorship, then they’re really not “standards” at all but just human opinions that may be changed at any time.

This film had a limited theatrical run in 2002, is now available on Video/DVD and can be shown to church groups (with permission). It should be quite a discussion starter.

There’s no profanity, no violence and no real sexual content. Mature themes are hinted at, but in an oblique way that allows for entire-family viewing. Carlisle makes a comment about skimpy women’s clothing on display in a store; we only see one shoulder of a mannequin. There’s an indirect reference to profanity in a movie but we don’t hear it. Carlisle is shocked to see a couple on a TV drama are about to kiss (we don’t see them actually kissing), and even more shocked when he learns that they’re not really a couple but are just actors. A Christian librarian (Jennifer O’Neill, Summer of ’42, Personals, Invasion of Privacy) who used to work in the entertainment industry enlightens Carlisle as to how the Hays codes kept films relatively clean for a long time, but those codes were eventually discarded as public sentiment changed. When Carlisle finally gets some idea of how bad the film and TV industry has become, he picks up the remote in his motel room and flips through the channels; we don’t see or hear anything on the TV, just see the reaction in his face.

Gone With the Wind was rated G. So was the first Star Trek movie. So was Silent Running. All those films have violent on-screen death and other objectionable content. It’s ridiculous Time Changer is rated PG. Unless the rumors are true about the MPAA’s unwritten philosophy of “Children shouldn’t be exposed to Christianity without their parents’ consent.” The film has high production values; both the 1890 sequences and the present-day sequences have realistic, well-dressed sets. The few special effects are adequate. The acting by the 1890 characters seems very stiff, while that of the present-day characters is more “realistic.” The director seems to have gone overboard in portraying the “gay nineties” as a time of strict propriety; the characters speak slowly, don’t use slang, don’t even use contractions. It’s funny to see Carlisle interact with a flippant-attitude businessman (Paul Rodriguez, Blood Work) or a rude waitress who has no time for small talk. Funny, and yet not so funny.

Theological considerations: Time-travel—especially backward time-travel—is of course unscriptural and scientifically impossible. But the time-travel angle is just there as a necessary plot device, like in Focus on the Family’s radio program “Odyssey.” A specific doctrine of Salvation is hinted at, but is kept vague enough so that people of many stripes can view the film comfortably. There is, however, a statement that Salvation involves submission and “The Lord will not save those He cannot command.” That will bother those who teach knowing Jesus as Savior and knowing Him as Lord are two entirely separate events and either one can occur independently of the other. Since I don’t subscribe to that view, I wasn’t bothered at all. The only thing that did rankle me was a date-setting thing tacked onto the final scene. Anderson tries to send an inanimate object forward to the year 2100, and it won’t go. Then, as the picture fades, he tries 2090, 2080, 2070 etc., all without success. The implication, of course, is that time will come to an end sometime in this century. For those like myself who contend that date-setting is unscriptural, that’s a sensationalist distraction from the film’s primary point. Oh, well.

Considering some members of the cast have a history of appearing in films or TV of very questionable content and/or of having tragic personal lives, and have later found new life in Jesus, their consenting to appear in this film lends credibility to its message. Looking beyond the slow-developing story and the deliberately wooden acting, it’s a worthwhile film for both believers and nonbelievers. I’ve included several plot spoilers here, but I haven’t given away everything. The film really is thought-provoking, and it may make some people feel guiltier than they have in a long time.

© www.charitysplace.com - all rights reserved.