After a straightforward start, the bizarre story of young man's entree into a lurid sexual ménage-à-trois involving a highly regarded religious educational administrator and his wife, this film begins to go elsewhere. By half-way in it inserts another larger agenda. Politics. Politics beyond the young man's manipulation at the hand of man who masqueraded as quite the opposite of the actions of his day job. Though shocking this isn't anything new as other religious figures have fell in similar ways. I can't recall any of those stories bringing in race and politics, certainly not to the degree here.
It takes the opportunity to divide all, meaning the rest of us not involved in the scandal, per personal positions on race, abortion, religion, and political preferences. These elements constantly hi-jacks the actual story. The real story should be of a powerful religious organization's leader and his wife's dark manipulations. Instead it takes this core faux pax as means to an end to divide and demoralize those right of center.
If this was told as a young man's sad choice based on a powerful religious institution's hypocritical leader's sordid manipulations, that would be quite enough. Instead, the film again uses Giancarlo - to promote more divisiveness between the races, the pro-lifers/pro-abortionists, and political left/right. It takes a decidedly leftist view which isn't Giancarlo's story at all. In the end, the real story is a sad fall of another religious figure and a young man whose poor choice caused great harm beyond these three participants.
Giancarlo's story is tragic enough without inserting all the divisive propaganda. In closing, for instance, I don't think past presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter have relevance to anything these three did behind closed doors. Do you?
It takes the opportunity to divide all, meaning the rest of us not involved in the scandal, per personal positions on race, abortion, religion, and political preferences. These elements constantly hi-jacks the actual story. The real story should be of a powerful religious organization's leader and his wife's dark manipulations. Instead it takes this core faux pax as means to an end to divide and demoralize those right of center.
If this was told as a young man's sad choice based on a powerful religious institution's hypocritical leader's sordid manipulations, that would be quite enough. Instead, the film again uses Giancarlo - to promote more divisiveness between the races, the pro-lifers/pro-abortionists, and political left/right. It takes a decidedly leftist view which isn't Giancarlo's story at all. In the end, the real story is a sad fall of another religious figure and a young man whose poor choice caused great harm beyond these three participants.
Giancarlo's story is tragic enough without inserting all the divisive propaganda. In closing, for instance, I don't think past presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter have relevance to anything these three did behind closed doors. Do you?