Review: Saving Marriage (2008) ****
On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled 4-3 in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was contrary to the Massachusetts constitution. Massachusetts therefore became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriages. Opponents of the ruling immediately began the process of amending the state constitution to forbid same-sex marriage and a contentious 3-year political battle was underway. At issue was not only the legal protection afforded married couples, but also the fundamental equality of all human beings and the basic human need for social acceptance.
With cameras on the ground throughout the political back and forth, filmmakers Mike Roth and John Henning captured the events as they happened. The result is Saving Marriage, a documentary that illuminates the people behind the politics and presents a compelling and moving portrait of an important moment in American civil rights history.
As someone who intellectually agrees with the notion of equality of all people, but who also believes you can’t legislate one group of people to accept another, I doubted the power of a same-sex marriage documentary to accomplish much more than preach to the converted while alienating the other half of the audience. I was wrong. While it will turn off those who will never accept homosexuality and who see gay marriage as a degradation of opposite-sex unions, Saving Marriage puts a human face on abstract notions of dignity and equality. It might not convince the intractable to accept gay marriage, but it argues compellingly for the essential humanity of all people regardless of their sexual orientation.
More surprisingly, the documentary managed to shift my own attitudes on the subject. Being straight and single, equal marriage is a fight that didn’t seem to directly touch my daily life and I’d only ever considered it intellectually. However, Saving Marriage made me feel it.
At one point in the story, lawmakers offer an amendment that calls for “civil unions” that give same-sex couples the same legal protections as heterosexual couples while keeping the two forms of union distinct. On the surface it seems like a reasonable compromise, but it’s not. Those fighting for gay marriage are not only fighting for their legal rights, they’re also fighting for the social recognition a marriage affords. They’re fighting for equality. If a civil union is equal to a heterosexual marriage, then why not just make it a marriage? Anything less is a form of segregation. It’s codifying into law the idea that the love and commitment between two people of the same gender is inferior. As a 25-year-old openly gay Massachusetts man who runs for the state legislature in order to block the amendment asks in the film: do we really want the government dictating what love is and what it isn’t?
I have to admit I hadn’t really considered the issue in those terms, but by presenting couple after couple who were in love and who simply wanted to affirm it to the world, Saving Marriage changed my perspective. It’s an activist documentary in the sense that it has a clearly pro-equal marriage agenda, but it still gives a voice to opponents of gay marriage and it also gives an accurate recounting of true events.
The film’s one flaw is that it never adequately addresses one of the key issues in the film. One argument of the opponents of gay marriage is that it is a matter that should not be decided by the courts or the legislature but by popular vote. While the film reminds us that few if any of the civil rights advances of the 1960s would’ve succeeded had matters been left to a vote by the people, it’s still a soft spot in the argument and one liable to continue to be exploited by people who refuse to accept gays on equal terms.
Filmed on video in a broadcast news style, Saving Marriage is not very spectacular from a cinematic standpoint. Without fancy graphics or slick Errol Morris stylistics, it will probably play as well on television as on the big screen. However, it makes up for its lack of flash with simplicity and directness. Also, for those who might be fuzzy on the details of the story, it delivers a compelling legal narrative as the ups and downs of the fight are detailed. It might not be pretty, but it’s fascinating.
In short, Saving Marriage is an interesting and entertaining record of a historic event. It’s also a clear, compelling and surprisingly moving call for the equal rights of all human beings. In a time when so much of politics is filled with rancor and division, it’s refreshing to see a movement that is based on affirmation. Regardless of your opening stance on the subject of equal marriage rights, you may find that Saving Marriage gives you something to think about.
Saving Marriage. USA 2006 (released theatrically in 2008). Directed by John Henning and Mike Roth. Cinematography by Mike Roth. Edited by Paula Gauthier. Music composed by Jamie Forsyth. 1 hour 30 minutes. MPAA Rated PG-13 for brief strong language. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Jamie Forsyth, John Henning, Mike Roth, Paula Gauthier, Saving Marriage
Related Posts: - This just in: ‘Towelhead’ is derogatory
- Return of the Son of Rambow
- Trailer: Saving Marriage
- Weekend Forecast: 10/16/08
- Weekend Forecast: 10/9/08
There is an upcoming screening of this on my campus as part of our Queer Film Series, and I’m looking forward to it.
Did you see FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO Craig? And if so, is this comparable to it? That film is probably the best I’ve ever seen the subject of homosexuality handled on film, and hope that this one can live up to that.
I saw FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, Matthew and I completely concur with you–it was a powerful, powerful film.
Well Craig, another victory for the shortened film format, and confirmation that you’ll be able to do more of them as a result. And a very well-structured and rewarding essay that certainly makes it points bluntly. I especially admire the personal touches which lend this review interesting perspective.
I definitely would like to see this.
The United States has a long history of legislating equality to the masses, albeit one small step at a time, and yet this country falls far behind other democracies in the world when it comes to seeing all citizens on even and fair terms, all idealogical beliefs being equal.
I’m glad to see progress is being made, however difficult it may be.
Matthew I didn’t see For the Bible, but I suppose I’ll have to seek it out now.
One hard thing about reviewing documentaries (and maybe Daniel G has some thoughts on this since he’s always up to his ass in them) is how much credit do you give to the message and how much to the film itself?
As a person who mainly watches fiction films, I tend to value a film on it’s merits as a work of art, but documentaries don’t always fit comfortably into that model.
In this case, I’m giving a lot of credit to the message because it was forceful and it almost made me cry. However, as I said above it’s not very fancy as a piece of cinema.
With another attempt by initiative to overturn California’s own same-sex marriage law (Proposition 8), I hope folks in my home state will have a chance to see this before voting. I believe it’s now playing in San Francisco.
Ironically, I just noticed that the ads on this review are pro Proposiiton 8 links.
Stuff like that makes me regret advertising.
Yeah, Craig, there are always ads for watercoolers as well.
I tend to judge documentaries not just by whether they’re works of art, but also by the information provided by it and how it is presented in the film. In the wrong hands even the most interesting subject matter can be portrayed in a boring and pedantic manner. For me the successful documentaries convey what they need to in an interesting and moving way, even an entertaining manner (a la Man on Wire). In addition, sometimes a one-sided view works, sometimes it’s important to present various points of view, as seems to be the case with this film.
I probably won’t get to see this in the movies, so I’ll have to catch up to it on DVD. Sounds like For the Bible Tells Me So is also worth adding to my Netflix queue.
“do we really want the government dictating what love is and what it isn’t?”
This is a good question, and has led me to believe that probably the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Why ARE we turning to government to ratify private bonds? Make all cohabitating couples “civil unions” in the eyes of the law, and leave marriage to the churches and individuals. However, this will probably never happen - too many people would object - so agree that the next best thing to do now is expand the definition of legal marriage (which is not the same thing as religious marriage) to include gay couples. I do think it’s a redefinition rather than something inherent in marriage itself, and that thus the legislatures are both a more fair and more practical (see Prop 8) arena in which to confront the issue - but it’s a redefinition which, as society changes, is I think a good idea.
Thanks for stopping by MovieMan.
I agree that government is best left out of it altogether. What concerns me in this case (Prop 8) is that I feel a state constitution is being misused to actually limit the rights of citizens when in fact a constitution should be used to guarantee those rights.
In the end I think it’s academic because I think younger generations have very different attitudes about the subject and I think the resistance of the generation in power will eventually give way.