Billy Connolly versus God

December 12, 2001
Issue 

@head2 = Billy Connolly versus God

Billy Connolly versus God

The Man Who Sued God
Directed by Ben Gannon
Starring Billy Connolly and Judy Davis
At major cinemas
Picture

REVIEW BY NATALIE ZIRNGAST

Along with movies like The Castle, The Bank, Erin Brockovich and A Civil Action, The Man Who Sued God takes up a theme that has become increasingly popular in the last few years: ordinary people versus bad corporations.

In this instance, the target is insurance companies. Billy Connolly's character is a fisher whose boat is struck by lightening. His insurance company refuses to pay on the grounds that it was an "Act of God", the subject of an exclusion clause in the fine print of his policy.

Connolly concludes that God's representatives must pay for the damages in the same way that executives of a company are responsible for its action. This leads to a farcical series of legal wrangles.

Judy Davis plays a disillusioned local journalist who wants to write "real" news. As the case becomes a media circus, everyone from radio shock-jocks to religious groups debate the philosophical, moral and ethical questions it raises.

Connolly is as entertaining as always in his role as the blustering Irishman, and Davis' delicately offbeat performance is an excellent contrast. The churches, big corporations, the media, the legal system and the traditional family unit all come under fire for their hypocrisy and lack of relevance to ordinary people's lives.

However, there is nothing really new in the overall formulation. Connolly's character starts off suing God's representatives on his own but eventually puts together a "class action" with others who have been caught by the same clause.

This is used as a device to show the change in his character to a less self-absorbed person, rather than any suggestion of the power of collective action per se. The slow and difficult procedures of the legal system are shown as barriers to achieving justice. However, no other methods of creating change are contemplated, nor is the problem placed in a wider context.

The film's main success is in its satirical discussion of the church as an institution. It draws a parallel between the church and the insurance company, and the machinations of both are clearly linked to financial rather than humanitarian concerns.

One scene shows the church threatening to sue the insurance company for "breach of copyright". Differences between notions of God and the Church are explored well enough to satisfy those with questions about the contrast between spirituality and religious institutions.

My primary criticism of the treatment of religious issues concerns the quasi-apocalyptic bushfire that occurs in the vicinity of the town while the trial takes place. This leads to some laboured moments that seem to divert the audience from the central critique of the church and other institutions into the secondary consideration of whether God really exists.

Undoubtedly, there are plenty more stories of corporate injustice and of individuals who stand up to them waiting to be released onto the big screen.

This is a great film for a laugh and its points are well made. I hope the film helps to make the insurance companies sweat. Next time, though, I'd like to see an anti-corporate film which solves the problem in the streets and not in a courtroom. Anyone want to make one?

From Green Left Weekly, December 12, 2001.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.