Un monde à part

"Saving Sarah Cain" is a respectful look at a Pennsylvania Amish community. Like the film "Witness", it assumes that its characters are rational people with understandable motives for the choices they make, rather than members of an altogether alien world. There is a minor problem with the attributed location of the story. Although the movie was filmed partly in Lancaster County, PA, a comment is made that Pittsburgh (not Philadelphia) is "the nearest big city". This only makes sense if the characters are members of the New Wilmington, PA Amish community, or of nearby towns. The Western Pennsylvania Amish are a thriving and interesting bunch, and authenticity here would have added to the flavor of the film.

This is one powerful movie that somehow manages to transcend the wide chasm between mainstream and message. The acting is superb, the writing is fresh and believable, and the production qualities are top notch. Considering the unlikely premise, this had all the makings of just another manipulative barf bag of Hollywood drivel. But in the sensitive hands of Michael Landon, Jr., it speaks to the audience with the voice of truth. Can I single out one performance above all the others? No way. The kids are wonderful, Elliott Gould hits a home run, Tom Tate is convincing and likable in a thankless supporting role, and Lisa Pepper is absolutely "real," causing us to see her character as an actual human being instead of a screen persona. Resembling a young Jennifer Aniston, she knows just how far to take her character before crossing the line into screen histrionics. Terrific! Mark McKenzie's music, while not quite reaching the sublime heights of "The Last Sin Eater" (2007) is lovely and unobtrusive, at times punctuating the dramatic moments with a light and never maudlin touch. Even the high school students are not the expected stereotypes. It is clear that Landon set out to craft a special film of honesty, solid values, and cinematic integrity, and he succeeded brilliantly on all counts. I recommend "Saving Sarah Cain" without reservation.

I loved the movie so much I watched it three times. It showed people in desperate, difficult situations, either from within themselves or from circumstances beyond their control, and how all those things were ultimately overcome. How could I not love it? It started with despair, pain, and betrayal, but further on everything changed with hope, comfort, understanding, and love. Most importantly, it had a point. If some missed it, maybe later, somewhere down their own road, they'll see what it was.

I would have given the film a 10 until I saw the deleted scenes on the DVD and thought they left the best parts of the story on the cutting room floor. Perhaps they were removed because the theme of family, love, and God might have been viewed as too strong, or one-sided, or forcing someone else's beliefs on the audience. Their absence may have caused some to regard it as 'sappy', or then again, maybe not. Each of us sees things from our own perspective. What I consider my loss - the deleted scenes, some others' loss (in my opinion) - what it was really all about.

Overall this was a good film, but being friends with some Amish people and living close by, the inaccuracies bothered me. The plot and storyline were good and the actors were pretty good, but the directing could have been a little better. The inaccuracies, mainly the way they pronounced Lancaster and the fact that they spoke high German instead of Pennsylvania Dutch, just seemed to ruin the movie to me. It also bothered me that they didn't use the right accents. If you don't know any Amish or Pennsylvania Dutch, you will most likely think this is a pretty good movie. If you know the Amish or some Pennsylvania Dutch you won't enjoy this movie as much. I did enjoy the fact that they portrayed them as people not just "outsiders" as they usually view the "English," but, in my opinion, if you are going to include the Amish in a film, it should be a little more accurate to their culture.

This comment is an attempt to balance out a "review" that broad brushed the acting in "Saving Sarah Cain" as wooden, the situations unrealistic, and the movie nothing more than sappy and clichéd. There was no sense of giving the reader the pros and cons to this film. As such, the author's "take" on the film had more to say about his or her film preferences than it did about the merits of the film itself.

While the premise of "Saving Sarah Cain" is somewhat of a stretch — relocating orphaned Amish children to a big city in order to live with an "English outsider" — the film is nevertheless intriguing and heartwarming.

To read such harsh criticism, however, one has to wonder if there some "rule" that says a good movie must be dark, depraved, brash, violent, sardonic or just plain jaded? If these harsh criticisms had been applied to yet another romantic comedy, I would say that the man-meets-woman premise has been milked to death and probably does deserve some of those criticisms. However, "Saving Sarah Cain" is not at all shallow, shows no disrespect or flippancy toward Amish culture, and the subject matter itself is not at all overdone. The acting on the part of the Amish children's characters was sensitive and convincing to the point of wondering if they somehow WERE drawn from among the Amish (or had lived among them in order to become true to their mannerisms). In addition, the situations and the psychological reactions to them were portrayed well enough to make the characters believable, though it is, in fact, based upon a work of fiction.

It would seem that the review presently leading the pack for this film advanced the idea that a "real movie" cannot be touching. However, I would say that sentimentality is not the problem. To the contrary, it is much harder to portray that which is innocent, earnest, restrained, modest or pure than it is to portray the hardened, jaded, disturbed, dysfunctional or brash characters that many dramas either call for. Of course, we're not living in the Silver Screen era, so it should be no surprise that this sort of movie — the director, script and its actors — would draw criticism from those who think there's only one way to make a decent movie: the way everyone else is doing it. I cannot name one film or work of fiction that does not follow a protagonist/antagonist formula, so the "cliché" criticism in the prior review is nothing more than a Red Herring.

In conclusion, if films that focus on an uplifting ending and steer clear of violence and stereotypical subjects and characters do not appeal, don't blame the director. Blame it on the fact that NO such movie is one's cup of tea. You'll never see me write a horror movie review because I would not do the subtleties of the horror genre justice. Likewise, I do not wish to read another review written by someone who obviously doesn't "get" the audience to whom "Saving Sarah Cain" is directed. There are some people who like to post reviews simply because they are contrarians and are under the impression that intellectual and artistic prowess must be demonstrated via criticism. The art is never good enough. The wine is never good enough. The films are never good enough. You get the idea…

Ignore them.

"Saving Sarah Cain" gets my vote for a movie well worth watching.