Divine
2020
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.9 out of 10
You are here:
Find another title
Type to search for movies. Use arrow keys to navigate suggestions, Enter to select, Escape to close.
The Favour, the Watch and the Very Big Fish
1991
Director
Ben Lewin
Runtime
89 minutes
Average Rating
No ratings yetSynopsis
A farce, Hoskins plays a photographer who specializes in religious pictures who searches for a model for Jesus. He does a favor for a friend and finds himself doing a voice track for a porno movie with Natasha Richardson. Hoskins finds his model for Jesus in Jeff Goldblum and a romantic triangle begins in which Goldblum finds adoring crowds believing him to be Jesus and then begins to believe it himself.
Where to Watch
Diversity & Representation
Overall Score
4.2/10
Fair
Category Breakdown
LGBTQ+ Representation
The film lacks explicit evidence of LGBTQ+ characters or non-heteronormative identities. The central romantic triangle appears to follow a traditional heterosexual framework.
Gender Representation
The narrative disrupts conventional masculine identities through the protagonist's involvement in adult cinema voice-tracking. Natasha Richardson's central role suggests a departure from submissive feminine tropes.
Racial & Ethnic Diversity
The cast appears to lack significant characters of color or intersectional diversity. The focus remains on Western cultural archetypes and religious iconography.
Religious & Cultural Diversity
The film uses religious iconography as a satirical tool to critique traditional institutions. It juxtaposes the divine with secular absurdity and the adult film industry.
Disability Representation
There is no mention of characters possessing visible or invisible disabilities within the narrative.
Strengths
- Effective satirical critique of religious iconography and traditional morality.
- Subversion of conventional masculine professional identities through farce.
- Engagement with moral relativism and the commodification of belief.
Areas for Improvement
- Lack of visible racial and ethnic diversity within the cast.
- Absence of explicit LGBTQ+ representation or non-heteronormative identities.
- Minimal focus on disability representation or intersectional perspectives.
AI Analysis
The film excels in its satirical deconstruction of Western religious institutions. By framing the search for a 'Jesus' model through a lens of farce, it challenges traditional moral hierarchies and the sanctity of religious imagery. However, the production lacks breadth in social representation. The narrative appears centered on a Western-centric, Anglo-Saxon majority, offering little visibility for diverse racial or LGBTQ+ identities. While the gender dynamics offer some subversion of 1990s comedy tropes, the overall diversity is limited by a narrow focus on a specific cultural and heteronormative comedic triangle.
Similar Movies
Bimboland
1998
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.0 out of 10
Three on a Couch
1966
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.5 out of 10
Making Up!
1993
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 5.3 out of 10
The Seat Filler
2004
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.7 out of 10
Soap and Water
1983
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.1 out of 10
Amy's Orgasm
2001
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 5.8 out of 10
Thank God He Met Lizzie
1997
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.1 out of 10
Just One Night
2000
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.2 out of 10
Moon Over Parador
1988
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 4.3 out of 10
The Shrink Is In
2001
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 3.6 out of 10
The Favor
1994
No user ratings available yet
Diversity score: 1.9 out of 10
Rate this Movie
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first to share your thoughts on this movie!
Use the rating form above to leave a star rating and optional review.