The Man Who Sued God A Reflective Argument †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Man Who Sued God A Reflective Argument. Answer: The Man Who Sued God is an Australian comedy movie, which released in 2001. It is directed by Mark Jofee and stars Billy Connolly as the main protagonist along with actors Judy Davis, Colin Friels, Billie Brown and others in supporting roles. The film was a box office success in Australia and inspired the creation of remakes in various languages. The film is quite popular due to the sensitivity of the topic it addresses which makes us realize the truth of the statement- the laws of the land do not apply to laws of God and are not to be intermingled. Though the movie falls under the comedy genre, I feel the subject presented by the movie is a serious one and is hard to categorize. The film follows the story of the protagonist Steve Myers (played by Billy Connolly), an ex lawyer who left the profession after growing tired of the widespread corruption present in the judiciary system. He buys a small boat and takes up the job of a fisherman, his main livelihood being fishing. When his boat gets destroyed by lightning, he informs the insurance company for his claim. The insurance company after analyzing rejects his claim stating that the incident is an act of God and no claims can be filed under this cause. Frustrated by this, Steve re-registers himself as a lawyer and files a case against God stating that God is payable for the damage he has caused. The movie explores an important subject that has been faced by many but the issue has not been addressed properly before[1]. The insurance companies provide us the power to grant a claim in case of an accident or mishap in order to help us avoid excessive losses or damage. Stating an accident as an act of God is unfair and impractical. Accidents that occur due to natural causes have the same impact and damage as in the case of accidents taking place due to man-made reasons. If a person is rejected a claim for a natural cause, it makes the entire point of insuring the property or item, useless. The movie clearly depicts the desperation of a man, having lost his last property and means of livelihood being exploited by the insurance company for their impractical principles. The laws of land do not apply to the laws of God. Thelaws have been established and imposed by man, without which society would fall apart and fall under a state of chaos. If society can follow the laws made by man, then it is justified that insurance companies do the same rather than imposing their own laws or principles [2]. The laws are in place to safeguard the interests of common people but money and power still find a way to exploit common people to this day. Accidents can occur at any time and no individual wants to be a part of an accident deliberately. According to the policy of the insurance company, any accident that takes place be it natural or man-made may be credited to God and fate, therefore dismissing the need for insurance. As the movie progresses the protagonist gets embroiled in a legal proceeding with insurance companies and representatives of the church. The protagonist states that if God exists, he should be compensated by Gods representatives, if not, it would prove that God does not exist and therefore the insurance company must provide him the money he claimed for. Anna Redmond (played by Judy Davis) is a journalist who joins the protagonist in helping him to spread his voice across various channels. Anna also pulls up and reports previous cases of act of God victims to further help Steves cause. However, she soon faces criticism for her history of targeting and attacking insurance companies in the past. This proves the under representation of women in societys structure of power[3]. Anna is criticized for her stand on the arbitrary practices of the insurance company and her relationship with Steve. Rather than paying attention to the message that Anna wanted to convey to the people, she was sta ted to promote a publicity stunt. This clearly depicts that women till this day are not considered relevant in addressing important issues of relevance and more emphasis is towards their personal records, which is irrelevant to the situation. Women still lack a position of authority and power and that has been portrayed via this event in the movie. However the movie ends on a rather disappointing note where the protagonist, tired from the constant media he and his family were receiving and his ex wife crippling from the debt of the boat, decides to withdraw himself from the case. This depicts that not all arguments are effective in a court of law. An argument without the existence of proper facts, figures and witnesses is invalid in a court of law and ultimately would not be fruitful to an individual. The existence of God is a debatable issue and the court only deals with facts that have been proved and recorded. Therefore, the movie provides a reality check on an individual taking a stand against religious teachings and unethical practices of big organizations and shows that not all battles can be won alone and sometimes its better to let go [4]. The movie through its simple tone is effective in conveying the message that a lawyer who is ethical and hardworking may actually contribute to the benefit of the society by voicing out against unjustified laws. In the movie the protagonist is seen to leave his profession of law due to corrupt practices but returns to it in order to protest against existence of a law which only serves to do more harm than good. Though the protagonist withdraws himself from the case in the end, he still makes sure that the judge is aware of the existence of the impractical law of act of God and how insurance companies are misusing it to their own benefit. Every religion has its own beliefs and teachings on God and his existence. Using this as an excuse to not provide financial support for an accident which may occur from a natural cause is meaningless. All forms of accident have the same impact on our lives and means of livelihood and should be treated as one rather than blaming God for the earthquake s, lightning, tsunami and other natural disasters taking place. Therefore, the movie is clear in its portrayal that the laws of land and religion differ in nature and are not to be mixed together. References BBC - Films - Review - The Man Who Sued God(2018) Bbc.co.uk https://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/08/01/the_man_who_sued_god_2003_review.shtml Parkinson, David,The Man Who Sued God(2018) Empire https://www.empireonline.com/movies/man-sued-god/review/ Stratton, David and David Stratton,The Man Who Sued God(2018) Variety https://variety.com/2001/film/reviews/the-man-who-sued-god-1200553029/ Roper, Matt,World's Maddest Claims For Damages Including The Man Who Sued GOD And Jailbird Who Sued HIMSELF(2018) mirror https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/worlds-maddest-claims-damages-including-1797365