SURPRISED BY OXFORD: An Exercise In Watchful Dragons And Genre Smuggling

You know when a movie cites Aristotle‘s theory of teleology you’re in for something fairly cerebral. Surprise by Oxford is adapted from the memoir of the same name by Dr. Carolyn Weber.

The movie itself is conceived through voiceover, and the technique feels like a rite of passage for these bildungsroman stories; it’s not a crutch so much as it is the form to get inside the protagonist’s head (an ascending Rose Reid). Caro is a young woman whose destination is never in question.

She learned from an early age to trust her rational intellect over everything else. While her mom prayed the rosary, Caro moved on from childish things: “There was no mystical intervention only knowledge.” Her “higher calling” was to earn a doctorate. Thanks to her drive, she landed a full ride to one of Oxford’s prestigious colleges. It’s the true beginning of her story and her search for purpose.

An American in Oxford

There’s a somber solemnity to the visual aesthetic of writer-director Ryan Whitaker‘s film, somehow evoking a golden hour-infused dankness. For how beautiful the locales are in real life — imbued with so much history — I didn’t always enjoy looking at Surprised by Oxford.

Still, speaking as an unabashed American, we come to England and its traditions with a bit of wide-eyed wonderment. We eat up stuff like Harry Potter, Downton Abbey, or Father Brown because they ooze with a sense of tradition and antiquity that we cannot quite muster on this side of the world.

One perceptive student in the dining hall even asks Caro if it’s her first time in the U.K. based on “the stars in her eyes.” Thus, it comes as no surprise that the students watch a projection of Chariots of Fire (1981) one evening. I cannot think of something more on brand and aspirational.

However, perhaps the most obvious comp I can think of for Surprised by Oxford is actually The Theory of Everything. Yes, it’s about Stephen Hawking, but it’s based on the memoir of his wife Jane whose own faith seemed to contrast sharply with her husband’s atheism.

If The Theory of Everything suggests romance and academic pursuits are this cosmic dance bound up in swelling emotion and melodrama, in Surprised by Oxford one character acknowledges a “Joyless, pleasureless existence.” The contrast is rather ironic.

Caro gives us a crash course in the Oxford ecosystem even as she gets immersed in the work of Romantic writers like Mary Shelley and other literary titans like John Milton and Donne. Throughout it all she’s exploring her own belief system. One of the irritants in her journey is an avowed person of faith named Kent (Ruairí O’Connor).

Watching the movie I was considering how the author and Oxford don C.S. Lewis talked about the ability of certain things to sneak past the “watchful dragons.” I take this to mean he was intrigued by stories, music, poetry, and anything that could compel a person on a level beyond mere dogma or rhetorical treatises.

As John Keating rhapsodizes in Dead Poets Society, “Poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.” They have no utility, and yet we need them. Because the arts also have the ability to open us up to new ideas and put words to longings that we haven’t been able to express — reaching out to the transcendent, whatever you take that to mean.

Paul Schrader even famously analyzed a transcendental style in the work of certain filmmakers like Robert Bresson, Carl Theodor Dreyer, and Yasujiro Ozu. Watching Surprised by Oxford I felt like my dragons were still guarding the gates, and I let it in only begrudgingly.

Memoir and Didacticism

In one sense, the movie is a testimony of a life and so we cannot take this away from Caro. There is power in personal stories and who are we to detract from them? They can be instructive and even uplifting.

But there’s a part of me that sees the movie more as a didactic argument especially when the romance genre smuggling — to co-opt a term from Martin Scorsese — isn’t always effective.

It feels like the narrative has been fit into the awkwardly antagonistic will-they-won’t-they template, and when the romantic climax comes, we’re only mildly satisfied. It feels a bit too easy even facile.

If we’re generous, there are beats, moments, and characterizations that are enjoyable within this Oxfordian milieu. However, it strikes me there was one particular scene I found visually arresting. It wasn’t just about the ornate architecture or verdant green countryside. Our heroine is picked up by a mounted policeman, and she looks catatonic albeit dressed for a grand occasion.

It’s the opening image of our story and eventually, we return to it with more context. Because there is an incongruity here that makes us curious. Film is rarely a purely intellectual exercise. At its best, it allows us to marvel at formalistic beauty and intuitive storytelling.

Conclusion: Surprised by Oxford

Theory of Everything has a pair of winsome leads in Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, and because of them, we appreciate the romance. It falters when it comes to themes or the articulation of its ideas in the name of Stephen Hawking. They feel simplistic.

In one sense, because I’m familiar with C.S. Lewis and have a curiosity for classic works of literature, many of the ideas in Surprised by Oxford are deeply intriguing. Still, the conduit through which they are delivered doesn’t always work. Although its ideas are more robust than some might give it credit for, I wasn’t entirely convinced by the genre tropes the movie was packaging them in.

For those who have only a mild familiarity or hold an aversion for faith-based movies, Surprised by Hope is a cut above. It’s not going to meet you with the kind of incisive magnitude of Scorsese‘s Silence or Terrence Malick‘s A Hidden Life, although this should hardly be a requirement. I also think it’s a creative end continually worth aspiring to.

Surprised by Oxford was initially released to select theaters in the U.S. on September 27, 2023.