Christians & Film
I was searching for something entirely different but stumbled on this article, which is a good low-level summary of my mostly-formed opinions on Christian films and why they aren’t that successful. This quote stuck out:
Jesus began many of his parables with the phrase, “The kingdom of God is like …” (He used this construct twelve times in the Gospel of Matthew alone.) In the book All the Parables of the Bible, Herbert Lockyer explains, “Because of His infinity, God had to condescend to those things with which man was familiar in order to convey the sublime revelation of His will.” Jesus’s parables allowed his audience to understand heavenly principles in earthly terms. He would even respond to questions with parables — instead of stating the answer outright, he would allow his audience to make the connections themselves. Jesus also knew that the things of heaven are too large to be fully grasped by the human mind. They are mysteries, in the classic sense of the word, and can only be hinted at through symbols and metaphors.
Christian filmmakers seem to dislike mystery. Rather than using Jesus’s construct, “The kingdom of God is like …,” their films often proclaim, “The kingdom of God is.” Nothing is left to the imagination. Audiences are not allowed to make their own connections; they are told what to think. In his book True Believers Don’t Ask Why, John Fischer characterizes this attitude as: “Jesus is the answer; therefore nothing can be left unanswered.” This approach, no matter how sincere, rings false to audiences and leaves them feeling manipulated. That’s why movies like Left Behind, which try to convince audiences of the truth, instead leave them tittering. Anthony Breznican of the Associated Press described it as “a weak proselytizing device masquerading as a movie.” The National Review’s Rod Dreher called it the “Gospel According to Ned Flanders.” As long as people of faith are more concerned with messages than metaphors, they are doomed to make bad films.
Discuss.
albert wrote:
I think, especially from where I come from and what I’ve been exposed to in the past, the unfortunate consequences comes from a type of fundamentalism that thinks how a pastor dictates on a pulpit has to always been reiterated in daily life. If you grow up listening to people like MacArthur and people that have been influenced by him all your life, you’re bound to imitate that kind of literal communication as a lifestyle. Not that I’m against expository preaching, I’m all for it. But exposition is simply an academic way of communication and strict academia has its place, but not in Art.
An interesting story; After I saw “End of the Spear” with some of my friends from church back in LA, we all came out of the theater not liking the film. But my reason was different than theirs. They all didn’t like it because it didn’t present the gospel clearly. I didn’t like it because it was just a really bad film.
Posted on 19-Dec-06 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
albert wrote:
Oh yes, forgot to add; I would argue that Preaching in and of itself is an artform as well. Jesus being the epitome.
Posted on 19-Dec-06 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Amy wrote:
That’s a really interesting excerpt. As a Jew working for a company with a Christian bent, it’s an interesting point. Exposition in film, regardless of it being for plot or message purposes, is a weak device. Film audiences enjoy mystery. Having been party of the Narnia team, I think it’s clear that one doesn’t have to spell it out to make a point. What’s great about The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is it can be looked at as both an allegory and just as a fantasy story: making it accessible to the masses, not just Christians.
Posted on 19-Dec-06 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
josh wrote:
Point blank, I think the problem comes down to making the effort to reach people from a Christian perspective in the first place. As a former non-Christian, even if you made a movie with metaphor, one of two things would have resulted: I would have seen the metaphor as something suggesting compassion, goodness, and other positive values that also happen to be the center of Christianity or, I would have understood it to be a metaphor for Christ Himself and been immediately turned off. Reaching non-Christians is very difficult, though obviously not impossible. Personally, I believe it tends to be the work of God when it happens. So I suppose what I’m saying, in a remarkably roundabout way, is that I agree with the idea of metaphor as opposed to message but when push comes to shove, just make the movie. If God wants it to reach people, it will.
Posted on 20-Dec-06 at 12:40 am | Permalink
Charity Johnson wrote:
I disagree with this:>As long as people of faith are more concerned with messages than metaphors, they are doomed to make bad films.
Posted on 20-Dec-06 at 10:21 am | Permalink
Charity Johnson wrote:
Check out my Merry Christmas Greeting:
http://sundowniest.blogspot.com/
Posted on 20-Dec-06 at 10:23 am | Permalink
Jai Brinkofski wrote:
Um… I’ve always been pretty simplistic in my thinking about stuff… so, if yuo asked me why Christian films typically flop at the box office, it’s simply because they typically suck. I should end this post now… but I guess I’ll rant.
Let’s think Left Behind for instance… holy crap. I mean that. Wow, that film sucked. I personally think Kirk Cameron is a cool guy, and a decent comic actor… COMIC actor. Sitcoms. Growing Pains. Guest spots on Full House. Perfect roles for the guy.
Left Behind would have done better had it been cast better. Using strictly Christian actors to do a film limits the pool of talent. If it’s the director who wants to get the point across, get filthy sinful actors who can pretend to be (act as) super amazing Christians. I’d be far more inclined to go see Left Behind had they cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Buck Williams, for example. Don’t you think he could’ve made a convincing “left behind Chrsitian”? I sure as heck think so.
Also, unfortunately, budgets can ruin films. Christian film budgets, just like the Christian music industry’s, are tight… though the music industry is catching up to speed with some artists (ex. Skillet’s latest release, Comotose. Sonically [production wise] as excellent as any secular album.)
But then again… Napolean Dynamite.
I believe that someday there will be a film that gets it, and at the same time is excellent - glorifying God by exuding a character who is genuine, flawed, and sold out for Christ. Many churches will probably condemn the film cause it will likely be rated PG-13 and show the character screwing up royally. That’s reality. There are many churches that find reality offensive. Oh well. They’ll still have movies like Left Behind to rally around.
Have you seen the movie “2nd Chance”? That’s the closest thing I’ve seen to a movie that has that “reality”, yet doesn’t compromise the heart of Christ. The production value isn’t superb, but it’s closer than anything else I’ve seen. I do warn you… Michael “99.1 W. A. W. Smith” is in it as a main character… but he’s actually cast well and isn’t too a bad of an actor.
Yeah… “simple” tuned into “rant”.
Alyssa… we still haven’t met. that’s really sad. tell Tommy I miss him, and his “just for men” beard.
Posted on 20-Dec-06 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
Jean wrote:
Interesting thread. I think all of the above are very interesting points. Another thought I had was the fact that our world is plagued with spiritual warfare. It just seems that whatever kind of movie out there (if it happens to smell of Jesus or Christianity in any way) Satan will get to his audience by any way he can. This could be by using the “corny factor” or the “hippocritical factor.” For example, Passion of the Christ has been accused of being too violent and gory, but how many times do people rave about other violent movies like Pulp Fiction, and Sin City?
There is a line of movies called Fox Faith Films out there, fyi.
Posted on 20-Dec-06 at 3:43 pm | Permalink