FIREPROOF - The new film from Sherwood Pictures

[jls4]

ok everyone, let's STOP talking about this... let's stop talking about the type of film and just focus on the one film this thread is about, OK.

Not to be a pain in the butt, but I think it's importaint that filmmakers discuss these issues.

After this weekend I quit keeping up with this thread. I've since skimmed through some of the subsequent posts.

I'd just like to add that films like Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Left Behind, etc are created by people who do actually expect them to be targeted to the non-christians and fully expect those audiences to surrender their life to Christ after viewing the film.

...

Larry I'll give you one thing, you sure can sum things up. Don't know about the whole Protestant/Catholic thing, but that's for another board. hahaha

Actually, while the Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical of the Christian story, CS Lewis said in later years that he never intended that. He simply wanted to write a children's series that was fantastical.

It was simply a matter of his own personal world view, influenced by his faith, that fashioned the content of the story into such a beautiful allegorical picture. And that is something we, the Christian story tellers, need to consider when crafting our own stories. Just tell a great story and trust your inner world view to guide the fashion in which it is told.

My wife who was an English major said most of the English critics see Narnia as very Christian. Even if he didn't mean it to be that way, it sure came across that way. Almost tic for tac.

 

[Kirk Gillock]

I agree wholeheartedly on the politics front, but I respectively can't see the "preachyness" definition used for your other examples (alcohol, drug use, violence). For some filmmakers, politics is their religion (I won't mention names, but you know the ones), so it isn't surprising that they would use every angle to push their agenda.

As for alcohol...
Is drinking shown in films often? Yes. Is it shown in a positive light? Usually. Is it glorified? No, I think it is just reflecting the fact that booze is such an ingrained part of our culture. Sure there are teetotalers out there, but prohibition's failure showed that they are the exception. In other words, Drinking in movies is mainstream, but it is only due to the fact that it is mainstreamed in real life. Hell, the American Revolution itself was started in dark tavern corners. :beer:

As for drug use...
Basically every drug film I can think of does show the dire consequences involved in that life. There are very, very few exceptions to this rule. Okay, for arguments sake, we'll have to agree that pot doesn't count. But unlike some films mentioned in this thread, what/whose agenda is being crammed down your throat?

As for violence...
What can I say, it sells. That's nothing new...just look at the early bloodspots from ancient times (gladiatorial games, etc.) I'm not immune. I don't, however, think filmmakers are encouraging anarchy of violence to their audience. They are just flowing with the supply and demand currents.

There is a difference with coating entertainment (which films are) with religious agendas. As we have been saying, uplifting/motivating films are great (they are amongst my all-time favs)...but they can be done (and done extremely well) without tacking on the "born again" agenda. Just look at Hudson's list, or better yet, look at the Bishops' list. They both show that there are countless uplifting "moral" stories to be told that can touch every heart in the audience, not a select few.

:beer:

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

Almost everything characters do or say is directly related to the filmmakers belief system. We can't help it. Anything we do in life or on screen comes from a belief system. Whether sex or drugs or alcohol are shown positively or negatively or not shown at all, it's a message the filmmakers chose to send the audience. There's no avoiding it. And there are even more agendas which are just as subtle which are purposely placed (or not placed) in films because they reflect the filmmakers (or sponsors) own beliefs. Everything from types of cars (Transformers) to affairs (Bridges of Madison County) to the environment (WALL-E).

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It makes for good entertainment. But they do have tiny agendas and are either trying to sell a product or the filmmakers belief system. Some times both. Some times the filmmakers don't even know they're putting "little messages" in their films. They're just making the film they want to make (comedy, romance, action). But no matter what they do the film will have bits and pieces that reflect their own belief system. Fortunately, from what I've seen from the filmmakers on DVXuser, there is a wide variety of beliefs here and they're all making the films they want to make.

There are messages in music, books, news, art, websites, classrooms, forum posts (wink, wink) and even the golden age of movies (DeBeers paid filmmakers to include scenes of men giving women diamonds in their scripts.). People have strong beliefs/opinions and they're going to use their choice of medium to share their beliefs to as many people as they can. I've got a website that has a HUGE agenda (charity/volunteering). So if agendas are bad then I'm guilty too.

When Ben Stiller and Cameron Diaz smoke pot in "There's Something About Mary", the filmmakers made that choice and they had an agenda for that particular moment. The drug use had absolutely nothing to add to the plot. At all. It was too subtle and never mentioned. But it is obvious what their beliefs are on causal drug use and by having their likable main characters do it helps their agenda. The Apatow films (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, etc.) do the same thing. Each film is loaded with tiny messages based on the filmmakers belief system. And so does EVERY film ever made. We can't help it. It's free will and it's beautiful.

Agendas/Messages are not a bad thing. I LOVE all those films mentioned above and filmmakers can do whatever they want with their film. It's one of the benefits of the job. But there's no denying that everything you seen on screen is there for a reason. It was a choice by someone. The writer, or Director, or Producer. And more likely than not its there because it reflects the filmmakers (or sponsors) own beliefs.

Napoleon Dynamite was made by Mormons but it is not a "religious" film. But, if you watch closely, you'll notice the filmmakers did have a subtle agenda. There's no alcohol, cursing, or sex in the film. It is totally clean. The filmmakers used their own beliefs to decide what would and would not be in their film. They had a story to tell and they told it using their own belief system. Just like the Farrelly Brothers, or Apatow, or Scorcese decides what will and will not be in their movies based on their belief system.

How would the main character react in this situation?
Callaghan: I think he'd light up a big stogie.
Hudson: I think he'd go kill some zombies.
PK: I think he'd go post on DVXuser.

The reaction has a lot to do with the filmmakers own belief system and who they are (unless it's a biography). And whatever the filmmaker decides, that is the message they want to get to their audience.

Agendas in films can be obvious or they can be practically subliminal. They can be HUGE or they can be small. But they are there.

 

[jls4]

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

Agendas in films can be obvious or they can be practically subliminal. They can be HUGE or they can be small. But they are there.

i'm lovin' this...

 

[Kirk Gillock]

Sorry, I tend to ramble late at night.

But, no matter what, a good movie is a good movie. And I think the problem with some Christian films is that they're more concerned about "the message" and less concerned about "the film."

 

[Larry Rutledge]

And I think the problem with some Christian films is that they're more concerned about "the message" and less concerned about "the film."

That's precisely what I've been trying to say, only I say it in multiple paragraphs where you boiled it down to a clear, simple statement

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

And I think the problem with some Christian films is that they're more concerned about "the message" and less concerned about "the film."

Agree completely! Well said.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[jls4]

But, no matter what, a good movie is a good movie. And I think the problem with some Christian films is that they're more concerned about "the message" and less concerned about "the film."

Dang it - see now you've ended the thread, just when it was getting good!

 

[KyleProhaska]

By the way, I'm sure someone is thinking "well it would've been a better film..." If you were to ask the Kendricks of whether or not they would rather have a better film, or a better tool to reach others for Christ, I'm sure you can guess which they would pick. In the end, they are using their films for ministry. Telling a great story yes, that is part of the fun and the journey of making a film, but after all that is over...they want to reach their audience with the message of Jesus. That will always be their main priority, in life or in their films.

My take on that argument...

 

[Dvader]

By the way, I'm sure someone is thinking "well it would've been a better film..." If you were to ask the Kendricks of whether or not they would rather have a better film, or a better tool to reach others for Christ, I'm sure you can guess which they would pick. In the end, they are using their films for ministry. Telling a great story yes, that is part of the fun and the journey of making a film, but after all that is over...they want to reach their audience with the message of Jesus. That will always be their main priority, in life or in their films.

I think this is on the verge of propaganda as defined here:

Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.


Also, just because you depict something in your films does not mean you are pushing it as an agenda. At times it can be, but at times filmmakers want to show real life and they do so subjectively. You cant show everything in real life in one film so you have to pick and choose, but that doesn't mean you are pushing that thing you chose as an agenda if you show it subjectively....unless you want to say the filmmaker's agenda is to depict real life...

 

[Brandon Rice]

A lot of times what keeps a film from being perceived as preachy is the dialog... that can completely change the way the information given is perceived.

 

[Evan S]

Does anyone honestly think that "Pineapple Express" made people who don't smoke pot, go seek it out? Maybe a few, but they must already think about it. People who don't want to smoke pot are not going to. Just like christian films. Do you think that I'm going to convert to christianity because of a movie? Probably not. But a few might.

 

[spidey]

i saw pineapple express 3 times. i never done any drug of any kind. all i do is drink.

 

[spidey]

i go for the cast writers directors and stories.

 

[Jason Miller]

Where are you getting your facts from? This movie IS Christian! The Lion represents Jesus and his sacrifice for the children and his people. The Witch is the devil. Just because it has Witch in the title doesn't make it Wicca.

one nothing can represent Jesus, it's either jesus or its not, second it made the humans the bad guys, and the creatures that crawl the earth the good guys, this in itself would be considered a form of blasphemy to Christians. as we believe God made man over the earth, and everything else on it to serve us feed us cloth us, to a christian animals rising up against man would be the work off the devil. when i referred to wicca I wasn't talking about the white witch, I was talking about the use of magic, all use of magic is viewed as works of evil by the bible.

while I agree that the C.S. Lewis did include some Christian Ideas, that doesn't make it Christian, and some of the vlues the film teaches kids, are also not Christian.

 

[jls4]

one nothing can represent Jesus, it's either jesus or its not, second it made the humans the bad guys, and the creatures that crawl the earth the good guys, this in itself would be considered a form of blasphemy to Christians. as we believe God made man over the earth, and everything else on it to serve us feed us cloth us, to a christian animals rising up against man would be the work off the devil. when i referred to wicca I wasn't talking about the white witch, I was talking about the use of magic, all use of magic is viewed as works of evil by the bible.

while I agree that the C.S. Lewis did include some Christian Ideas, that doesn't make it Christian, and some of the vlues the film teaches kids, are also not Christian.

How were the humans the Bad Guys? I've never read the book. I've only seen the movie and I wasn't impressed by the movie, although it did well at the box office. But I never saw the humans as bad guys. Same way in the Passion of the Christ I never saw the Jewish people as bad guys.

I'm not about to debate Christian ideals, especially since reading your posts I take it that you are Christian. And by my posts you should understand that I am Christian too. But you have "Christ figures" throughout different stories in written history since Christ waked the earth. It's usually a person/being that makes a sacrifice for others at the expense of him/herself.

Now someone already pointed out that C.S. Lewis didn't see Narnia as a Christian story - but it doesn't come across that way (at least not to me). As for the use of Magic, Tolken was very Christian from what I've read, yet magic exists in his stories as well. But I think this goes back to kinda what people are saying here about stories in general. We don't know what was in "vogue" at the time these writers wrote their books. Same way you have people cursing (from what I've read of Fireproof) in the movie. Christians don't curse or at least should try their best not to. So a Christian that makes a movie with cursing, is that now not a Christian film? Or is the writer simply trying to portray a more realistic world in order to "make a parable" to his/her viewers.

 

[Jason Miller]

have you seen the second Narnia film? the Animals along with 5 humans went to war against humans.

I saw Fireproof, and I don't recall cursing. but I did have to step out to use the restroom once so I may have missed it.

 

[David W. Richardson]

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, there is only one movie that is making more per theater than "Fireproof" -- and that's "Eagle Eye".

Wonder how well "Fireproof" would be doing if it had gotten a wider release? Guess we'll never know, will we?

 

[jls4]

have you seen the second Narnia film? the Animals along with 5 humans went to war against humans.

I saw Fireproof, and I don't recall cursing. but I did have to step out to use the restroom once so I may have missed it.

I haven't seen the second one. I wasn't impressed from the first - so I figured why spend my money again. X-men got my money 3 times and I was so angry because every movie got worse!

As far as your original statement about blasphemy that a few humans/animals went to war against most of the humans. Again I don't understand that statement. I'm PMing you a few quotes.

I don't know if fireproof had cursing in or not, like I said I haven't seen it. Somebody on IMDB said it did and they took their children out when they heard it. But they could have said that trying to hurt the movie. Here's a more indepth review from Christianity Today and at the bottom it states what is actually in the movie that made it PG. I'm not putting the review up to say yay or nay about the movie, more so that it gives a persepctive of Christian from from a Christian source.

But even through these items that the article claimes for the rating:

"Fireproof is rated PG for thematic material (a married couple have increasingly loud and angry arguments, a man is said to be looking at online porn although it is never shown, a woman sues for divorce and contemplates adultery, a man comes to Christ) and some peril (firefighters rescue a car that is trapped on a railroad, as well as a child trapped in a burning house). "

Again try to place the movie in a more "real world setting". I applaud the filmmakers if their hope was to get more people in the seats and to try to talk to "normal" people.

 

[jls4]

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, there is only one movie that is making more per theater than "Fireproof" -- and that's "Eagle Eye".

Wonder how well "Fireproof" would be doing if it had gotten a wider release? Guess we'll never know, will we?

Hey Chapel,

Fireproof is a targeted film and this is usually how it is for targeted movies. It's better to have this high per theater rating than a lower one. Fireproof's best offence/defense move is to stay around and keep packing theaters. U-571, I believe, was a flop for the first few weeks of its release, then made huge amounts for just "sticking around". Pitch Black did the same thing along with O Brother Where Art Thou doing horribly in the Theaters but awesome on DVD. Sometimes people don't know it's good, but that word of mouth gets around and the movie does well. Even little Juno simply got a constant amount of viewers. So if Fireproof can hold out making 10 mill this weekend, 8 mill the next, 5 mill the next, etc. Then it may make 50-70 at the box office which will make it a huge hit! And will open the door for more movies like it.

The main thing is that the Church/Investors make enough money to make more movies like it. If their main goal is to spread a message vs make money or at least provide an alternate form of entertainment, then I believe they will succeed. Remember, Christian Theme aside, Dramas tend not to do as well at the box office like Comedies, Action, Horror, or Thrillers do.

 

[Bob Gruen]

If you look at Hollywood's history you see that during it's golden age they did make a lot of Biblically based stories (the Ten Commandments jumps to mind). There is certainly a market for it as some of the individual stories in the Bible are simply some of the best stories every written, and Joe Average would go to the movies to see them if they were done properly.

The problem is that doing a biblical story would be doing a period piece, and they are always on the expensive side of the scale. Trying to modernize one and you'll risk loosing what makes them great to begin with. Either way you have to sell investors to make it happen. There are at least a dozen 'Gladiator' type stories in the Old Testament.

Not sure if anyone in this thread has brought up some of the religious based horror stories but some of them are very entertaining and even uplifting in their own odd way. For example, The Exorcist is about an imperfect Priest fighting a demon. A Christian movie? Maybe not to everyone but it is a film that shows religion as being a real, tangible truth (SPOILER ALERT*: and it shows the willingness of a Priest to die for his beliefs). Then there's The Omen, and The Prophecy. In my mind they are films that did not twist Christianity but rather showed it in a very real light.

I can envision a very compelling story around Revelations (I'm unimpressed by the Left Behind take on it), and Lucifer's Fall from Grace (hinted at in The Prophecy) could be an amazing story if handled properly.

one nothing can represent Jesus, it's either Jesus or its not, second it made the humans the bad guys, and the creatures that crawl the earth the good guys, this in itself would be considered a form of blasphemy to Christians. as we believe God made man over the earth, and everything else on it to serve us feed us cloth us, to a Christian animals rising up against man would be the work off the devil. when i referred to wicca I wasn't talking about the white witch, I was talking about the use of magic, all use of magic is viewed as works of evil by the bible.

while I agree that the C.S. Lewis did include some Christian Ideas, that doesn't make it Christian, and some of the vlues the film teaches kids, are also not Christian.

I'm not sure if Jason Miller has actually read the Chronicles of Narnia, but I think that his C.S. Lewis argument misses the point. Aslan is not Jesus, he is an allegory for God, and the Narnia stories depict an interaction He has with a different universe that He created. To be offended by the talking animals misses the point entirely as C.S. Lewis has Aslan bestow souls to those creatures and they are in essence 'human' in that universe. (Read The Magician's Nephew to understand this). It may be more correct to describe the Chronicles of Narnia as Judaic than Christian, only in as much as there is no Trinity in Lewis' Narnia. It is most certainly not blasphemy.

Finally, I think it's sad that some choose to 'find offense' with this thread or religion in general. I was raised a Catholic and I'm currently a practicing 'Hopeful Agnostic', and I just don't see how discussing a religious belief is offensive. Especially as it's being carefully directed at film-making which is totally appropriate for this forum. Personally, I view such attempts at 'Thought Policing' as being reprehensible.

Bob


*If you've never seen 'The Exorcist' then crawl out of your cave and rent it, you won't be disappointed.