What's wrong with Christian filmmaking?

firehawk said:
I've already started recommending it to others and (no surprise) those friends with great emnity and/or disinterest in God have zero interest in the film.
Click to expand...

I think this is another problem. The idea that someone has "disinterest in God" because they are disinterested in your idea of what God is. They may have a tremendous interest in God if it were not posited as, this is the "TRUTH" that I know and if you don't accept it you are not interested in God. I know the answers, you don't, so let me 'splain it to you....That attitude takes all the exploration, thought and open mindedness out of any concept. People are put off by that. That attitude is what turns it into "another one of those Christian films".

This film got 18% on Rotten tomatoes. That's a miserable rating.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/

Todd VanDerWerff gave the film a D-, saying "Even by the rather lax standards of the Christian film industry, God's Not Dead is a disaster. It's an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward bogeymen that feels far too long at just 113 minutes".[13]

Reviewer Scott Foundas of Variety wrote "...even grading on a generous curve, this strident melodrama about the insidious efforts of America's university system to silence true believers on campus is about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head...".[SUP][14]



[/SUP][SUP]I think this is a classic exmaple of "preaching to the choir" one of the things the original article mentioned that made these films not appealing to general audiences.
[/SUP][SUP]This spells it out pretty well.

[/SUP]http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/04/08/review-gods-not-dead/7457995/
Whether or not one one believes in God, the contrived premise of God's Not Dead is anything but credible.
 
Last edited:
The friends that I described as having "disinterest in God" simply have no interest in any type of god at all. So a christian type film with "God" in the title is of no interest and that is their choice. Others may have interest or lack of interest in films about cars, westerns, sports or monsters, and that's their choice as well.

Yes. Great issue and offense is taken when it comes to such matters as truth and a higher authority which is what the God of a Christian film is about. So a Christian film is rowing upstream from the start, in an already difficult world of good filmmaking, knowing the viewing audience will be limited, AND they usually are doing it without the budgets for high dollar tools and help.

It's tough. At least it's more affordable than it used to be. It's wonderful we have access to the kind of gear and software available now so we have a better chance at trying to make whatever type of film we choose :)
 
firehawk said:
The friends that I described as having "disinterest in God" simply have no interest in any type of god at all. So a christian type film with "God" in the title is of no interest and that is their choice. Others may have interest or lack of interest in films about cars, westerns, sports or monsters, and that's their choice as well.

Yes. Great issue and offense is taken when it comes to such matters as truth and a higher authority which is what the God of a Christian film is about. So a Christian film is rowing upstream from the start, in an already difficult world of good filmmaking, knowing the viewing audience will be limited, AND they usually are doing it without the budgets for high dollar tools and help.

It's tough. At least it's more affordable than it used to be. It's wonderful we have access to the kind of gear and software available now so we have a better chance at trying to make whatever type of film we choose :)
Click to expand...

On the plus side this film did get pretty good marks for acting and production value.
 
I think sometimes instead of focusing on making a 'Christian' film, a Christian filmmaker
should focus on making a film with Christian themes. Many people of other religions
and even non religious people can identify with some of these themes. Themes such as
'redemption' (Star Wars), doing the wrong thing for what a character feels is the right
reason, self sacrifice (say sacrificing your life to save others) are all themes that can be
and are very popular in Hollywood. These are not 'Christian' movies per say but I think
a lot of people can identify with these struggles and themes. I actually wrote a short story
when I was in college based on themes such as these (relatively bad guy commits very good
act saving someone's life after major accident transporting 'bad' guy to jail. Then 'bad'
guy starts to escape. Saved person watches and has a chance to turn the guy in to authorities
who arrive on scene....of course he is conflicted. Does he turn guy in or not? Not Christian
but explores some issues such as the struggle between 'good' and 'evil' inside each of us.
i think those types of movies may be more mainstream 'acceptable'...I guess it depends
how 'Christian' a filmmaker decides they have to get.
 
It's certainly an interesting discussion. I agree with most of the original article's key points based on the majority of faith-based films I've seen, but obviously there are exceptions - 'The Mission' (which I don't think anyone could argue isn't a faith-based film) is one of my favourite films of all time, and although I no longer identify myself as Catholic anymore (and was grappling with that question of faith when I first saw the film as a young teenager) I didn't find any point of that movie at which I wasn't utterly engaged by the characters, the narrative and that magnificent score (I'd argue one of the finest film scores of all time).

I think the reason that films succeed so strongly where others fail so miserably - is that its Christian themes serve the characters, rather than the other way round.

I think that's the key difference really - the characters' actions may be driven by those faith-based themes, but those themes remain (as they do with any person of faith in the real world) a single aspect of their characters, not their entire being. I think that's really important for creating believable characters and believable character actions - because it's that believability that holds the impression of propaganda at bay, and I think even when you're preaching to the converted that sense of truth to the characters and the story still matters.
 
firehawk said:
If any of you on this site were a part of this film, I commend you.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "God Is Not Dead"(2014), but unless I've erred on attributions, Brandon Rice who is a member here, has story credit on "Grace Unplugged"(2013), which I believe is in the category of 'christian' films.
 
A long time ago I had a roommate who lost his girlfriend and then found Jesus. He got really into his faith, but then started preaching to us at any and every opportunity. We even had a game where we'd see how long any conversation went before a mention of faith/God/Jesus. The average was under a minute, the longest was three minutes. Needless to say, we all found this really annoying and tried to avoid him, but his church mates had no problem with it and even embraced it. In case you haven't figured it out (I'm looking at you Fundamentalists!) this is a parable about christian filmmaking.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
A long time ago I had a roommate who lost his girlfriend and then found Jesus. He got really into his faith, but then started preaching to us at any and every opportunity. We even had a game where we'd see how long any conversation went before a mention of faith/God/Jesus. The average was under a minute, the longest was three minutes. Needless to say, we all found this really annoying and tried to avoid him, but his church mates had no problem with it and even embraced it. In case you haven't figured it out (I'm looking at you Fundamentalists!) this is a parable about christian filmmaking.
Click to expand...

This sort of behavior is not limited to 'christian converts', but is seen often in any 'convert' to some XYZ religion/ideology.

There is a problem, in my opinion, when a filmmaker attempts to be too orthodox. An example from a different religious group, a writer, J. D. Shapiro, was asked to adapt one of that religious systems founder's sci-fi novels, "Battlefield Earth", to screen. Eventually Shapiro apologized for "Battlefield Earth"(2000).

Here's the article http://nypost.com/2010/03/28/i-penned-the-suckiest-movie-ever-sorry/

One of Shapiro's 'explanations' was that much of the script had to be 'approved' at every step, in addition to the usual 'studio notes', relative to that group's 'orthodoxy'. And since he refused to incorporate those 'notes', was fired from the project.
 
Rather than simply talking about one religious orthodoxy we should expand the question to... what constitutes bad filmmaking.

There are basically 2 groups of people: (1) people who want to reaffirm their believes and (2) people who want to challenge those believes. Within those groups there are the ones who want to do it on the surface (talking about it to others but when it comes to investing money or time they stop short) and those who actually want to do it (literally put their money where their mouth is).

Those two basic groups still are made up of sub-groups: the ones who understand subtext and the ones who take everything literally.

Most bad films (here also Christian films) are made by people who don't understand subtext - everything is literally what it seems. This kind of approach is borderline insulting to any intelligent person.
Moreover those films - for whatever reason - are made by people who want to reaffirm their believes. Problem with reaffirmation is that then you are preaching to already converted - majority of people (including the converted ones!) have very little interest becaue you are not challenging anything. There simply is no struggle.

Based on "God is Not Dead" trailer it's obvious that the filmmakers are very literal, so it's hard for me to believe that those intellectually inept (let's not be afraid to call out what they really are) filmmakers will show me nuances of philosophy to prove their point. So even though i have a tremendous interest in philosophy and question if there is God, i have absolutely zero interest in watching this film.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Rather than simply talking about one religious orthodoxy we should expand the question to... what constitutes bad filmmaking.

There are basically 2 groups of people: (1) people who want to reaffirm their believes and (2) people who want to challenge those believes. Within those groups there are the ones who want to do it on the surface (talking about it to others but when it comes to investing money or time they stop short) and those who actually want to do it (literally put their money where their mouth is).

Those two basic groups still are made up of sub-groups: the ones who understand subtext and the ones who take everything literally.

Most bad films (here also Christian films) are made by people who don't understand subtext - everything is literally what it seems. This kind of approach is borderline insulting to any intelligent person.
Moreover those films - for whatever reason - are made by people who want to reaffirm their believes. Problem with reaffirmation is that then you are preaching to already converted - majority of people (including the converted ones!) have very little interest becaue you are not challenging anything. There simply is no struggle.

Based on "God is Not Dead" trailer it's obvious that the filmmakers are very literal, so it's hard for me to believe that those intellectually inept (let's not be afraid to call out what they really are) filmmakers will show me nuances of philosophy to prove their point. So even though i have a tremendous interest in philosophy and question if there is God, i have absolutely zero interest in watching this film.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic but here's some fun examples of "subtext". I doubt I noticed any of these when I watched these moves and I'm not sure they are all accurate, but they are interesting. I don't think you have to notice subtext when you watch a movie. I think often times it enhances what you are watching on a subconscious level that you don't have to identify to think the story is better than average. When you see a story and think, that was great!, or that kind of sucked but I can't tell you exactly why. Usually the difference is the inclusion of subtext. I don't think the authors even consciously put it there all the time but it does show up in well written stories.



http://www.cracked.com/article_18967_6-famous-movies-with-mind-blowing-hidden-meanings.html
 
Last edited:
I watched a movie a few years ago on HBO? Showtime? Can't remember which. I think it was a made for cable movie. It was just two characters in a room having a discussion about religion. It starred Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. I believe one attempted suicide and the other saved (or was trying to save) his life by attempting to give the other a reason to live through his faith. I can't remember the name of it but the delivery of their lines and the story overall was tremendous. I go caught up in it. If anyone here remembers the name of it I highly recommend it.

I guess I brought this up because I wish more movies like this that uses Christian principles were made. It was not...."safe" by any stretch (especially with potty mouthed Jackson...lol) but to me it was more realistic on how two people from different beliefs would interact with one another....lots of tension and possible tragic outcomes. Their conversation was what I would expect in real life. Anyways...I have not seen "God is Not Dead" yet but..from it's synopsis it reminds me of this made for cable movie..but not in a college setting.

EDIT: Found it!! "The Sunset Limited"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_8

"Two men in an apartment with their opposing beliefs in this play by Cormac McCarthey. The black guy, a former convict who believes in God, just saved the white agnostic professor from jumping in front of the express train. He won't let the depressed man leave, without following him, and feel he's in this situation for a reason, decided by God. An intense chamber play about belief or unbelief, and a conversation about what's true and important in life, or not."

Two great actors going at it very intensely in their roles.
 
Last edited:
Gillvane said:
A bit off topic but here's some fun examples of "subtext". I doubt I noticed any of these when I watched these moves and I'm not sure they are all accurate, but they are interesting. I don't think you have to notice subtext when you watch a movie. I think often times it enhances what you are watching on a subconscious level that you don't have to identify to think the story is better than average. When you see a story and think, that was great!, or that kind of sucked but I can't tell you exactly why. Usually the difference is the inclusion of subtext. I don't think the authors even consciously put it there all the time but it does show up in well written stories.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18967_6-famous-movies-with-mind-blowing-hidden-meanings.html
Click to expand...


The "original sin," or why the work was created in the first place matters tremendously. Even though the films used in that article "might" have some secondary meaning, if that menacing wasn't their original intention, then it's only extra bonus. Moreover you have to remember that those Spidermans, Robocops, Ironmans are made for very specific audiences. To make sure that those productions communicate with their wide general public audiences their subtext has to be as broad (or chessy if you will) as possible. Otherwise they would only be communicating with a very small sliver of people.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
The "original sin," or why the work was created in the first place matters tremendously. Even though the films used in that article "might" have some secondary meaning, if that menacing wasn't their original intention, then it's only extra bonus. Moreover you have to remember that those Spidermans, Robocops, Ironmans are made for very specific audiences. To make sure that those productions communicate with their wide general public audiences their subtext has to be as broad (or chessy if you will) as possible. Otherwise they would only be communicating with a very small sliver of people.
Click to expand...

Tolkien doesn't set out to write a book about dehumanizing people with industrialization and how that creates devastation to the environment and pollution. It's in there for sure, but that's not Tolkien's goal. Tolkien really wanted to tell his story about Middle Earth and the rest is in there because that's the world he was living in and it came through in his story. I think if it was the other way around it wouldn't be a good story. If Tolkien said, I bet I can use this story about Hobbits to show pollution is bad and make people realize they should stop polluting! That would have just turned out to be crap.
 
Gillvane said:
Tolkien doesn't set out to write a book about dehumanizing people with industrialization and how that creates devastation to the environment and pollution. .
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Or are you basing your knowledge on how his work was predigested by others (and thus most likely stripped of any potential for secondary meaning)? I'm pretty sure that LoTR in its original form had a lot more going on then you imagine - more than just a story. You HAVE to look at why stuff gets made in the first place. If Tolkien takes over 10 years to write a book it must have a different significance than, say, another guy working in some office is told to come up with a superhero character. The first work came from some unstoppable human force, the other because the corporate outfit wanted to sell you stuff. Yeah, for sure you can come up with meaning behind both works but i suspect you will learn more about human condition dealing with the first one than the later one.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Are you sure about that? Or are you basing your knowledge on how his work was predigested by others (and thus most likely stripped of any potential for secondary meaning)? I'm pretty sure that LoTR in its original form had a lot more going on then you imagine - more than just a story. You HAVE to look at why stuff gets made in the first place. If Tolkien takes over 10 years to write a book it must have a different significance than, say, another guy working in some office is told to come up with a superhero character. The first work came from some unstoppable human force, the other because the corporate outfit wanted to sell you stuff. Yeah, for sure you can come up with meaning behind both works but i suspect you will learn more about human condition dealing with the first one than the later one.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm actually pretty sure. If you read all the biographical info on Tolkien and interviews, the source material he prepared on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleriand etc., that's the conclusion I think you will come to. Tolkien is a product of his era and his service in WWI, and it comes through in his writing, but he was not on a mission to make a statement about industrialization and War. I think that's a secondary subtext that comes through, but his primary goal to was to tell a tale that is the sequel the Hobbit and based in the rich fictional history of the world he created.

Tolkien is not really different than your guy coming up with a super hero. At least not in motivation. Tolkien was asked by the publisher to do a sequel to the Hobbit because the Hobbit was a commercial success.

In the Foreword to the revised edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien cautioned strongly against viewing it as an allegory, saying that he disliked allegory himself.
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works
 
Last edited:
Gillvane said:
Tolkien is not really different than your guy coming up with a super hero. At least not in motivation. Tolkien was asked by the publisher to do a sequel to the Hobbit because the Hobbit was a commercial success.
Click to expand...

If i were you i would broaden the vocabulary of potential motivations why people create stuff. The corporate drone doing something for his paycheck and a guy spending 10 years of his life on a book are NOT in the same category.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
If i were you i would broaden the vocabulary of potential motivations why people create stuff. The corporate drone doing something for his paycheck and a guy spending 10 years of his life on a book are NOT in the same category.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your disdain for "corporations" and I don't even know what a "corporate drone" is. People have created marvelous creative works under corporations. I'd say Pixar is a very large very successful "corporation" that has many "corporate drones" that have made great movies. Many people working alone and not affiliated with a "corporation" have created horribly boring works of fiction. Why do you place such importance on a relationship between creativity and whether you work for a corporation or not? The two don't seem to be related at all.

Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings specifically for a corporation (or a publishing company I'm not sure if they were incorporated at the time or what significance that has really) that asked him to do so after a successful run of The Hobbit. That company supported Tolkien during the entire 10 years he worked on Lord of the Rings because they thought it would be a successful publication. Tolkien didn't write it because he thought it would be unsuccessful, no one would read it, no corporation would publish it, and it would never make money. Why would he want that? It makes no sense at all.

I don't know of any artist that hopes no one appreciates their work. And if people appreciate your work, you make lots of money. It's not one or the other. EITHER I'm writing for money, OR I'm writing for good Art. They are the same thing. Good "art" is worth a lot of money. If you make good art you will make a lot of money and if you make bad art no one wants you won't make any money. Artists don't try to make bad art that no one likes. Why would they?

I see no difference between your "corporate drone" at Pixar writing a script and Tolkien. I'm sure both were trying to make good art. Why would either of them try to make bad art?
 
Last edited:
jagraphics said:
What are these "Christian Principles" you are thinking of? This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

The 1979 film "Hardcore" staring George C. Scott, uses the "prodigal son/daughter' trope. The daughter has left home, and through investigations the father has found she is engaged in making porn films. He travels to Los Angeles (naturally...) to rescue her.

The script was written by Paul Schrader, of "Taxi Driver"(1976) fame, and has a certain 'grittiness' that one would expect having seen "Taxi Driver".

The ending of course is not something one would expect from a 'christian' film, despite the father's character being deeply 'christian' of the 'calvinist' variety. In a word, the prodigal does not unambiguously return to the fold. The daughter is somewhat of a McGuffin, the 'real' story is the interaction between the father and a porn actress who he encounters and pairs up with to find the daughter. In her case she pretty much unambiguously 'rejects' the father's 'message'.

I've not seen the film in a long time, so, perhaps it has not 'aged well'... that is it is filled with some number of 70's styles that the film can not transcend.

But I think it is a film that could be a 'christian' film, of the 'induce questioning' variety, with such questions as 'methods of delivery of the 'good news'', and how that affects others, especially those who are 'brought up in the faith'.

I don't expect to see such a film come from a 'christian' film maker... perhaps I'll be astonished at some point, but, to date, most of the trailers I've seen, have not induced me to watch further than the trailer.

Sometimes it does take a talking donkey to get people to question their values... but I digress...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top