What's wrong with Christian filmmaking?

[Ian-T]

What are these "Christian Principles" you are thinking of? This is a serious question.

Well, let’s see, if you are a story teller who’s marketing your movie as a Christian film then the rule you would follow or the foundation of your overall story will be based on the Christian chain of reasoning. In other words the teachings of Jesus Christ told in your own “sort of” parable or allegory brought to the big screen. My only argument for these filmmakers is if you want to stand a chance to at least get your movie considered in the mainstream…stop putting yourself in a box or label and just tell your story. I write/produce music. I like all kinds of music…so I write different kinds or styles of music. I don’t need a record company to say I’m this or that category to be accepted. I just make ……music. The movie example I used earlier to me was a good way of thinking outside of the box. It’s not a “Christian” labeled film…yet it had all of the elements of what an individual would go thru in life when dealing with that type of situation…without all of the fluff…or unrealistic niceties.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well, let’s see, if you are a story teller who’s marketing your movie as a Christian film then the rule you would follow or the foundation of your overall story will be based on the Christian chain of reasoning.

This is a problem, as such a discusison of what are 'christian principles' and what is 'the(or a..) christian chain of reasoning', is in fact a 'religious' discussion and 'banned' on this site.

When one is discussing a film that is not 'christian', one need not concern oneself with 'christian (or anyother) principles', or 'a christian chain of reasoning'.

As far as I know no one criticized say, "Gladiator" based on a 'stoic principle', or a 'stoic chain of reasoning', despite the fact that Marcus Aurelius' book "Meditations" which delineates his brand of stoicism, is still widely read today.

And of course any number of 'sand and sandal' films which do not depict 'christian' or 'biblical' figures, there is no outcry about either the depicted characters existence, mythic nature, or whether the adaptation conforms to any known record from ancient times. Ok, maybe a few cries from a small group of classicists may occasionally be heard. (Heck, the "Percy Jackson" series, books and films, plays fast and loose with the whole Greek Pantheon, and sets the action in 'present day'...).

 

[Ian-T]

This is a problem, as such a discusison of what are 'christian principles' and what is 'the(or a..) christian chain of reasoning', is in fact a 'religious' discussion and 'banned' on this site....

Exactly. So, I carefully worded my response so as not to violate the rules of this forum. Trust me...I have a whole lot more to say on the matter....but...I've never been banned anywhere before (that I know of) and I would certainly like to keep it that way.

When one is discussing a film that is not 'christian', one need not concern oneself with 'christian (or anyother) principles', or 'a christian chain of reasoning'.

The title and subject matter of this thread is what's driving us to discuss...the problems with "Christian" made films. So......

As far as I know no one criticized say, "Gladiator" based on a 'stoic principle', or a 'stoic chain of reasoning', despite the fact that Marcus Aurelius' book "Meditations" which delineates his brand of stoicism, is still widely read today.

Yeah but the problem with your example here is I know of no industry that labels itself "Stoic Film Industry" etc. We are talking about a specific genre that identifies itself with....everything I wrote in my previous post. If so called "stoic" movies like Gladiator put itself in a box and branded itself with that kind of label...maybe it wouldn't have done so well at the box office. Who knows?? It's like political movies...who's going to admit their politically charged movie is really about...the Obama administration or the Bush administration. As a movie maker I'd just want people to go see it...and THEN make up their own minds on what they saw. As soon as I put myself in a box (yeah...I like to use that term because it's relevant) I limit myself. That's just my POV...others might see it differently. There's really no right or wrong way....I guess. But since we are talking about "Christian" labeled films then...everything I've said stands.

And of course any number of 'sand and sandal' films which do not depict 'christian' or 'biblical' figures, there is no outcry about either the depicted characters existence, mythic nature, or whether the adaptation conforms to any known record from ancient times. Ok, maybe a few cries from a small group of classicists may occasionally be heard. (Heck, the "Percy Jackson" series, books and films, plays fast and loose with the whole Greek Pantheon, and sets the action in 'present day'...).

Same answer as above....but...

I grew up on reading Mythology in school...I also loved comic books...I dare say...to most people they both come off as exactly the same. That's why we have movies...we can suspend our disbelief and actually enjoy a well told story whether it's based off of comic books or Greek Mythology. Once the lights come back on I'm back into the real world (so to speak). If there are folks out in the world that have a hard time with that...then I really can't speak for them. It's like the Harry Potter series...I didn't watch any of the movies until around the 6th movie for no other reason than I was not interested so I didn't make it a priority. It had nothing to do with that fallout with some folks who thought it was this or that. I don't see things the same as them. Once I saw the first movie...I had to watch the next...and then the next. I enjoyed the whole series and so did my kids. Great storytelling. Then...I explained to them how magic is not real.

 

[Gillvane]

I enjoyed the whole series and so did my kids. Great storytelling. Then...I explained to them how magic is not real.

Those poor children.

 

[Ian-T]

Those poor children.

Ha ha. That's especially funny coming from you. lol

 

[jamedia.uk]

This is a problem, as such a discusison of what are 'christian principles' and what is 'the(or a..) christian chain of reasoning', is in fact a 'religious' discussion and 'banned' on this site.

We don't want to fall foul of that!

My point was going to be that most "Christian principals" (as opposed to the mechanics of the religion*) are actually 90% the same as most of the worlds other major and minor religions. love, truth, helping people, doing good, spearing the word etc. Come to that many Bible stories and parables are also found in many other older and more recent religions.

*The mechanics of the religion often have little to do with "faith" and films about the Borgia Popes have more uncommon with The House of Cards or West Wing than the Bible. Some of the Dan Brown films contain a lot of religion and faith in them but are not on "Christian Principals" BTW the same an be said about ******** Political Party Principals. Pick any Political part past or present. Hence my question as to what exactly the OP saw as Christian principals in this case.

You can make a film about *current* morality and doing good things which upholds the principals of most religions whilst not being overtly religious in general nor overtly for one faith or another. Or you can make a film that overtly pushes a particular religion and or it's message.

Note Morality is a movable feat and there are no moral absolutes. Hence my comment on "current" Morality.

So if the OP would like to tie down exactly what he meant by "Christian Principals" or Christian Made" in this context we have a chance of answering this in the context of making a genre of Religious films. Be it making a "religious film" or people of [any] faith making films, without going off into a religious/philosophical debate best suited to other forums.

 

[Gillvane]

We don't want to fall foul of that!

My point was going to be that most "Christian principals" (as opposed to the mechanics of the religion*) are actually 90% the same as most of the worlds other major and minor religions. love, truth, helping people, doing good, spearing the word etc. Come to that many Bible stories and parables are also found in many other older and more recent religions.

*The mechanics of the religion often have little to do with "faith" and films about the Borgia Popes have more uncommon with The House of Cards or West Wing than the Bible. Some of the Dan Brown films contain a lot of religion and faith in them but are not on "Christian Principals" BTW the same an be said about ******** Political Party Principals. Pick any Political part past or present. Hence my question as to what exactly the OP saw as Christian principals in this case.

You can make a film about *current* morality and doing good things which upholds the principals of most religions whilst not being overtly religious in general nor overtly for one faith or another. Or you can make a film that overtly pushes a particular religion and or it's message.

Note Morality is a movable feat and there are no moral absolutes. Hence my comment on "current" Morality.

So if the OP would like to tie down exactly what he meant by "Christian Principals" or Christian Made" in this context we have a chance of answering this in the context of making a genre of Religious films. Be it making a "religious film" or people of [any] faith making films, without going off into a religious/philosophical debate best suited to other forums.

The entire thread has been an interesting discussion. It's a nice change from pixel peeping and as far as I'm concerned it stayed generally on the topic of making a better film in a certain genre without straying into contentious religious debate.

Most of the Christian film core audience isn't looking for a film with Christian values. They don't want Narnia and Aslan (a lion that sacrifices himself dies and is reborn like Christ). They want a film where the obvious unmistakable answer to the problem is specifically Jesus and Christianity, and not basic human values of common decency and kindness, etc. It has to specifically be Christianity that saves the day. The main character is saved by Jesus Christ, or manages to save someone by converting them to Christianity, or their faith is tested and they stand strong (God's not dead) and win against the bad non-Christians.

If you get rid of Jesus Christ and just make a film with "values" and you make it G or PG so you take out all the cursing, nudity, sex, innuendo, anything hardcore "Evangelicals" might find objectionable, then you're in the "family film" category and not really making a Christian film. Now you're making something like Monsters University (rated for ages 5 and up according to this website) or maybe something more edgy (in the family film category) like The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (rated for 13 and up).

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/best-15-family-movies-of-2013

The Christian film audience will go see those films and so will everyone else, but the Christian audience is still going to be looking for a "Christian" film. And I think when you narrow the solution to the problem down to Jesus Christ and nothing else will do, then you are going to necessarily limit your audience.

But, you can give such a film the broadest audience possible with something a bit more subtle than God's not Dead. Look at the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for God's not Dead. Every other comment is something like hamfisted, dogmatic, or preachy.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/

I think one of the problems of God's not Dead is that it's not just a Christian film. It's also political. Obviously I don't want to get into a political discussion here, but you can be Christian and at the same time not agree with the political statement of God's not Dead. The political angle is a double whammy. Not only do you need to buy into the "hamfisted" Christian solution to the problem in the movie, but you also have to agree with the political statement as well.

I think if you want to be more inclusive and gain a broader audience you should skip the politics and concentrate on the Christian part of your narrative.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

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?

The difference is art for art's sake. It's also coincidentally what a lot of people see as the failing of too many genre films be they Christian or other genres. If your art begins from a motivation other than art it is going to be harder to achieve that same artistic achievement. That's not to say that it isn't possible, or even unlikely that some good art can be created in that kind of environment, but there are constraints on it from the beginning. The corporation has profit as it's motive, the church has its dogma, but the independent artist is free to have their own motivations.

 

[Gillvane]

The difference is art for art's sake. It's also coincidentally what a lot of people see as the failing of too many genre films be they Christian or other genres. If your art begins from a motivation other than art it is going to be harder to achieve that same artistic achievement. That's not to say that it isn't possible, or even unlikely that some good art can be created in that kind of environment, but there are constraints on it from the beginning. The corporation has profit as it's motive, the church has its dogma, but the independent artist is free to have their own motivations.

I've discussed this in other threads, but I see no difference in the motivations. The motivation is the same, producing good art.

Bad art is art that no one wants to see. Good art is art everyone wants to see, AND it makes a lot of money.

To make a lot of money you MUST make good art. Everyone knows that. It's not a secret. So in BOTH cases, the goal is to make good art. Art for art's sake if you will. The artist not working for the corporation is generally not an idiot. They know that good art is worth a lot of money. It's not like they work in a vacuum thinking well, if this turns out to be a work of genius I certainly want to hide it, not let anyone see it, and never make a dime from it. Who thinks like that?

I think ti's just a false construct, the evil corporate artists that has no ability and is only inspired by money, versus the virtuous independent artist that is ONLY out to make "art". They're both people trying to express themselves, and the track record shows both succeed and both fail.

How many successful Hip Hop artists were motivated to get out of the ghetto? In other words, make some money! They even sing about it. That's Eminem's 8 mile, an incredibly successful song and artist motivated to make money.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

I've discussed this in other threads, but I see no difference in the motivations. The motivation is the same, producing good art.

You seem to be approaching this as an engineer would, but art, psychology, and human emotion is not something that follows the same rules as physics and finance.

Bad art is art that no one wants to see. Good art is art everyone wants to see, AND it makes a lot of money.

You must be joking here. Art is not and has never been a popularity contest. Whether the general public likes something is not an indicator of whether it's good or bad art, just whether it's popular. By your definition every boy band should be considered great artists. What about all the artists not appreciated in their own lifetimes? Is their art now "bad" because it wasn't popular and profitable?

To make a lot of money you MUST make good art. Everyone knows that. It's not a secret. So in BOTH cases, the goal is to make good art. Art for art's sake if you will. The artist not working for the corporation is generally not an idiot. They know that good art is worth a lot of money. It's not like they work in a vacuum thinking well, if this turns out to be a work of genius I certainly want to hide it, not let anyone see it, and never make a dime from it. Who thinks like that?

You are confusing the goals of the artist with those of the businessman. Not every artist creates for the sole sake of profit. Most don't. Everybody needs to make some kind of living, but the size of one's bank account isn't the work of art.
An artist working for a painting mill that supplies the art shops in the suburban malls makes art that people are willing to buy and put on their walls, but is it really good art? Is it what that artist would paint if they were doing it solely for their own satisfaction?

I think ti's just a false construct, the evil corporate artists that has no ability and is only inspired by money, versus the virtuous independent artist that is ONLY out to make "art". They're both people trying to express themselves, and the track record shows both succeed and both fail.

You are the only one who attached the word evil to corporation, so who's really making the false construct? The basic fact is that someone working within an organization is responsible to that organization and not solely to themselves. It's a constraint. It changes the output. It limits the artist's range of expression. It can still be an environment where some good work comes out, but it wouldn't be the same work as a group who had those resources and total freedom.

How many successful Hip Hop artists were motivated to get out of the ghetto? In other words, make some money! They even sing about it. That's Eminem's 8 mile, an incredibly successful song and artist motivated to make money.

…and how many of them pretended to be from the ghetto instead of the leafy suburbs? It's actually a good example of how the art is influenced by the system. Gangster rap became an easy sell to suburban white kids so that's what was pushed from the record labels. The economics influenced the art that was being created and most would argue not in a positive way…well except maybe the label owners and you who can only equate value with dollars.

TLDR: Art is not equal to money earned. Art for profit or some other interest is going to be different than art for the pure sake of the artist's expression.

 

[KyleProhaska]

I disagree fully with Gillvane above. Good art isn't always worth a lot of money nor makes it. Lots of bad art makes money. Lots of people like what I consider bad art and lots of people like movies I think are total garbage. Avatar was broad storytelling with an imaginative world, but it was coated in cheese. Great art? I don't think so. Really fun experience on opening night? Definitely. Doesn't make it great art or a good movie, but it sure made a TON of money.

It's sorta frustrating to see up and coming filmmakers say they think if you make a good movie it'll make money. That's just not so. Sometimes something good finds the people it was made for, but not always. Lots of people I know are hell bent on making the best movie they can which is great, but they don't have a business bone in their body and never stop to think who their art is for. The smart filmmaker either learns that side of the business, or they find someone who does. It's a nice thought that good art sells, but it's not entirely realistic nor has much proof in the real world. Good art is so subjective anyway.

You gotta look at the world as a ton of custom audiences. Some like Sharknado, some understand satire, some like cheesy Christian movies, some love action movies with little plot and character development, some like rom-coms, some love the typical romantic cheeseball movie with the kissing young people on the front and lens flare, some people love nasty bloody horror movies. There are some products that are lucky enough to strike a chord across multiple markets, but most movies are for a specific sort of person.

Christian movies as they're traditionally understood are for a specific audience. God's Not Dead was made specifically for them. It's not good filmmaking if you ask me, but it's a fine tuned machine for that space and they love it. Bad art? Maybe. Bad business? Hardly.

What's wrong with Christian filmmaking? The same thing that's wrong with any bad filmmaking...bad filmmaking. The audience doesn't really care that much though, at least what's known as the typical Christian movie buyers. If we're talking frequent movie-goers who identify as Christian then it's a totally DIFFERENT conversation. The label itself is really sticky. If you want to make movies for the typical movie buyer who identifies as Christian, then just make mainstream movies that are well told. If you want to appeal to the Christian Bookstore buyers like God's Not Dead does, then you have some rules to follow, like any mega-niche. If you don't like that, then find a broader audience, and accept the larger pool you have to succeed and swim in. There's not much more to it. Making fantastic movies is more of a personal journey for me. I don't really expect the average buyer to really bring any recognition my way. I'm not convinced anymore the average movie buyer (or lover) even knows what makes a good movie they just know it when they see one...and it's very subjective. It's not my job to educate, it's my job to tell the story I want to tell the way I want to tell it for the audience I intend it for and do that the best way I can. If what that is doesn't gel with who the intended buyer is...then I better switch up my intentions ASAP or find myself on the bread line.

Lots of people like to pontificate on this stuff who've never completed a feature in their life or had the pressure of selling AND marketing it. It's a bunch of hot air with no experience in doing it. Too many people out there who just want to do the filmmaking thing who have zero concept of the mechanics of the business. Most of these sorts of people I run into end up making a movie but end up making it for nobody...and they die on the curb or get a distrib deal because it's decent enough but they never make a dime.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What's wrong with Christian filmmaking? The same thing that's wrong with any bad filmmaking...bad filmmaking. The audience doesn't really care that much though, at least what's known as the typical Christian movie buyers.

I have viewed this thread in two ways. What sort of film would a 'christian' film be, for me to be, a non-choir member, to be interested enough to watch, and by extension what other non-choir members may want/desire/require, not that I speak for the group of such...

The other way I've viewed this thread is, apparently there are some set of christian viewers who are not satisfied with the type of fair that is available under the genre banner, even if 'well made' (I've watched some set of Hallmark movies, and some/most are 'well made' as in reasonably good production values for the story and the budget I assume they were working with.).

I just don't get too excited about watching the Hallmark style of film. The last one was due to taking an ASL class, and watching a movie with a number of deaf actors, "Love is Never Silent"(1985).

Quite a few years ago a film, "The Hiding Place"(1975), was produced by World Wide Pictures, a subsidiary of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I thought the film was pretty good relative to the usual 'christian' film fare... unfortunately WWP got out of the theatrical distribution business, and focused, according to the wiki on "...switched to working with independent producers and distributing films to churches, on home video, and as made-for-TV movies."

I've not seen this film in years... so I may have a different assessment now...

 

[Gillvane]

TLDR: Art is not equal to money earned. Art for profit or some other interest is going to be different than art for the pure sake of the artist's expression.

You either are a good artist, or you are not.
Good artists can make good art for money, or just for artistic expression. Bad artists are not going to make good art whether they try to do it for money, or whether they try to do it for pure artistic expression.

Who's your favorite film maker? I would argue the money issue would be irrelevant and that either way they would still make great films. whether you pay them millions or nothing, they are still going to produce something interesting because they are a good artist.

 

[Gillvane]

I have viewed this thread in two ways. What sort of film would a 'christian' film be, for me to be, a non-choir member, to be interested enough to watch, and by extension what other non-choir members may want/desire/require, not that I speak for the group of such...

The other way I've viewed this thread is, apparently there are some set of christian viewers who are not satisfied with the type of fair that is available under the genre banner, even if 'well made' (I've watched some set of Hallmark movies, and some/most are 'well made' as in reasonably good production values for the story and the budget I assume they were working with.).

I just don't get too excited about watching the Hallmark style of film. The last one was due to taking an ASL class, and watching a movie with a number of deaf actors, "Love is Never Silent"(1985).

Quite a few years ago a film, "The Hiding Place"(1975), was produced by World Wide Pictures, a subsidiary of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I thought the film was pretty good relative to the usual 'christian' film fare... unfortunately WWP got out of the theatrical distribution business, and focused, according to the wiki on "...switched to working with independent producers and distributing films to churches, on home video, and as made-for-TV movies."

I've not seen this film in years... so I may have a different assessment now...

I guess you could apply this to any genre. "What's wrong with Horror movies?"

I think there are similarities in the two genres, Christian and Horror. Both have rabid loyal fans. Both can still be successful even when the production value is sub par. Both have elements that turn away a broader audience. Some people are just not into gore and they aren't going to go see a horror movie no matter how well you make it. If you take out all the gore to appeal to more people, you don't satisfy your core audience.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I guess you could apply this to any genre. "What's wrong with Horror movies?"

I think there are similarities in the two genres, Christian and Horror. Both have rabid loyal fans. Both can still be successful even when the production value is sub par. Both have elements that turn away a broader audience. Some people are just not into gore and they aren't going to go see a horror movie no matter how well you make it. If you take out all the gore to appeal to more people, you don't satisfy your core audience.

I think with most horror films the biggest problem is 'budget'... I've bought a number of these '6/8' pack direct to DVD horror collections to 'understand' the genre better, and it seems to me a number have had a 'good idea', and just no budget to make the production 'better'.

 

[Gillvane]

I think with most horror films the biggest problem is 'budget'... I've bought a number of these '6/8' pack direct to DVD horror collections to 'understand' the genre better, and it seems to me a number have had a 'good idea', and just no budget to make the production 'better'.

I'm a big fan of the old Hammer films. When you look at just the sets you think, Wow! what it would cost just in set dec. to do that today.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

You either are a good artist, or you are not.

You are either a cat, or you are not. or You are either a good person, or you are not. Bad people do good things and good people occasionally do bad things. The label of being good or bad is actually quite ridiculous in my opinion. Under your dogma, any good artist will make nothing but great art no matter what constraints they find themselves under, while a bad artist will never make anything better than the pile of dog crap I stepped in yesterday no matter how lucky they get.

Good artists can make good art for money, or just for artistic expression.

Sure, as I've said ad nauseum, it is entirely possible to make something good while working for someone else, but the artist would likely make something different if they were working solely for their own enjoyment. That's not to say one is good and the other is bad. It's just that nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything has an influence. Money and pleasing the bosses has an impact. How much of an impact is going to vary and can be debated, but you seem to believe that no influence exists beyond whether an artist is "good" or "bad".

 

[Gord.T]

14 pages of this dirt and where has it got you? Pee off with this topic. It's irrational. 14 pages of it. And 14 more if you continue. Enough already. Imo.

edit: And why stop at Christians films. That in itself insults me a great deal. The are many religions all over the world. Let's pick an obvious one, American Indians. Let's pick Muslims. Yes, Muslims. Let's pick, or, let's choose between Catholics and Protestants. Which is the better Christianity? Stop it right here. Stop it. There is no problem and there should be no thread discussing it. Make it, sell it, buy it or make another one. Not 14 pages of debate!!!!
Make the film and hold your peace. The audience will judge you at the box office. Jeeeeeez.

//Make whatever you want, I'll watch it and let you know. That simple. Never mind what sells and what doesn't Christian films or Muslim films or Protestant Films....never mind.

 

[Gillvane]

14 pages of this dirt and where has it got you? Pee off with this topic. It's irrational. 14 pages of it. And 14 more if you continue. Enough already. Imo.

edit: And why stop at Christians films. That in itself insults me a great deal. The are many religions all over the world. Let's pick an obvious one, American Indians. Let's pick Muslims. Yes, Muslims. Let's pick, or, let's choose between Catholics and Protestants. Which is the better Christianity? Stop it right here. Stop it. There is no problem and there should be no thread discussing it. Make it, sell it, buy it or make another one. Not 14 pages of debate!!!!
Make the film and hold your peace. The audience will judge you at the box office. Jeeeeeez.

//Make whatever you want, I'll watch it and let you know. That simple. Never mind what sells and what doesn't Christian films or Muslim films or Protestant Films....never mind.

If the topic doesn't interest you then it doesn't. But it's no different than a discussion about how do you make a better horror film, or drama, or comedy. Each genre has it's own pitfalls. The topic has nothing to do with discussing various religions and comparing them to one another. What in the world do these other religions have to do with the topic? I'm not aware of a significant genre of films geared towards one of the other religions you mentioned, at least not in America. And if there is then you are certainly free to start a topic about how to make a better film in that genre.

 

[groveChuck]

Bad art is art that no one wants to see. Good art is art everyone wants to see, AND it makes a lot of money.

That's just patently absurd (though not quite outrageous enough to be absurdist).

Kyle's post is the most thorough and complete assessment and answer to the (yes, 14 page, Gord) thread's question. Wraps it up nicely.

Speaking of, why do you ask this question, Gillvane?