What's wrong with Christian filmmaking?

[Gillvane]

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?

The first post of the thread has a link to an article. I found the article interesting and posted it so that other people could read it and discuss if they wished to. The author of the article posed the question not me. I cannot speak for the author of the article and tell you why they asked the question.

I respect your opinion but just saying "it's absurd" doesn't tell me much. What are some examples of good art that no one wants to see?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What are some examples of good art that no one wants to see?

There is a symbiosis between 'what people want to see, and what is declared 'good art''.

I personally can pass on a number of modern artists of world acclaim. I can on the other hand view a Jan Van Eyk for hours... despite the predominance of 'religious' themes.

On the other other hand... I can pass on Thomas Kinkade, which I consider to be some what the epitome of 'safe for all audiences, and almost ignorable on any occasion', and often found in replication in varlous places.

But what is placed in museums, what is shown in galleries, does not to me necessitate that it is 'good art'... for the private galleries, it is a commodity. "get in on this up and comming artist before the prices rise', or some such if one happens to be in a major metro gallery situation. Or occasionally some gallery owner will 'find a gem' in some long, or even recently found artist who was ignored in his lifetime.

I think Gauguin's 'polynesian' efforts, were a 'flipping the bird' at the received art of the time. But one would have never known about Gauguin, had he not had gallery showings prior to his exit to paradise.

In some things one can evaluate craftsmanship and say a work has more craft than another. But relative to 'good art'... good craftsmanship does not necessitate 'good art' either.

There are also a class of artists who never show their work, but later, someone decides to place their works on display. Again the goodness or badness is due to some one's appraisal, and as such is just as subjective as another's, but because the appraiser has some title, famous gallery, not so famous gallery but something, some set of people follow the leader on the appraisal.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

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...

Wow. I thought that we have been having a nice discussion here that surprisingly had little comment on religion itself. It's like tap dancing through a minefield actually and until now nobody's been blown up.
I think that GordT has inadvertently illustrated one of the issues with making a film that touches on religion, or for that matter any subject that gets people riled up. The fear that they will inadvertently offend the wrong people. There was some talk of Christian filmmakers playing it too safe and not making challenging movies, but I think that's got to be par for the course considering the audience. Maybe in the end there is nothing wrong with these films. They provide entertainment that their audience wants without being challenged outside their comfort zones. I guess maybe the question should have been "What's wrong with Christian films for a broader audience?".

 

[Gillvane]

Wow. I thought that we have been having a nice discussion here that surprisingly had little comment on religion itself. It's like tap dancing through a minefield actually and until now nobody's been blown up.
I think that GordT has inadvertently illustrated one of the issues with making a film that touches on religion, or for that matter any subject that gets people riled up. The fear that they will inadvertently offend the wrong people. There was some talk of Christian filmmakers playing it too safe and not making challenging movies, but I think that's got to be par for the course considering the audience. Maybe in the end there is nothing wrong with these films. They provide entertainment that their audience wants without being challenged outside their comfort zones. I guess maybe the question should have been "What's wrong with Christian films for a broader audience?".

Is it possible to mix genres? I think Passion of the Christ got not only the Evangelical audience, but there was a cross over with the horror audience. I know for a fact some people went to see it just for the gore, the "torture porn" if you will.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Is it possible to mix genres? I think Passion of the Christ got not only the Evangelical audience, but there was a cross over with the horror audience. I know for a fact some people went to see it just for the gore, the "torture porn" if you will.

…and those were both reasons why I didn't see it.
More to the point though, I think that there are already a lot of films out there that try to incorporate or even push an idea without just catering to that audience. I don't really watch the so called "Christian Films", but I do see a lot of religion in other films. Were those films religious? or considered "Christian Flims"? I doubt it, and I also doubt that they hit much of the same core audience that the Christian film genre hits. I suppose that there is a line where the genre film becomes mainstream, but can a film cross it and still keep their genre audience?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I don't really watch the so called "Christian Films", but I do see a lot of religion in other films. Were those films religious? or considered "Christian Flims"? I doubt it, and I also doubt that they hit much of the same core audience that the Christian film genre hits. I suppose that there is a line where the genre film becomes mainstream, but can a film cross it and still keep their genre audience?

So the Wife and I have been watching "The Ten Commandments"(1956)... It dawned on the Wife about 15 minutes into the movie... 'gee... how appropriate for Passover'...

Anyway, "The Ten Commandments" was the first film I ever saw in a theater, and the only film I saw in a theater until I was about 10, when the Grandfather would take me on trips and saw no problem with 'theaters'. So, until I was 15, my 'in theater movie' viewing was pretty limited.

Some where in the mid-60's the people who ran the church movie night, began running a few more films out of the the then 'current in theater' set, 16mm rentals. Otherwise it was 'movie night' was pretty much 'nature films', or dreary 'preaching to the choir' films.

Since I don't watch 'christian' films these days, I have watched trailers, and they don't seem to have changed much since the 'olden days'.

The original article seems to be a person who would be watching the genre films, but is not satisfied with the current productions.

But back to the "The Ten Commandments". The 'reason' why it was mainstream, was due to the fact that till the 60's there was a large 'shared' belief. That changed in the post 60's US religious landscape. (And even then... Cecil B. DeMille came out and gave a 'disclaimer' on the sources of the material, just as the studio did for "Noah"(2014)).