By David Beilstein
BY this time
I have furrowed my brow and inched out on a tree limb over raging rapids, or so
it might seem. Being a confessional Christian who, though not surly in temper,
is opposed to the idea of so called “Christian” movies and films.
I have begun
to lay out my reasons for this in subsequent blogs on dominium. Some of this has come from a manuscript, or a letter, I
wrote to a friend. It ran up to 89 pages, and its inner voice became one of
book rather than personal letter. But getting back to the point. I have always
had held this opinion, as I have been watching movies for three decades now,
lots of movies and films - foreign, commercial, Avant garde, ect. This opinion
expanded, however, when I attended Anabaptist
caldron Liberty University from 1996 to the spring of 1997. I was surprised to
find - and somewhat bewildered - why it was students at Liberty University
wanted; or thought I should - make movies, they themselves, did not watch.
When asked what their favourite movies were - they were, cough, secular movies: Star Wars, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, Die Hard, Predator, ect. I began to
replay this odd contradiction in my mind over and over. Sometimes I warred with
it. It did not make sense to me in the least. My journey would take time - as
the legalism experienced in Anabaptist and general evangelical churches rubbed
me the wrong way and I was churchless for almost a decade.
The more I
began to watch movies, old and new, the more I felt these proponents of
Christian movies, while maybe well intentioned, had no real understanding of
movies (as a medium) even though many of these people watched them routinely.
When I became a confessional Presbyterian, this forced me to drink of Christian
theology deeply; a study of Christ and His Church, His Holy Gospel. In that
process, I became even more convinced there was no such thing as “Christian”
movies on theological (Biblical) grounds, not based upon the whims of
my own opinion.
So came
reasons, then, for my umbrage toward “Christian” movies… three basic reasons pressed upon my thinking:
means, otherworldliness, and aesthetics,
repeatedly convicted me such an evangelistic
design - or approach - to movies was impossible, contrary to the art and the
medium of filmmaking, i.e., of cinematic storytelling in general, and completely
out of step with the purpose, or nature of filmmaking in the particular. This was
before film school. And once I entered film school, along with Christian
theology, I became more convinced of my previous instincts were more right than I would
have known at the time.
It was in my film class, History of Motion Picture Arts, which sealed the deal.
Silent movies
help illustrate the point because they do not contain material some Christians find
offensive. Hence, the Christian saint is enabled to watch them without his or
her “guard” up. And, given their simplicity (because movies were a new
technology in the silent era), silent movies illustrate the very core of what
movies do at a discernable level for those not privy to movie aesthetics.
Silent movies do not have complex shot selection, kinetic editing, etc., so the
“magic” they are pulling off is far clearer to the viewer.
Thomas
Edison’s protégé, Edwin Porter, revolutionized cross-cutting in the short
films, Life of An American Fireman,
1903, and after, in The Great Train
Robbery, 1903. The ability to cross cut established the basis of the modern
narrative film. Crosscutting is an editing technique, establishing action occurring at
the same time in two different locations, creating the basis of suspense and
drama in a scene.
In Porter’s Life of An American Fireman, we watch a
fireman have a vision of an imperiled woman and child. The fireman sits in the
firehouse, while the woman and her child are in another location, an apartment
building. The short then crosscuts between the imperiled woman and child, and
the fireman seeing the alarm, and heading off to rescue her.
Here we see, the
beliefs and motivations of the characters in stark clarity. There is no room
for evangelism - for this is about a universal piece of drama all audience
members acknowledge - a woman and child in distress, and the firemen who save
them. One can argue these "universal" dramatic premises can be acknowledged only because Christianity is the transcendental faith; where such things can be assumed intelligently. But movies, in themselves, cannot make that argument. They can show it, they cannot philosophy upon it.
The more I watched these films, the more I saw that movies do not boil
down to philosophy, or epistemic investigation (and proof), but simply, Who wants what from who? What happens when you get there? Why now? As we,
the audience, take drama in visually, we too are concerned with these elements.
What happens next, we ask? As such, the beliefs of the characters, their
motivations, their experiences, are for the story's sake - not the audience’s sake. Even when we approach movies with sympathetic
Christian portrayals (Chariots of Fire, Babette’s
Feast) we come to realise, the characters are Christian for the narrative
developments of the film - not as apologetical tools. As both Chariots of Fire and Babette's Feast were made by non-Christians. Why?
Because they were dramatic stories, bringing together dramatic complexity audiences members regardless of religion or non-religion could relate to. They could relate to the humanity portrayed therein.
Take for instance an
opening scene. We fade in on a Hasidic Jew and his young daughter strolling
through Grand Central Station in New York, on 42nd Street. They are
threading through a collage of humanity: the
good, the bad, and the ugly. As they walk through the throngs of people,
the little girl watches all the grand narratives of life: an elderly man
helping his elderly wife; young lovers, recently married kissing, holding one
another; two street toughs “pick-pocketing” unsuspecting tourists, and a
derelict prostitute threading through a pack of businessmen, eyes teasing, hips
shaking.
Then the little girl
turns, watching as another woman drops her wallet, walking away from a bookstore.
A male stranger, picks up the wallet, and catches up with the women giving it back
to her. The little Jewish girl watches from afar, watching how pleased and
thankful the adult woman is to have her purse back.
As the Hasidic Jew
and his precious Jewish daughter walk through Grand Central Station, the girl
watches all this. Then, father and daughter spill out onto the sidewalk into
the bright sun. The father is in the midst of hailing a taxi, trying to keep
his attention on his daughter, and getting a taxi at the same time.
It is New York,
confusion rains. Traffic, horns. People coming and going.
Then, a small boy
grabs the little Jewish girl’s attention. He waves to her and she waves back.
As the boy goes with his mother across the street, the boy drops a small doll.
The Jewish girl rushes out to pick it up - as she saw this action done early by
the two adults. But she is struck and killed by an screeching car. We end the
scene with the screams of the father, holding the lifeless body of his
daughter.
And we fade back in
on the funeral - a Hasidic Jewish funeral for the little girl. The young father
is bereaving. Mourners coming and going; giving the Hasidic Jewish man their
condolences.
Is this an apology
for Hasidic Judaism? Of course not. The main character is Jewish for the
particular story needs that are yet to come. If our movie is about our Hasidic
Jewish character overcoming grief, then his Hasidic Jewishness will have a
major part to play in that process. Maybe he abandons his faith - maybe his
faith becomes more personal, more real to him. In essence, no matter where we
go with the rest of this story, the religious affections of the character are
not for the audience, but for the character’s journey - they will mean thing in
story developing. But film is not the medium in which it can be said, that the
beliefs and actions of the character, should therefore be ours as an audience.
What the audience acknowledges about the Hasidic Jewish man’s religion is not
that it is objectively true. It is true for the character, and thus is somehow
impactful on the dynamics of the unfolding story.
That is the
problem with “Christian” movies. They ignore the primal underpinnings of storytelling. Movies concern the conflict between protagonist and
As such, it has always been my
belief “Christian” movies were a reaction, not a story-based
consideration by Christians. Too many Christians vamping on Christian movies may know about filmmaking, but are clueless when it comes to history of motion pictures and why the art form matters to us as human beings. Good intentions, however, does not equal right use. And that, along with not being functional cinematically, or the
point of narrative storytelling, has always been my critical eye toward "Christian" movies.
This is not to say
religious affections do not belong in movies. They do. People are religious in life, many people. If love belongs in movies, if hate too; if violence
and the desire for peace, for shalom; then the religious affections of men and women
do, as well.
But that is not evangelism or apologetics - that is simply an imitation of life's sweep.
No comments:
Post a Comment