By David
Beilstein
We have seen
why movies cannot be objectively “Christian” if what storytelling is as a media
form is held to by the storyteller in a dramatic context accurately. But I
wanted to look at the objection to this paradigm by those who object to the content
of many films and movies.
Often when I
make the case I have made on this blog I am roundly critised that my ideas are
impossible because of the offensive material in movies.
But the world
is offensive - people are sinful and
broken. To portray a world removed from such truth is to abandon the vocational
duties of the storyteller. If a Christian working as a storyteller fails to
describe the reality of the world all people at all times have lived in he betrays truth (not a Christian virtue) and fails the duty of storytelling.
There is
ways to demonstrate these fallen human realities without being either
exploitative or grotesque. There is a way to do a rated R coming of age
story and a G way of doing the same story. Non-believers as much as Christians
understand this. The desire to call such differences in content and material as
“Christian” seems rather unattached to anything particularly unique to the
cultic distinctions (theology, piety, and practice) of Christians.
It is an
unhelpful and unnecessary category.
Whilst the
Christian saint rightly criticizes much of what comes out of Hollywood, the
leap from objection to content or the manner in which human brokenness is
displayed is not an argument for “Christian” movies.
If the point
of movies is a dramatic art form glimpsed by people and not a confessional art
form told to people, than propaganda - good and bad - is to be avoided because of
what movies naturally are.
St Paul is utterly clear in the Epistle to the Galatians. To restrict the Christian saint in areas where Holy Scripture is silent or indifferent is to build an illegitimate yoke.That a
Christian is only proper in storytelling when telling “Christian” stories by
good intentioned transformational evangelicals is to shackle the Christian
saint - freed mercifully by Christ’s blood - in the law. Of course, there will
be a need depending on genre and audience for a filmmaker of confessional
Christian faith to graphically show the realities of the world.
The problems
with labeling movies “Christian” by what is not in a film in terms of content
is that non-believing filmmakers can realise these aesthetics too. There are
non-believing filmmakers who do not feel comfortable shooting graphic and
exploitative scenes. Whether a filmmaker decides to show a graphic sex scene -
or a Christian who is a filmmaker abandons such a scene - the movie does not
become “Christian.” It’s still just a movie - a secular art form. It is either
a well-crafted film (written, directed, performed, edited) or mildly well realised.
Or it could
be horrible. But it is not Christian, objectively.
The content
and style of a film is related to film aesthetics. And aesthetics do not change
the overall form of dramatic storytelling; the “work” movies properly dramatize
to the viewer.
The larger
problem with evangelistic movies is they are - in effect - not movies, but
commentaries. The evangelistic filmmaker is not externalizing a dramatic
conflict outside of his or herself, but is trying to put the universe of the
film together to “preach” the Holy Gospel. In essence, this evangelistic filmmaker
has imprisoned themselves, by trying to show how life should be - how people
should behave - not in order to tell a dramatic story, but for evangelism -
meaning conversion to Christ.
But historically
movies are of an entirely different form and form dictates motivation. Cinema
dramatizes how things are - who people are, in dramatic complexity. They
describe an external, yet dramatic story in visual imagery. Aesthetically, this
can be realised in stark entertainment ways - [think Indiana Jones] - or more
seriously, like Chariots of Fire.
But movies
are not an altar call - nor can they be.
No comments:
Post a Comment