Messages at the Movies
April 20, 2012
Peter J. Leithart
I watched October Baby in the theater recently. Inspired by the dramatic life of anti-abortion activist Gianna Jessen, the film tells the story of Hannah (Rachel Hendrix), who learns in early adulthood that she was adopted after a failed abortion. She embarks on a journey to find herself by finding her mother and by learning more about the circumstances of her birth. 
I wholly endorse the pro-life message of the movie, which comes across with such utter clarity that I have heard of viewers changing their position on abortion after the film. In one crucial scene, a nurse describes how she came to view a fetus as an unborn child rather than a lump of tissue. It hits all the right notes. Reviewers have complained that the scene is gory. As if abortion isn’t—or Tarantino for that matter.
As a film, though, October Baby fails. No convincing explanation is given as to why Hannah’s parents withheld her adoption so long. Hannah’s mother never comes into focus. Alanna (Colleen Trusler), Hannah’s rival for the love of her childhood friend Jason (Jason Burkey), is unbearable, raising uncomfortable questions about Jason’s taste in women. The side characters—Hannah’s friends with whom she takes a long road trip—are as enjoyable as any movie-cliché crazies can be.
The deeper problem is that the film is more message than movie. Co-directors and brothers Andrew and Jon Erwin do a better job than some Christian filmmakers in keeping the message from burying the film, but they don’t control it well enough. They don’t appear to trust the medium they have chosen to use. They don’t appear to trust the audience either, or the characters they have created for us.
Like many Christian filmmakers, the Erwins can’t resist “preaching” moments. Sure, non-Christian films can be plenty preachy, but preachiness is a disease to which evangelical filmmakers are especially susceptible. The nurse’s scene is more subdued than many preaching scenes, but it is still a preaching scene. Other Christian filmmakers are even less resistant to the temptation. I am impressed with the chutzpah and drive of the group at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia, that has produced Courageous, Fireproof, and Facing the Giants. But these films don’t respect us enough to let us figure out the point of the film, which is as obvious as all get out. From the first frames, you know that a monologue will eventually sum up the film’s moral, and you half-suspect that the monologue will be followed by a joyous standing ovation. It’s like painting a crucifixion scene and then writing out the Passion narrative of Matthew at the bottom to make sure viewers get the point.
The TPF test has become my criterion for determining whether a film was made by evangelical Christians, TPF standing for “Tear-Per-Frame.” In October Baby, hardly a scene goes by without someone weeping. Abortion is heart-rending, and Hannah’s life is heart-breaking. The point is, we can see that already, just by watching the characters in their story. We don’t need to be manipulated to sharing their grief.
Christian directors—any director—could do worse than take some cues from Terence Malick’s 2011 masterpiece Tree of Life. Though Malick’s is a profoundly religious and a deeply emotional film, he refuses to coddle his viewers. His self-control, and control of his audience, is exquisite. Early in the film, Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain) receives a telegram informing her that her second son has died at the age of nineteen. The camera follows her to the dining room but cuts as she stumbles to the ground. We don’t even hear the end of her anguished prayer, “O, Go-!” Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt) gets the news in a phone call as he is about to board a plane. He can barely hear over the phone, and all we hear are engines and propellers. He labors to breathe, grinds his jaw, stands fixed, leans forward with hands on knees, stares at the setting sun. He sheds no tears, but because of its restraint, it communicates Mr. O’Brien’s paralyzing grief and leaves the viewer as empty as the desert Sean Penn limps through during the film.
Tree of Life tells a Job story, complete with a comforter who says things like “You still have the other two.” It’s about inexplicable loss, raising Dostoevskyan questions about suffering innocence and the justice of God. “Where were you?” Mrs. O’Brien demands of God, and the film answers with a long creation sequence that portrays Yahweh’s answer to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” It’s a “preaching” moment, but the preaching is done with gorgeous visuals and breathtaking music. It’s movie preaching, not a movie of preaching.
My advice to earnest filmmakers with a message: Make movies. Let the message take care of itself. Or, as the St. Francis school of cinematography has it: Preach always and everywhere; when necessary, use words. ,plbio
Peter J. Leithart is on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Athanasius (Baker Academic).
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.20.2012 | 7:43am
Peter says:
To "The Tree of Life" I would also add "Spitfire Grill" as a Christian movie that gets out of its own way and, as a result, portrays grace and redemption in not often seen on the Big Screen, Steven Spielberg's work not withstanding.
4.20.2012 | 8:13am
Sandy O'Seay says:
With respect, I could not disagree more on every point that you have made. I thought it was a wonderful story with believable characters. One of the signs of a good movie, in my judgment, is that you think about for days afterward. That is surely the case with "October Baby." As one who is not prone to public "weeping," and one who is a father and grandfather, my sense is that there is nothing wrong with the occasional tear, and that when this movie moves me that that point, that is a good thing. I recommend this movie for anyone. It is splendid.
4.20.2012 | 9:41am
patricksarsfield says:
I am glad a pro-life movie has been made. It may be as preachy as it is because the creator realizes how rarely the message will get placed on a screen. So Bravo for October Baby!
My view on one of the moies Don Roberto mentioned is that The Way was a film that wasn't very preachy yet still got across the message of Christianity. I also am looking forward to the movie on the Cristero War It was fought in reaction to the severe persecution the governing Mexican leftists waged against the Church in the 1920s; it is certainly a story most Americans know too little about.
My view on one of the moies Don Roberto mentioned is that The Way was a film that wasn't very preachy yet still got across the message of Christianity. I also am looking forward to the movie on the Cristero War It was fought in reaction to the severe persecution the governing Mexican leftists waged against the Church in the 1920s; it is certainly a story most Americans know too little about.
4.20.2012 | 10:30am
Trish says:
It's rather consoling to find I'm not the only one who was disappointed in the *story" quality of this movie. As an ardent pro-life woman, I wanted to like this movie so much more! I found the character of Hannah almost unsympathetic - "my whole life is a lie!" she sobs; really? Instead of dying, you have two parents who love you and have raised you (evidently through some major health issues) and are now putting you through college and your life is awful?! The friends were cliches straight out of a high school creative writing course and the love interest was not compelling at all. The final 8 minutes - which wordlessly showed the transforming power of forgiveness were the BEST part of the whole movie.
In spite of finding the quality of this picture so awful, I nonetheless encourage people to see it, without generally sharing my disappointment. That final message is too important - - even if only our fellow Christians see it, it will do immense good. We must remember that if abortion in the US has seen the death of over 40 million unborn children, than it is the women (and men) next to us in our pews who are like Hannah's birth mother - - good people who in fear made a terrible decision to have an abortion and in need of knowing that God and others can forgive them.
In spite of finding the quality of this picture so awful, I nonetheless encourage people to see it, without generally sharing my disappointment. That final message is too important - - even if only our fellow Christians see it, it will do immense good. We must remember that if abortion in the US has seen the death of over 40 million unborn children, than it is the women (and men) next to us in our pews who are like Hannah's birth mother - - good people who in fear made a terrible decision to have an abortion and in need of knowing that God and others can forgive them.
4.20.2012 | 11:38am
Debbie Fisher says:
I have been watching a few of these movies. I will not name or comment any titles that I have not seen thoroughly. But by being so faithful to the original author's writings as a whole, the Chronicles of Narnia series begun by Disney and apparently being continued by Twentieth Century Fox, are excellantly entertaining, and delivering what sermonizing there is in delicious little statements from Aslan. And in the movie, The Nativity, the preaching largely comes through the amiably bickering traveling Magi; even more slyly, the most pertinent Scriptural references are quoted and discussed by King Herod and Prince Antipas. I enjoy these movies because they treat their stories as stories, letting most of the morality come in as the story iallows it.
4.20.2012 | 1:36pm
Fred says:
If I'm not mistaken, Malick is Catholic. We have a long tradition of "preaching" through iconography, from the Irish cross carvings to the Sistene Chapel. The Protestant traditions of "solo scriptura" and thinking of iconography as idolotry (e.g. the old saw about Catholics "worshipping statues") seem like they would hinder making movies like "Tree of Life" where imagery does more of the talking.
4.20.2012 | 1:45pm
David says:
I think the key that Christian filmmakers need to understand is that it is art to conceal art. All art is didactic and may be considered propaganda to some degree but in the end the most effective practitioners of film-making are the masters of subtlety.
4.20.2012 | 2:55pm
Lauren says:
I haven't seen October Baby yet, but when I saw the trailer I worried that this might be the case.
"Of Gods and Men" was another great Christian filmed that was not preachy-- at least I didn't feel that it was. In case anyone's interested in other great films on morality, Image magazine releases a Top 100 list every year: http://artsandfaith.com/t100/
"Of Gods and Men" was another great Christian filmed that was not preachy-- at least I didn't feel that it was. In case anyone's interested in other great films on morality, Image magazine releases a Top 100 list every year: http://artsandfaith.com/t100/
4.20.2012 | 3:01pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
I think Fred is on to something. Ever since Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door, Protestants have had a very ambivalent attitude toward culture. H. Richard Niebuhr's "Christ and Culture" captures this well. There is really no tradition on the Protestant side of Christianity of a full embrace of God's creation and its logical outcome, culture. Catholics have been doing this forever, so it doesn't surprise me on an intellectual and culture level that they produce works of art in every arena that are worthy of the best mankind can produce. We'll see if what we are starting to see now is the beginning of such a tradition in Protestantism, mere baby steps on the way to something much better and more worthy of our respect.
4.20.2012 | 3:16pm
Ethan C. says:
From a purely stylistic standpoint,I would also recommend looking at films made by the "Berlin School." They emphasize the importance of simply presenting their characters and stories to the audience, and refusing to do the audience's thinking for them.
4.20.2012 | 3:21pm
Ben Embry says:
I remember when, as a teen, I first read Mortimer adler's book, 'How to Read a Book'. What fun! Now i knew to check out the trajectory of the book as a whole, read the table of contents, and put the author's logic, style, and overall point on trial.
I was stoked, and looked for an easy book to become my first victim. There it was, the unsuspecting paperback of KP Yohannan's 'Road to Reality'. Oh, how the pencil flew, the side margins bulged with the volume of scribbles I packed into them; I found imprecise definitions, possible contradictions, and unwarranted leaps in logic.
And when I see that book on the shelf today, still in recovery from the scrutiny I subjected it to, I just kinda laugh and wince at the same time. What was I thinking? The book never asked for that kind of scrutiny; it wasn't a masterpiece, nor did it even feign to be. It was just a sermon. That's all it hoped to be. Ever. and if a person was looking for something other than a sermon, then he would do well to try a different book.
Thankfully I didn't tell my friends that the book fell flat as a quality book, possessing a paucity of aesthetic merits, a deficiency of coherence, and otherwise questionable content.
Some films are simply sermons and not art. So, big deal. Sermons fail as art because they are too moralistic or too instructive. But if that's what you want to be, then art fails as a sermon because of its lack of a clear statement, and its insistence on its viewers having well-honed aesthetic sensibilities. And that's fine.
I might print out this article about film, fold it up, stuff it between the pages of my copy of 'Road to Reality', and console myself that I'm not the only one.
I was stoked, and looked for an easy book to become my first victim. There it was, the unsuspecting paperback of KP Yohannan's 'Road to Reality'. Oh, how the pencil flew, the side margins bulged with the volume of scribbles I packed into them; I found imprecise definitions, possible contradictions, and unwarranted leaps in logic.
And when I see that book on the shelf today, still in recovery from the scrutiny I subjected it to, I just kinda laugh and wince at the same time. What was I thinking? The book never asked for that kind of scrutiny; it wasn't a masterpiece, nor did it even feign to be. It was just a sermon. That's all it hoped to be. Ever. and if a person was looking for something other than a sermon, then he would do well to try a different book.
Thankfully I didn't tell my friends that the book fell flat as a quality book, possessing a paucity of aesthetic merits, a deficiency of coherence, and otherwise questionable content.
Some films are simply sermons and not art. So, big deal. Sermons fail as art because they are too moralistic or too instructive. But if that's what you want to be, then art fails as a sermon because of its lack of a clear statement, and its insistence on its viewers having well-honed aesthetic sensibilities. And that's fine.
I might print out this article about film, fold it up, stuff it between the pages of my copy of 'Road to Reality', and console myself that I'm not the only one.
4.20.2012 | 3:41pm
jason taylor says:
Fred may be "on to something" but Catholic filmmaking has not clearly had such overwhelming superiority.
4.20.2012 | 3:57pm
andrew says:
pastor leithart is absolutely correct. at this end, i've been meditating for months on why movies like "courageous" and "fireproof" are bad art.
one resource i found was a book on writing fiction by alice laplante called "the making of a story." according to the author, good fiction, poetry, and art are "surprising and convincing" at the same time, e.g. flannery o'connor. in contrast, bad fiction, poetry, and art are like romance novels where the artist has to do very little work in order to evoke stock and often powerful emotional responses.
which made me think of evangelicalism and "praise music" as bad art. four chords and a catchy melody sure make you feel warm and fuzzy; yet it amounts to very little artistic work evoking stock and often powerful emotional responses. what's worse is that such stock and powerful emotional responses can often mislead us to conclude that the "praise song" is good art. think also of various "ministers," their loquacious babbling," and the boisterous choruses of "amens!" and "preach it brother!" that threaten to "bring down the house."
perhaps the same can be said of "fireproof" and "courageous." while i admire the efforts of the producers and actors, while i genuinely think these movies' subject matters are important, comparing them to something like "the tree of life" is like comparing "chopsticks" to chopin.
as someone else has already pointed out, the contrast between catholicism's incarnational worldview v. evangelicalism's tendencies toward cartesian dualism probably lies at the heart of matter. it would be hard to imagine a southern baptist team of producers making a film like "the tree of life."
finally, see below for more discussion on this issue:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/12/23/bad-art-evangelicals-and-the-tortured-beauty-of-the-cross/
one resource i found was a book on writing fiction by alice laplante called "the making of a story." according to the author, good fiction, poetry, and art are "surprising and convincing" at the same time, e.g. flannery o'connor. in contrast, bad fiction, poetry, and art are like romance novels where the artist has to do very little work in order to evoke stock and often powerful emotional responses.
which made me think of evangelicalism and "praise music" as bad art. four chords and a catchy melody sure make you feel warm and fuzzy; yet it amounts to very little artistic work evoking stock and often powerful emotional responses. what's worse is that such stock and powerful emotional responses can often mislead us to conclude that the "praise song" is good art. think also of various "ministers," their loquacious babbling," and the boisterous choruses of "amens!" and "preach it brother!" that threaten to "bring down the house."
perhaps the same can be said of "fireproof" and "courageous." while i admire the efforts of the producers and actors, while i genuinely think these movies' subject matters are important, comparing them to something like "the tree of life" is like comparing "chopsticks" to chopin.
as someone else has already pointed out, the contrast between catholicism's incarnational worldview v. evangelicalism's tendencies toward cartesian dualism probably lies at the heart of matter. it would be hard to imagine a southern baptist team of producers making a film like "the tree of life."
finally, see below for more discussion on this issue:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/12/23/bad-art-evangelicals-and-the-tortured-beauty-of-the-cross/
4.20.2012 | 5:22pm
Bibbit says:
"Let the message take care of itself. Or, as the St. Francis school of cinematography has it: Preach always and everywhere; when necessary, use words."
Can somebody please show me where Francis said this? I don't think he did.
Can somebody please show me where Francis said this? I don't think he did.
4.20.2012 | 7:09pm
Dan C says:
I liked the Spitfire Grill, but I thought it was littered with particularly obvious symbols and a plot trajectory that was evident in 30 minutes. As such, I don't know why I liked it that much.
"Romero" was similar to Spitfire Grill, but "The Mission" was much more artful, with a much more complex message.
No one mentioned Bella as good art. I loved Bella.
And "Of Gods and Men" was not preachy, but it was a catalog of the lives of monks. Much better than anything out of the Albany Baptist shop. I saw Courageous and that turned me off for any future preachy film. I hated it. It was awful as a film or a story. In fact, it was so awful, and I was pretty sure that October Baby was going to be just like it, that I couldn't even bear to consider October Baby.
If one wants to "preach to a choir" and generate back-slapping praise from the already-converted, October Baby and the Albany Baptist factory of films will do it. If one want to impact more than the already-converted, then change the tactic, improve the art and stifle the preachiness.
"Romero" was similar to Spitfire Grill, but "The Mission" was much more artful, with a much more complex message.
No one mentioned Bella as good art. I loved Bella.
And "Of Gods and Men" was not preachy, but it was a catalog of the lives of monks. Much better than anything out of the Albany Baptist shop. I saw Courageous and that turned me off for any future preachy film. I hated it. It was awful as a film or a story. In fact, it was so awful, and I was pretty sure that October Baby was going to be just like it, that I couldn't even bear to consider October Baby.
If one wants to "preach to a choir" and generate back-slapping praise from the already-converted, October Baby and the Albany Baptist factory of films will do it. If one want to impact more than the already-converted, then change the tactic, improve the art and stifle the preachiness.
4.20.2012 | 8:07pm
David Alexander says:
Some of my latest attempts at writing poetry seem to suffer from this problem of preachiness. It's not that art should not aim to teach or have a didactic element, it seems to me, but rather that this should not overwhelm the pleasing element of the aesthetic. Wasn't it Sir Philip Sidney and Horace that wrote that poetry should both teach and please? Too much subtlety can occlude then logos aspect of the art, turning it into an exercise similar to staring at rocks, it seems to me- an activity from which a mind can derive much pleasure but one that does not seem to be focused on human art. Anyway, the estimable Mr. Leithart raises an interesting point to reflect on.
4.20.2012 | 8:30pm
Tony Francois says:
There is a similar analysis in the case of a couple of less recent movies on the abortion theme: Bella and Juno. A close friend liked Bella but thought it too subtle for the average movie goer, and considered Juno a better movie for conveying the pro-life theme. Not having seen Juno, my wife and I rented it. While it is better than Fireproof as an example of movie making, Juno probably fits yet another category. It is not "good message - poor movie" or "great movie - need to be willing to think about it to get the message" but rather, I think, just a mediocre movie with a rather ambiguous message. I was surprised my friend preferred it to Bella, which I continue to find one of the most compelling movies I have seen. I suspect it is because in the end, the characters struggle through to redemption, a new state in life from which they can go forward. In Juno, she surrenders her baby to a home that is, in the important respects, perhaps marginally better than her own, and then goes back to hanging out with her boyfriend. It has more a feel of escaping back to the status quo ante than pushing through to redemption.
In any event, I don't begrudge Sherwood Baptist their production company, but agree that the movies are kind of tough to watch. The Gospel is challenging in many ways, but an explicitly Christian movie should not be hard to watch because of poor writing and acting.
And another thing, I really liked There Be Dragons, and would not consider it in the same category as the Sherwood Baptist movies. Not sure of the prior commenter intended that.
In any event, I don't begrudge Sherwood Baptist their production company, but agree that the movies are kind of tough to watch. The Gospel is challenging in many ways, but an explicitly Christian movie should not be hard to watch because of poor writing and acting.
And another thing, I really liked There Be Dragons, and would not consider it in the same category as the Sherwood Baptist movies. Not sure of the prior commenter intended that.
4.20.2012 | 8:35pm
JDC says:
October Baby and other movies with a religious message make people uncomfortable.
Part of it is that the filmmakers are not as practiced or talented as others. The more important part of it is that the films are not as integrated into the culture.
There were inartful moments in October Baby, perhaps, but it was mostly a well-made film as a film. Most of the cringes are induced by realistic adolescent girlhood, not by "preachiness." And the preachy climax of the film, in the cathedral, is really quite comfortable--but not for the culture.
Is Leithart's point that the film is bad art or that it makes people uncomfortable? If the first, I suggest that it's competitive. If the second, I suggest that's good.
A broader point: The tastemakers in our circle should not encourage the ever-cleverer concealement of the religious element in art. There is an audience which should be spared many words. There is another audience which should be be pummeled with words.
Part of it is that the filmmakers are not as practiced or talented as others. The more important part of it is that the films are not as integrated into the culture.
There were inartful moments in October Baby, perhaps, but it was mostly a well-made film as a film. Most of the cringes are induced by realistic adolescent girlhood, not by "preachiness." And the preachy climax of the film, in the cathedral, is really quite comfortable--but not for the culture.
Is Leithart's point that the film is bad art or that it makes people uncomfortable? If the first, I suggest that it's competitive. If the second, I suggest that's good.
A broader point: The tastemakers in our circle should not encourage the ever-cleverer concealement of the religious element in art. There is an audience which should be spared many words. There is another audience which should be be pummeled with words.
4.20.2012 | 11:31pm
Dean from Ohio says:
I read this blog entry earlier this morning, but waited until I saw the movie tonight to write a comment. Now I want to ask Peter Leithart, "Were we watching the same movie?" To tell you the truth, I feel like I want to reach through the computer, grab the author by his shoulders, give a shake (respectfully of course) and say, "Did you feel nothing?!!"
Take the end credits of the movie where the actor for the birth mother (who aborted Hannah) tells her story. If that was preachy, give me seconds and thirds! To me, it sounded more like a miracle, a "God thing" that only He could arrange. If that happened to me, I couldn't stop talking about it. Tonight we were moved--all four of us who went together to the theater. I said to my wife and friends, "Now that I'm walking out of this theater and I see the other movie posters on the wall, I feel like I've seen just the jewels of the Queen of England in the Tower basement, and now I've come outside and have to look at a pile of trash on the sidewalk."
Pastor Leithart can be forgiven for not wanting to hear preaching on his day off. But I wonder if we even live in the same world.
I mean that I live with and go to church with people who talk like these preachy people all the time. We share the word of God together. We quote Bible verses to each other. We encourage and counsel one another. We take the scripture literally, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Col 3)
I'm beginning to think that only evangelicals actually live like this, teaching and admonishing each other, quoting Bible verses. For us, it's not preaching, it's who we are and how we live. It's our talk. Do you all hear Bible talk only when you go to church (if you're lucky)? If so, I'm sorry for you, because y'all are missing out.
We even think differently, apparently. When I read Peter Leithart's language coming out of the gate, namely "anti-abortion activist," I hear the sterility and the slant of the secular media. That phrase stuck out to me like a sore thumb. If you read Gianna Jessen's website, she calls herself "a champion for the unborn." Why can't Peter Leithart use language like that? Does he even think that way?
I had the privilege of hearing Gianna Jessen 20 some years ago in person when she was about the age of Hannah in the film. It moved me greatly then, and this movie moved me greatly tonight.
Pastor Leithart, please get your mover checked!
Take the end credits of the movie where the actor for the birth mother (who aborted Hannah) tells her story. If that was preachy, give me seconds and thirds! To me, it sounded more like a miracle, a "God thing" that only He could arrange. If that happened to me, I couldn't stop talking about it. Tonight we were moved--all four of us who went together to the theater. I said to my wife and friends, "Now that I'm walking out of this theater and I see the other movie posters on the wall, I feel like I've seen just the jewels of the Queen of England in the Tower basement, and now I've come outside and have to look at a pile of trash on the sidewalk."
Pastor Leithart can be forgiven for not wanting to hear preaching on his day off. But I wonder if we even live in the same world.
I mean that I live with and go to church with people who talk like these preachy people all the time. We share the word of God together. We quote Bible verses to each other. We encourage and counsel one another. We take the scripture literally, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Col 3)
I'm beginning to think that only evangelicals actually live like this, teaching and admonishing each other, quoting Bible verses. For us, it's not preaching, it's who we are and how we live. It's our talk. Do you all hear Bible talk only when you go to church (if you're lucky)? If so, I'm sorry for you, because y'all are missing out.
We even think differently, apparently. When I read Peter Leithart's language coming out of the gate, namely "anti-abortion activist," I hear the sterility and the slant of the secular media. That phrase stuck out to me like a sore thumb. If you read Gianna Jessen's website, she calls herself "a champion for the unborn." Why can't Peter Leithart use language like that? Does he even think that way?
I had the privilege of hearing Gianna Jessen 20 some years ago in person when she was about the age of Hannah in the film. It moved me greatly then, and this movie moved me greatly tonight.
Pastor Leithart, please get your mover checked!
4.20.2012 | 11:45pm
Dean from Ohio says:
P.S. If evangelical movies are too preachy, you can always make your own, you know.
4.21.2012 | 11:29am
Bedefan says:
The Catholic short story writer Andrew McNabb uses the phrase "artfully overt" to describe religious fiction that succeeds as fiction without burying the lede (as it were). In fiction we have some great examples of this, mostly from the first half of the 20th century: Brideshead Revisited by Waugh, Woman of the Pharisees and Viper's Tangle by Mauriac, Kristin Lavransdatter by Undset.
Writing in this manner is extremely, extremely difficult. It doesn't surprise me that there are so few films that succeed as works of faith AND as works of art.
Writing in this manner is extremely, extremely difficult. It doesn't surprise me that there are so few films that succeed as works of faith AND as works of art.
4.21.2012 | 12:08pm
maineman says:
I think, Dean, the point made by Pastor Leithart and others here is that good or great art is not just about evoking emotion but about, in a sense, emulating the Creator.
All of creation is subtlety, especially when it comes to the richness of faith, grace, and scripture. I had this thought recently when trying to show how Psalm 22 points to the crucifixion. No one at the table seemed to get it, as though to be truly prophetic it would have to be obvious, as though the glitz of a Las Vegas strip at night is more meaningful, substantive and beautiful than a field of wild flowers.
As for movies, I think Passion of the Christ is arguably the best of all films given that it tells the greatest of all stories with a richness of texture, depth of meaning, clarity and truthfulness of vision, and technical expertise that are pretty much unsurpassed as far as I know.
All of creation is subtlety, especially when it comes to the richness of faith, grace, and scripture. I had this thought recently when trying to show how Psalm 22 points to the crucifixion. No one at the table seemed to get it, as though to be truly prophetic it would have to be obvious, as though the glitz of a Las Vegas strip at night is more meaningful, substantive and beautiful than a field of wild flowers.
As for movies, I think Passion of the Christ is arguably the best of all films given that it tells the greatest of all stories with a richness of texture, depth of meaning, clarity and truthfulness of vision, and technical expertise that are pretty much unsurpassed as far as I know.
4.21.2012 | 5:01pm
Jocon307 says:
"...preachiness is a disease..."
It is, and it is not just suffered by religious filmmakers. My friend and I talk about "hearing the soap box being dragged in" in certain books we've read. And the views most often then preached are not religious or conservative in anyway. Nor are they interesting, nor add to the story. I'm reading your book, you don't have to hit me over the head!
The only one of these movies I've seen has been "Juno" and I think it is one of the most important movies recently made. It was an entertaining movie, to be sure, but what amazed me about it was that it got the pro-life message out to the Hollywood elite and many, many people who perhaps had never heard it.
I really applaud that woman who wrote it and got it made.
Just think of the scene with the lone, geeky pro-life protester (Juno's school mate) outside the clinic, and how her words help to convince Juno not to get an abortion.
I think of that scene a lot, because I still can't believe that movie a. got made, b. was a hit and c. won an Oscar.
I'll bet a dollar to a donut that many lives have been saved because of that movie.
It is, and it is not just suffered by religious filmmakers. My friend and I talk about "hearing the soap box being dragged in" in certain books we've read. And the views most often then preached are not religious or conservative in anyway. Nor are they interesting, nor add to the story. I'm reading your book, you don't have to hit me over the head!
The only one of these movies I've seen has been "Juno" and I think it is one of the most important movies recently made. It was an entertaining movie, to be sure, but what amazed me about it was that it got the pro-life message out to the Hollywood elite and many, many people who perhaps had never heard it.
I really applaud that woman who wrote it and got it made.
Just think of the scene with the lone, geeky pro-life protester (Juno's school mate) outside the clinic, and how her words help to convince Juno not to get an abortion.
I think of that scene a lot, because I still can't believe that movie a. got made, b. was a hit and c. won an Oscar.
I'll bet a dollar to a donut that many lives have been saved because of that movie.
4.21.2012 | 11:48pm
Murph says:
I can't believe Flywheel hasn't been mentioned. It is by far the worst movie I have ever seen.
The Tree of Life was tremendous.
The Tree of Life was tremendous.
4.22.2012 | 3:55pm
Norma says:
If you think it failed as a movie, or a story, maybe you're seeing too many movies. I may see one a year, and I thought it worked fine. I'm an adoptive parent, never kept it a secret, but then there were not the additional problems. Everyone handles this differently, especially after losses like they had. I found nothing preachy--sounded just right. In fact, when I recommend it I tell people it's not preachy or hard sell.
4.23.2012 | 9:31am
Dean from Ohio says:
maineman - "All of creation is subtlety, especially when it comes to the richness of faith, grace, and scripture."
That's true, until we get to the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ and in his word. Even in the Old Testament there was space for art, as in the crafting of the Tabernacle and Temple, and the Psalms, but God intended that our minds be uniquely saturated with his word. We are to talk about it from sunup to sundown among ourselves, our families, our friends. We are to let it dwell in us richly. Art can certainly help us do this.
Yeah, I get that subtlety can be a highly satisfying characteristic of art, along with irony and satire, because it takes a high degree of creativity to present all those well. Made in the image of God, we appreciate creativity more than any of God's other creatures. And that's all well and good.
My point was that Peter Leithart put the wrong target in his literary sights. Preachiness, as he calls it, is a valid and valuable cultural expression of obedience to a command in scripture, the command being to keep scripture foremost in our thoughts and words, and the culture being large swaths of evangelical Protestantism. As another First Things author noted years ago, virtues and values are passed via culture. "Preachiness happens" in these communities, and portraying it in a movie can be, and I think here is, an authentic representation of those communities. Why can't movie critics accept it on that basis? Cutting it out reflexively would seem to be inauthentic, which also undermines art.
The reason it seems out of place to many Christian viewers is that they miss the cultural reference altogether. It further makes me wonder if and how they obey those commands within the context of their own cultures. Now whether a Catholic priest would actually quote a scripture or two in counseling as did the movie character, well, I'll defer to my Catholic brothers and sisters on that one. But my pastor would. And the women in the recovery ministry at my church would, as did the nurse in the movie. And so would I.
I think Peter Leithart should have aimed at the artist's calling. Years ago, when my music teacher wife and were just married, she received an offer to tour with a college-age choir from a Bible institute. She inquired, and found out that the rehearsals would be minimal, and the performances would have audio tracks as well as music playing so that the choir could be smaller and sound bigger (and better). They would be preaching the gospel though. She turned it down, and I agreed with her.
I believe God used that tour to reach people that would not have been reached otherwise, but as a musician and artist, my wife was not called to it. She was called instead to teach music at a Catholic girls' high school, and she produced choral programs that were both beautiful and fun, because God created her both beautiful and fun. The girls and many of the nuns loved her and her three years' work. She added to the light of the gospel even there, on the door of the Mother House, and so reflected the glory of God, obeyed the command of Scripture, and fulfilled her calling.
A lover of art understandably objects to utilitarian uses of art if he or she perceives those uses to undermine either the excellence or the appreciation of that art. But that perception itself may be as flawed as the art under study, and maybe more so. It may be that God has called and gifted the person(s) who produced that art with a measure of talent and a calling to use it to glorify God by supplementing the preaching of his word. If it is done unto the Lord, well, "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." - 1 Cor 14:4
That's true, until we get to the special revelation of God in Jesus Christ and in his word. Even in the Old Testament there was space for art, as in the crafting of the Tabernacle and Temple, and the Psalms, but God intended that our minds be uniquely saturated with his word. We are to talk about it from sunup to sundown among ourselves, our families, our friends. We are to let it dwell in us richly. Art can certainly help us do this.
Yeah, I get that subtlety can be a highly satisfying characteristic of art, along with irony and satire, because it takes a high degree of creativity to present all those well. Made in the image of God, we appreciate creativity more than any of God's other creatures. And that's all well and good.
My point was that Peter Leithart put the wrong target in his literary sights. Preachiness, as he calls it, is a valid and valuable cultural expression of obedience to a command in scripture, the command being to keep scripture foremost in our thoughts and words, and the culture being large swaths of evangelical Protestantism. As another First Things author noted years ago, virtues and values are passed via culture. "Preachiness happens" in these communities, and portraying it in a movie can be, and I think here is, an authentic representation of those communities. Why can't movie critics accept it on that basis? Cutting it out reflexively would seem to be inauthentic, which also undermines art.
The reason it seems out of place to many Christian viewers is that they miss the cultural reference altogether. It further makes me wonder if and how they obey those commands within the context of their own cultures. Now whether a Catholic priest would actually quote a scripture or two in counseling as did the movie character, well, I'll defer to my Catholic brothers and sisters on that one. But my pastor would. And the women in the recovery ministry at my church would, as did the nurse in the movie. And so would I.
I think Peter Leithart should have aimed at the artist's calling. Years ago, when my music teacher wife and were just married, she received an offer to tour with a college-age choir from a Bible institute. She inquired, and found out that the rehearsals would be minimal, and the performances would have audio tracks as well as music playing so that the choir could be smaller and sound bigger (and better). They would be preaching the gospel though. She turned it down, and I agreed with her.
I believe God used that tour to reach people that would not have been reached otherwise, but as a musician and artist, my wife was not called to it. She was called instead to teach music at a Catholic girls' high school, and she produced choral programs that were both beautiful and fun, because God created her both beautiful and fun. The girls and many of the nuns loved her and her three years' work. She added to the light of the gospel even there, on the door of the Mother House, and so reflected the glory of God, obeyed the command of Scripture, and fulfilled her calling.
A lover of art understandably objects to utilitarian uses of art if he or she perceives those uses to undermine either the excellence or the appreciation of that art. But that perception itself may be as flawed as the art under study, and maybe more so. It may be that God has called and gifted the person(s) who produced that art with a measure of talent and a calling to use it to glorify God by supplementing the preaching of his word. If it is done unto the Lord, well, "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." - 1 Cor 14:4
4.23.2012 | 9:49am
Dean from Ohio says:
Murph - "I can't believe Flywheel hasn't been mentioned. It is by far the worst movie I have ever seen."
If the rich and powerful artists and production companies in Hollywood were glorifying God instead of vilifying him with the talent and resources God gave them, then the Sherwood Baptist Church of Albany, Georgia wouldn't have to do their job for them, but on a poverty scale, as they did on Flywheel. It's no accident that Clarence Jordan chose rural Georgia to represent Galilee in his famous Cotton Patch transculturations of scripture. The contempt and dismissal of those Galilean rubes is still among us.
BTW, watch "Ishtar," and that entry in your "worst movie ever" category will achieve immortality. I could take only 20 minutes of it.
If the rich and powerful artists and production companies in Hollywood were glorifying God instead of vilifying him with the talent and resources God gave them, then the Sherwood Baptist Church of Albany, Georgia wouldn't have to do their job for them, but on a poverty scale, as they did on Flywheel. It's no accident that Clarence Jordan chose rural Georgia to represent Galilee in his famous Cotton Patch transculturations of scripture. The contempt and dismissal of those Galilean rubes is still among us.
BTW, watch "Ishtar," and that entry in your "worst movie ever" category will achieve immortality. I could take only 20 minutes of it.
4.23.2012 | 1:40pm
pdn Michael says:
I have not seen any of the movies that were discussed here, I rarely attend movie theaters or rent movies, and the best movies I have seen recently (they were simply entertaining to me) were the movies centered on the character of Jason Borne. It is no doubt an understatement to the hyper-movie-scrutinizers, but I am not an aficionado, and all discussions about the "art" in movies leaves me an outsider.
However, it looks like the "preachiness" issue is really what seems to either gall or energize; more specifically, how much preachy is too preachy? Anti-preachy commentators argue that those who pursue/produce/watch movies as art will be put off due to preachiness outshouting the art. Pro-preachy folk ask, in effect, how else do we get the message onto the silver screen? Are you suggesting we wait for 20th Century Fox or Pixar?
Among movies I've not seen is "Brokeback Mountain." You remember, two cowboys who apparently are homosexual lovers? That one should at least remind us that there is no lack of preachiness in Hollywood *without* Christian filmmakers. But it should also remind us that, despite an "outcome based" promotional scheme that essentially had it winning emmys before it ever opened, the "preachiness" factor seemed to turn off potential customers. It was, in the end, another "transgressive" swipe at conventional morality banking on the evangelizing power of Hollywood pundits and reviewers from PBS and the New York Times. The gambit failed; results were far less than impressive at the box office, if I recall correctly, and were followed by the predictable elitist snootiness toward the unwashed homophobic population, etc., etc.
My point here is that while it is true that audiences might be lost or soured due to the preachy factor, it isn't only Christian filmmakers who indulge. But to even take a position on abortion on screen is to preach in our time. A sentimental Brooklyn Dodger fan who makes a movie about Jackie Robinson won't be accused of being preachy about the Dodgers; anyone who's movie uses abortion as a subtext certainly will, regardless of the position taken.
"Preach always and everywhere; when necessary, use words." In the Orthodox Church I believe we attribute that one to St. Seraphim of Sarov, but I'm not sure, and since there were no international copyright agreements anyhow, St. Francis was more than welcome to pilfer it. :)
However, it looks like the "preachiness" issue is really what seems to either gall or energize; more specifically, how much preachy is too preachy? Anti-preachy commentators argue that those who pursue/produce/watch movies as art will be put off due to preachiness outshouting the art. Pro-preachy folk ask, in effect, how else do we get the message onto the silver screen? Are you suggesting we wait for 20th Century Fox or Pixar?
Among movies I've not seen is "Brokeback Mountain." You remember, two cowboys who apparently are homosexual lovers? That one should at least remind us that there is no lack of preachiness in Hollywood *without* Christian filmmakers. But it should also remind us that, despite an "outcome based" promotional scheme that essentially had it winning emmys before it ever opened, the "preachiness" factor seemed to turn off potential customers. It was, in the end, another "transgressive" swipe at conventional morality banking on the evangelizing power of Hollywood pundits and reviewers from PBS and the New York Times. The gambit failed; results were far less than impressive at the box office, if I recall correctly, and were followed by the predictable elitist snootiness toward the unwashed homophobic population, etc., etc.
My point here is that while it is true that audiences might be lost or soured due to the preachy factor, it isn't only Christian filmmakers who indulge. But to even take a position on abortion on screen is to preach in our time. A sentimental Brooklyn Dodger fan who makes a movie about Jackie Robinson won't be accused of being preachy about the Dodgers; anyone who's movie uses abortion as a subtext certainly will, regardless of the position taken.
"Preach always and everywhere; when necessary, use words." In the Orthodox Church I believe we attribute that one to St. Seraphim of Sarov, but I'm not sure, and since there were no international copyright agreements anyhow, St. Francis was more than welcome to pilfer it. :)
4.23.2012 | 5:46pm
Jeff from Georgia says:
To the author,
I agree with much you have written. I am Evangelical and often lament the clumsiness with which Evangelical "artists" go about their craft. If we wish to transform our nation's culture that it might house the glory of God as a tabernacle to His presence, those of us called to do so must develop ourselves into the finest of artisans. The OT calls such workers "skilled".
To Dean from Ohio,
Much of what you have said about art, the believer, and the glorification of God shows wisdom and grace. I would like to add just a couple of comments. First, our example for how a believer should engage with art both as creator and observer was illustrated by Jesus himself. In the parables, Jesus told stories that were not easily understood. Yet they impacted those prepared to hear them wonderfully. "Those who have ears to hear..." and, conversely, "Having ears to hear they do not hear...". We might not understand how subtle the message was because of 2000 years of study and cultural familiarity. But even the disciples requested that Christ explain at least one, "The Sower". Second, what Paul has said is certainly true, that no matter reason, "I am thankful Christ is glorified". Yet, he did not fail to criticize those with improper motives. I am not suggesting that Sherwood Church has improper motives. However, one would hope they continue to improve their craft (as they most assuredly have to date) and they prayerfully receive gentle correction from those with knowledge gained through study and experience.
I agree with much you have written. I am Evangelical and often lament the clumsiness with which Evangelical "artists" go about their craft. If we wish to transform our nation's culture that it might house the glory of God as a tabernacle to His presence, those of us called to do so must develop ourselves into the finest of artisans. The OT calls such workers "skilled".
To Dean from Ohio,
Much of what you have said about art, the believer, and the glorification of God shows wisdom and grace. I would like to add just a couple of comments. First, our example for how a believer should engage with art both as creator and observer was illustrated by Jesus himself. In the parables, Jesus told stories that were not easily understood. Yet they impacted those prepared to hear them wonderfully. "Those who have ears to hear..." and, conversely, "Having ears to hear they do not hear...". We might not understand how subtle the message was because of 2000 years of study and cultural familiarity. But even the disciples requested that Christ explain at least one, "The Sower". Second, what Paul has said is certainly true, that no matter reason, "I am thankful Christ is glorified". Yet, he did not fail to criticize those with improper motives. I am not suggesting that Sherwood Church has improper motives. However, one would hope they continue to improve their craft (as they most assuredly have to date) and they prayerfully receive gentle correction from those with knowledge gained through study and experience.
4.23.2012 | 8:27pm
Katie S says:
thanks for this. I saw October Baby last year at a private viewing and was seriously disappointed in our ability as Christians to make good films. As someone who works on a daily basis with girls in Hannah's birth mom's situation I came away feeling like they had missed so much of what a story like this could have proclaimed. The movie Bella is one of those movies that speaks to this issue without preaching at you- lets you put the pieces together.
loved the Tree of Life!
loved the Tree of Life!
4.24.2012 | 8:18am
Dean from Ohio says:
Jeff from Georgia,
Thanks for your comments. Excellent point about the parables. Just last week, I just downloaded three of Kenneth Bailey's books on the original cultural context of Jesus' parables. When our own cultural grime is removed, they spring to life in vivid color like the Sistine Chapel.
And a wise man receives correction; I pray that the folks in Albany will listen and have an enabling of art and skill from the Holy Spirit, as did those who made the Tabernacle.
Thanks for your comments. Excellent point about the parables. Just last week, I just downloaded three of Kenneth Bailey's books on the original cultural context of Jesus' parables. When our own cultural grime is removed, they spring to life in vivid color like the Sistine Chapel.
And a wise man receives correction; I pray that the folks in Albany will listen and have an enabling of art and skill from the Holy Spirit, as did those who made the Tabernacle.
4.28.2012 | 4:31am
Mike says:
As you discus movies, what do you think about Jesus Camp? Anyone seen it?
†