2 of 3

David: Sneaky. Haven't you made films that your kids can't see?

Jeffrey: Um, yes, well, as the dad of three wonderful little children, um … why would I make a movie my kids couldn't watch? First let me say I've made many short films that are appropriate for my kids—one of them even stars my son and has been my most successful short film to date. This kid-friendly film led to a deal I received with 20th Century FOX for a potential TV series. So "family-friendly" films can definitely be widely popular and, frankly, we need more of them.

On the other hand, it's simplistic to presume films can't explore themes that are geared towards adults. C. S. Lewis did this for literature in his science fiction trilogy. There are many books that I intend for my kids to read—but not until they are older. Themes of revenge, murder, erotic love—these are part of stories that aren't necessarily appropriate for young ones. So I make no apology for making some films that explore these issues and stories. I just think we need both.

David: This reminds me of the time I served as a judge at a rhetoric competition at a Christian private school, and a young lady made a presentation on why modern art was not art. I listened attentively, and then during the Q&A, I asked her, "What is art?" She paused, looking for the trick in the question. She scanned her notes, then spoke plainly: art is to reflect the beauty of the Creator. I wrote this down. I then asked her a second question, "What is the purpose of art?" Here she began to sweat. In her mind, I had just asked her that question. After a nervous, restless silence, she answered: it's to reflect the beauty of the Creator.

Same answer? Her basic thesis was to argue that art, or in our case movies, should represent that which is beautiful. By "beautiful" she meant lovely, ordered, accessible. Her aesthetic construct left little room to explore ugliness, a feature that suffuses the entire canvas of human experience.

Jeffrey: Like the cross.

David: Exactly. She expressly denied that the cross comprised a legitimate subject for the artist. And yet is it not at the scene of the cross that we find a confluence of violence, profanity and nudity: the brutality of crucifixion, beautifully and horrifically portrayed in The Passion of The Christ, the how-could-they-not-use vulgar language coming from soldier and criminal alike, and the fact that the crucified died naked? So for the Believer artist, the question is not whether the crucifixion of Christ ought cinematically to be portrayed but how. The answer of course is not gratuitously, as either superfluous to the story or with the purpose to titillate or glamorize sin. This is the addiction of Hollywood. The answer is fully truthfully, fully honestly, and lest we forget the great commandment, fully lovingly. The challenge for the Believer artist is to hold these three in tension.

Jeffrey: That's nice. But didn't you get in trouble for showing Magnolia at your church?

David: I did. And I learned a big lesson about pastoral responsibility—and about collective anger, humility and the evils of trying to resolve conflict over e-mail.

Jeffrey: Speaking of nudity, it's peculiar how many classic art works with a biblically based theme depict nude characters—like Michelangelo's David. In our home, sitting on our coffee table, we have a big blue book called Sister Wendy's 1000 Masterpieces. It's filled with pages of beautiful works of art from all ages. I doubt most Christians would find this book—compiled by a Catholic nun and art scholar—offensive at any level. Yet perusing the art within, you would find dozens of depictions of the naked body. As Christians, many of us seem to accept nudity to some degree in older art forms (painting, sculpture) but tend to reject nudity in newer art forms (photography, film).

David: So what's the difference?

Jeffery: For starters, the intended purpose of the artist plays a role. Michelangelo's David could hardly be called erotic. On the other hand, most nudity in films is usually associated with sexual themes—often portrayed exploitatively as eye candy to the detriment of the soul. But this does not mean filmmakers always use nudity with a lascivious purpose. Nudity that has no sexual connotations (and, indeed is even quite humorous) appears in gentle films such as Waking Ned Devine or A Room with a View. There is also nudity that is poignant, in the case of the Jewish women about to be gassed in Schindler's List. Films such as these suggest that nudity can be acceptable, even important, in telling a story on the screen.

next page... |  2 of 3

Related Elsewhere:

What Is a Good Christian Movie, Anyway? (Part 1)	Printer view
Is it a sermon in disguise? Is it honest? Is it "family-friendly"? Defining it is no easy task—but here's a good start.

---

The Honest-to-God Truth About Movies (Part 2)	Printer view
The best films don't shy away from truthfully depicting the human condition—even when it's ugly and sinful.

---

In Defense of Mere Entertainment (Part 3)	Printer view
Would Mother Teresa have thrown her head back and laughed aloud at The Pink Panther? Likely so, says the author in this apologetic for films that are simply "fun for the sake of fun."