2 of 3

Familiarity can breed contempt, it's true—in both life and story. There are themes and ideas that might be evident, possibly redundant, to a Christian that may not be to someone who has never been to church. I think we, as believers, are so busy slapping each other around with the latest emerging paradigms that we often forget this. What may seem obvious to the former is quite possibly groundbreaking for the latter. A filmmaker who denies his or her own spiritual journey as part of his or her artistic work might just be denying the very thing that will make his or her film stand out with critics or audiences. It's all in the approach.

Can you imagine someone asking Woody Allen to make his films less Jewish? Or Oliver Stone, less socio-political? Or Spike Lee, less African-American? It doesn't matter if you like or agree with any of those filmmakers or their films. What is undeniable is that their singular perspectives helped each of them to stand out. We applaud powerful, successful films like City of God and Whale Rider for the unique and specific peeks into unfamiliar territory they provide, and rightfully so. We marvel at their authenticity and detail, and yet, at the same time, we ask—often demand—that filmmakers who happen to be Christian leave their own authenticity and detail at the door.

Good filmmaking is good filmmaking and bad filmmaking is bad filmmaking—Christian or Zen Buddhist or Wiccan, it doesn't matter. Lose the labels; let's focus on craft. But don't expect filmmakers to deny who they are or their own life experiences. Does every film made by a believer have to have obvious "Christian" content? Absolutely not. But neither should it be avoided by design. Wouldn't we be wise to patiently encourage our young filmmakers to deepen and make more genuine their spiritual journeys and discoveries on film, not deny or suppress them?

I'm not sure I agree with your idea that everyone is concerned with "the moral of the story." I'm not saying folks shouldn't ask that question, but I doubt if viewers are asking it after Meet the Fockers or Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. People go to movies to be entertained or moved emotionally or taken to another world; anything else is gravy. That said, I do agree with your assumption that every story, like it or not, has a moral.

Samuel Goldwyn said, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." This quote is usually invoked only when someone doesn't like the perceived message of a film. Even so, I agree that spoon-feeding a message to an audience is not the best way to go—but not because audiences want to "explore the true message" of what they're watching. People want to eat popcorn and enjoy a good story; spoon-feeding them anything that gets in the way of that can wreck the whole experience. The trick is to make your message organic to the story and characters, whenever possible—much easier said than done. But, if unsuccessful, the solution is to try again, experiment, be creative—not cut out the message.

Seabiscuit's narration didn't work for you, fair enough; I also prefer "show, don't tell." You didn't say you disagreed with the "message" of Seabiscuit, but simply being beaten over the head with it. Amen. But sometimes, if the issues of a film merit direct debate or dialogue, as with Hotel Rwanda or Schindler's List or Final Solution, I'd contend that it's not only acceptable but commendable to hit things head on. Can a filmmaker never take sides? Isn't there sometimes a place for being direct?

Movies are not sermons—I couldn't agree with you more on that one. And, too often, screenwriters (myself included) have tried to shoehorn their theology into the mouths of their characters—a bad, bad idea. But if you're saying that most "non-believing audiences" won't respond positively to a film with direct Christian content, I respectfully but strongly disagree. I've seen it happen with my own film, The Least of These, which has some very direct "Christian" content but was warmly received at many festivals—most of them secular in the extreme. Some fellow believers had encouraged me to remove some explicit "Christian" dialogue at the end of the film for fear that it would turn off "non-believing audiences." After a lot of soul-searching, I left it in, not knowing if it was a mistake. As it turned out, that very ending was the reason doors opened to many festival screenings and the eclectic audiences who embraced the film.

next page... |  2 of 3

Related Elsewhere:

Should Films Be Faith-Explicit?	Printer view
That's the question we posed to two Christian filmmakers on both sides of the issue. We initiated an e-mail debate between them, and while there were no easy answers, the lively exchange is instructive. Part 2 of 4.

---

Should Films Be Faith-Explicit?	Printer view
That's the question we posed to two Christian filmmakers who were coming from two sides of the issue. We initiated an e-mail debate between them, and while there were no easy answers, the lively exchange is instructive. Part 3 of 4.

---

Should Films Be Faith-Explicit?	Printer view
That's the question we posed to two Christian filmmakers who were coming from two sides of the issue. We initiated an e-mail debate between them, and while there were no easy answers, the lively exchange is instructive. Part 4 of 4.