What Would Joshua Do?

A new movie studio, Epiphany Films, has set out to produce films that glorify good spiritual values. This week, its first film has arrived. Churches and many Christian film critics are raving about Joshua. The film is based on the novel by Fr. Joseph F. Girzone, a Catholic priest who has written a popular series of novels. But reviews from the mainstream press raise questions of whether the filmmakers' tactics will work with an unchurched audience.

The movie is set in a small town that is visited by a charismatic stranger (Tony Goldwyn) who contributes to the rebuilding of a church. His contributions include healing a blind woman, arguing with religious leaders, and even raising the dead. This greatly dismays a local Catholic priest (Amadeus's F. Murray Abraham), who tries to get the church to denounce him. The drama is underlined by a soundtrack that features popular contemporary Christian music stars Michael W. Smith, Nicole C. Mullen, Point of Grace, Third Day, and Jaci Velasquez.

Hollywood Jesus offers a link to Epiphany Films' "leadership guide" for those who want to lead a discussion after viewing the film.

Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) says, "Director Jon Purdy, while not giving us a stellar example of cinematic artistry, still succeeds because he remains true to the film's simple and yet poignant message: God is love and we need more love in our lives." Similarly, Dick Rolfe (Dove) calls it "enchanting … spiritual but not preachy, provocative without being gross, entertaining without taking the low road that so many filmmakers feel compelled to travel."

"The story touches on many of the ... issues presented in the Gospels," says Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family). "Joshua plays like an extended episode of TV's Touched by an Angel in which the Lord has cut out the middleman."

Critics Ted Baehr, Robert Baehr and Bob Beltz declare, "Movieguide applauds the filmmakers for tackling a difficult subject in such a sensitive, powerful manner and recommends that everyone go see Joshua."

In Christianity Today, reviewer LaTonya Taylor says the film has several striking moments but the plot is undeveloped and safe. "Joshua does not take creative risks like Godspell or Jesus of Montreal," she writes. "Instead, Jesus walks the streets of Auburn with the primary purpose of comforting people. There's nothing inherently false here, but it is an incomplete and sometimes overly simple story."

Holly McClure (Crosswalk) says the film makes "a bold attempt to tell the story of Jesus Christ visiting our culture, and shows the speculation and persecution he might endure from both the religious and secular camps." But she adds, "If anything, the story is a little too easygoing and needed more conflict to make it challenging."

McClure's criticism is amplified by mainstream critics, who argue that this subject isn't difficult, challenging, or powerful. It's just "business as usual."

Michael Dequina (FilmThreat) writes, "I have no objection to films whose aim is to reaffirm religious faith, but more often than not these films engage in Bible-thumping overkill, and Joshua is no exception; any attempts at nuance given by the capable cast … is drowned out by director Jon Purdy's sledgehammer sap, which commonly manifests itself by way of Christian pop star Michael W. Smith's maudlin instrumental and song score. There's a fine line between inspiration and manipulation, and from its first frame, Joshua crosses it and never looks back."

Filmcritic.com's Christopher Null says, "At its heart, Joshua is … a movie about religious mysticism, and it thusly absolves itself from having to make total sense. After all, when you resurrect a dead man, Hard Copy should come a-knocking, no? The ending makes no sense, either, serving only as a way to get to the credits. There's nothing left to think about or ponder, only a slap to the back of the head with a 2x4. A religious picture that really challenged old beliefs or, heaven forbid, made you think? Well, that would be a miracle."

What does the movie have to say about the church? Dr. Frank Swietek, Associate Professor of History at the University of Dallas, writes, "The brand of Christianity preached in the picture is of the most vanilla kind—basically the messiah's message is the same as the Beatles' 'All You Need Is Love'—and it teaches simply that everybody should be nice to one another and that denominations don't matter. (Peculiarly, members of the Catholic and Baptist congregations seem indiscriminately to attend each other's services.) The Christian life seems basically to come down to hugging, being nice, and maintaining a vacuous expression on one's face."

Similarly, Marjorie Baumgarten (Austin Chronicle) complains, "One key problem with these ardently Christian storylines is that there is never any question of how things will turn out. The current spate of Christian films is notable for its growing proficiency and technical expertise, in addition to the ability to attract big-name stars to these projects. The narratives, however, are proving to be lame exercises in transparent religious parables."

And Walter Chaw writes, "The problem with Joshua isn't its message or its conviction in its message, but rather its conviction that faith is the most attractive when free of all traces of recognizable humanity and controversy. It's for … folks looking for faith in small words, comforting images, artless emotions, and simplified theologies. How interesting that Bill Paxton's Frailty, released one week earlier and portraying an axe murderer slaying for the Lord, is actually the more compelling portrait of faith, the faithful, and faithfulness."

E Online's critic agrees that this movie is "Only for the already devoted."

Why is it that so many Christian moviemakers—and Christian musicians and Christian writers—seem to create work that appeals primarily to Christian audiences? Surely Christian artists can tell meaningful stories to the culture without constantly using the same propaganda-heavy plot lines of "Jesus in blue jeans" and "American fundamentalist Christians escaping the Apocalypse." God's truth can be found in all kinds of storytelling.

In a very timely article at Relevant Magazine, Dan Buck offers a bold opinion regarding this ongoing problem: "Within the Church currently there is a strange effort to counteract [the idea of staying sheltered in a 'Christian ghetto'] by bringing our pseudo-spiritual subculture around with us everywhere we go. Opening a phone book, I can find Christian pharmacies, Christian art framing, Christian bakeries and here in my hometown someone has created a business concept out of a cheesy Christian T-shirt. The Lord's Gym Health and Fitness Centers are dedicated to promoting 'Fitness for Body & Soul' and offer classes such as Praise Dance, Body of Armor and Chariots of Fire Spin. Now, some might argue such businesses are a good model of stretching the barriers of our spiritual activity beyond Sunday morning. However, all they are doing is adding spiritual language into things that are naturally spiritual because they are part of the human experience God has created."

Buck offers readers a challenge: "Go to a Christian bookstore. As you walk the aisles you'll see shelf after shelf of Christian toys (usually of poor quality), Christian music (usually a little worse than the toys) and over on the right side, by the Christian coffee shop called 'Jesus Java,' you'll see a shelf labeled 'Art.' This shelf consists of a Thomas Kinkade painting, and two photo landscapes all with Bible verses or Oswald Chambers quotations emblazoned across the top right corner. Here we are, the group of people that claims to have the corner market on understanding the First and Greatest Artist, and we can't even imitate His creative nature as effectively as a world that doesn't know Him."

The problem is also addressed this week in Terry Mattingly's On Religion column. Mattingly tells the story of Reed Arvin, who has long been a powerful player in the CBA publishing world, as well as playing an important part in the Christian music industry. Frustrated by the limitations placed on his ability to tell a good, truthful story, Arvin has moved on to secular publishers, who are more open to "real" stories.

This may seem like a betrayal to those in the Christian publishing industry. But Arvin's reasons are provocative. In a recent talk at Calvin College titled "Why I left the CBA," Arvin asked, "What if Romeo and Juliet had been submitted to a Christian publisher?" Would it have been accepted as the powerful, timeless, truth-telling story that it is? Arvin argues that Shakespeare would have been required to make severe changes. "The lovers would meet, just as before, and the parents would still disapprove. Probably one set would not be Christians at all, providing a convenient subplot of salvation." Mattingly sums up the rest—Romeo and Juliet would share the gospel with their parents, and a happy ending would come about as everyone was converted. "As Juliet's father leads them in prayer, the sun would break through the clouds over Verona. Amen."

Mattingly goes on to relate the good news: Arvin's book The Will was rejected by Christian publishers because characters are portrayed making objectionable—but realistic—choices. But it has been picked up by Simon and Schuster, and Paramount is planning a film adaptation. Arvin explains, "Because I am writing a work of fiction and not propaganda, I don't ask questions such as, 'What should I have this character say next in order to lead people to Christ?' Or, 'What should I have this character do in order not to offend someone?' Only this: 'What would he say next? What would he do next?' We have to write real stories that speak to real people."

Hot from the Oven

In director Steven Herek's Life or Something Like It, Angelina Jolie plays a television reporter named Lanie, whose increasing popularity is bringing with it all of the maddening busy-ness of celebrity. Will she have time to build a healthy relationship with her fiancé, who is a superstar in his own right? (He's a Seattle Mariner.) Or should she listen to the criticisms of Pete (Ed Burns), the sexy cameraman whose interest in her goes beyond his responsibility with the camera?

Online critic Phil Boatwright is ecstatic, calling the film "delightful and totally engaging. [It] reminds us to live every day as if it's the last (which in itself is a marvelous instruction). It also suggests that it is a mistake to let our career alone define who we are. The script is smart, the direction focused and the fable-like premise thought provoking. This is a good movie."

Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family), Tom Snyder (Movieguide), and John Adair (Preview) agree that premarital sex and several obscenities are problems. But they also agree with the film's message that "family and personal relationships are more important than having a high-powered career." Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, "In the midst of building our careers and looking to succeed in our chosen professions, we can easily have a tendency to gauge our success by using the wrong measuring stick. God would have us remember what is truly important."

But according to Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films), Lanie may not really be learning anything: "Once her eyes have been opened … she begins asking questions about [her relationship with her fiancé] that apparently never occurred to her before, such as: 'What binds us together? What are our shared beliefs, our values? What's going to keep us together ten, twenty, thirty years from now?' Fine questions … but they never get asked about her new relationship with Pete."

Douglas Downs (Christian Spotlight) writes, "I was amazed at how many pre-teen and teenage girls were in the audience swallowing these phony messages about life."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' review has nothing good to say about its craftsmanship. "In Herek's hands, it all boils down to romantic fluff. The contrived situations that drive this film make the positive direction the plot takes seem banal and unavoidable." The reviewer argues that Lanie's promotion is implausible, because she "loses all objectivity as a reporter." He also points to alarmingly obvious product placements, which "amount to blatant commercials."

One character sums up the film's message by referring to an old proverb: "Someone once said, live every day as if it will be your last." Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) retorts, "Not just someone once said that. Everyone once said it, over and over again, although Life or Something Like It thinks it's a fresh insight. This is an ungainly movie, ill-fitting, with its elbows sticking out where the knees should be. To quote another ancient proverb, 'A camel is a horse designed by a committee.' Life or Something Like It is the movie designed by the camel."

Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly) says the movie's title is meaningless. "Life or Something Like It is neither about life nor about anything like life. As far as I can tell, this bubbleheaded drama, which purports to dramatize the importance of getting one's priorities straight … is mostly about slapping together a bunch of clichés—outdated clichés at that—regarding the loneliness of ambitious women. And it's about hoping that audiences will be so fascinated by the extraordinary terrain of … Jolie's lips that they won't care how synthetic the whole enterprise really is."

Need we bother to review the various critical attacks on Jason X, the latest lame-brained slasher flick? If you are wondering if this installment in the long-running big screen bloodbath franchise might suddenly turn interesting and entertaining, here is proof to the contrary:

The USCCB says this "mindless gore fest … is simply an excuse to cram as many decapitations, impalements, and snapped necks onto celluloid as possible. There's no story, tension or suspense. Just blood and guts, with a little sex on the side for variety."

Side Dish

Peter Bogdonavich (The Last Picture Show), who hasn't turned in a feature film since 1993's The Thing Called Love, is back with The Cat's Meow. Unlike this week's other releases, this movie can stimulate the mind as well as the emotions. Meow concocts a speculative story based on a famously unsolved murder that took place on the private boat of William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann) while he was entertaining celebrity guests like Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). When Chaplin flirtatiously pursues the affections of silent film actress Marion Davies (the extraordinary Kirsten Dunst), who happens to be Hearst's mistress, filmmaker Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes) ends up in a mistaken identity crisis that leads to catastrophic consequences. The well-mannered social exchanges surrounding the scandal only further emphasize the moral deterioration of the rich and powerful.

"Fans of Hollywood's silent film era will enjoy the period detail and talented performances," says Paul Bicking (Preview). He concludes that the film is "a fascinating portrayal of rumored events."

The USCCB's critic says, "A setup like this could have easily gotten muddled or overbearing. Yet Bogdanovich keeps the action moving along smoothly, feeding the audience narrative information while allowing the film to be a visual potpourri of glitz, charm and lavish luxury. Though a few biting remarks about Hollywood and its excess, class, and wealth are slipped in, the film is not a serious indictment of rampant corruption. Bogdanovich may disappoint his fans by having uncharacteristically chosen much lighter fare this time around. But The Cat's Meow has charm and presence even if it's mostly played as sporty fun."

Jerry Langford (Movieguide) writes that the film "wisely shows the pain and emptiness of these romanticized affairs." But he harshly criticizes its tale-spinning: "The Cat's Meow is truly despicable in that it converts historical speculation into believable images and portrayals. The narrator clarifies that this version is the whispers told 'most often' in Hollywood. A movie can be a powerful tool for convincing the uninformed public on any subject and Hollywood's amazing power is wielded recklessly here. The inclusion of the comment about 'whispers' merely provides free license to smear the dead."

Langford's argument might apply to most movies that are based on history, and perhaps even to Shakespeare's plays as well. Isn't spinning a good story out of the prevalent 'whispers' of history a longstanding tradition? Hearst's power plays and arrogance were a well-known phenomenon even as he was at the peak of his powers. Surely if the artist is good enough to present the story as speculation, audiences should be trusted to take the fiction with a grain of salt, and to investigate the truth for themselves, as suggested by Kevin Costner's character in midst of JFK's historical-revisionism.

Meanwhile, mainstream critics find it the finest of this week's new releases. Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat (Spirituality and Health) say the film "provides us with another glimpse into Hollywood where, as one of the characters sadly concludes, morality vanishes without a trace."

MaryAnn Johanson (The Flick Filosopher) says, "These volatile personalities stew until they explode, and though The Cat's Meow just comes to a so-what ending and stops short, the getting there is delicious."

Ebert writes, "The film is darkly atmospheric, with Herrmann quietly suggesting the sadness and obsession beneath Hearst's forced avuncular chortles." He points out "easy to miss" details that give evidence of Hearst's power, which he used to advance his own agendas while lives crumbled around him. "Bogdanovich has an exact way of conveying the forced and metronomic gaiety on the yacht, where guests … seem to be living in an English country house mystery—Gosford Yacht."

Still Cooking

Critics in the religious press are continuing to praise Samuel Jackson and Ben Affleck for their strong performances in Roger Michell's Changing Lanes, a film that raises profound and timely questions about our hurried, self-centered lives.

The review at Cinema in Focus, a site maintained by a Free Methodist pastor and the former mayor of Santa Barbara, raves about the movie: "Few films reflect the spiritual and ethical struggle within American culture as powerfully as Roger Michell's Changing Lanes. Though morally exhausting as we walk through the sequence of events that occur because of a simple automobile accident, writer Chris Taylor exposes the moral morass in which many of us live our lives. Far more subtle and complex than a simple morality play, Changing Lanes only hints at the possible solution to our dilemma and leaves us longing for the more transcendent resolution."

Raymond Teague (Unity World Headquarters) writes, "The intelligent script of Changing Lanes doesn't succumb simply to a plot based on revenge and one-upmanship. It gives us a hopeful example that people are, at their essence, good and decent, and that people can indeed be transformed by the renewing of their mind and 'wake up' to a better, saner, more peaceful way of approaching and living life."

Next week: Why are kids so drawn to Spider-Man? Also: Woody Allen's latest Hollywood Ending, foreign releases Time Out and The Piano Teacher, and the return of Amadeus.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

Past review roundups are available in the Film Forum archives.