I'd mostly agree with your review. I still have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of an overtly Christian produced movie that is supposedly made for "everyone". When it comes to Christian themes in wide release movies, I just think covert is more affecting........style preference I suppose.

That said, I found this to be the most "accessible" of the 4 films that have come out of Sherwood Baptist. Aside from the unnecessary sermon at the end, I thought the film had the feel of a Nicholas Sparks chic flick - "A Walk to Remember" comes to mind.

I actually found most of the attempts at humor to be much more effective than I expected........"Snake Kings" was a highlight - and the "Who's on First?" routine with the "Javier" mix-up was actually kind of original. I was also impressed with how well the action sequences were done.

Much of the acting is still cringe-inducing, but if you expect that going in, I think you come out pleasantly surprised.

Even though the film is about fatherhood, I think that women will like it better than men, because of the chic flick style.

I do however agree with the critic who observed that every portrayal of a "wife/mom" in the film was relegated to the kitchen.

Yeah Richard, I'd agree with the Whitehorse Inn guys on this, their review is a more direct way of stating the first paragraph in my comment.

"what is it with us Christians nit-picking "our" movies?"

I'll step in on this question. I'm a writer who's a Christian (not what most people would call a Christian writer) and I for one think that quality of story/acting/production should come first. Then you can put a message in there. I have no problem with message movies (provided they aren't ham fisted), but if the acting is sub-par and the writing is as well then I don't think it's a good idea to stick it out there with the Christian message.

The cross/gospel would still be "foolishness to mankind", but I wouldn't feel the need to apologize for years of crappy Christian music/movies/books like I do now.

As it is, I expect more from Christian creators who are putting the Gospel out there in an "out there" way because frankly if we are representing the cross, shouldn't the quality be the best we can make it?

Scott - have you seen the movie?

Regarding apologizing. I understand where you're coming from, but I've often observed what a lot of Christians who feel the way you do often miss: have you listened to non-CCM radio these days or looked at what's on the bookshelves or coming out in theaters? I think that "putting out cr@p" is happening all over the place.

To their credit, this Georgia church has made viable movies on a really small budget. I think in particular that Fireproof and Courageous are fairly good pieces of work. Not perfect, certainly (as you can see from my review).

if we are representing the cross, shouldn't the quality be the best we can make it?

Yes. And my guess is that Sherwood believes they've put their all into this movie.

My sense, though, is that many Christians feel as nhe does, that the art isn't good when it's overt, and that covert is better. So no matter how good movies such as Courageous are, they will always seem slightly embarrassing to many believers; something to apologize for.

I haven't, but I've seen their prior efforts. It's enough to make me reluctant at best to see any more of what they put out.

Yes, non-Christian pop-music sucks (as do many movies and books). Here's my thing though. We (as Christians) seem to be rewarding the LCD. I've heard a fair amount of Christian music that doesn't suck. I've read Christian books that don't suck. Most of the above can't or won't label themselves as Christian because of what most Christians listen to.

If we really want good Christian stuff to get out there then we need to reward those artists who are really putting out quality stuff. I'm not sure whose feet to hold to the fire on this one to be honest, whether it's the CBA and Christian radio stations or whether it's the consumers (I have the same question about mainstream tripe).

I will give this to Sherwood, their movies are getting better, if only marginally. Maybe they need to grab the "edgier" people in their community to really scrutinize their next project? I don't know.

Art can be good when it's overt. I wouldn't call what Lewis did covert and it's good. The same can be said for musicians like Chris Rice or Michael Card.

Bill

Understood. But the character in question was at the end of his rope and had had a lot of prayers answered with a "no". Unless you believe that the way it was portrayed simply never happens.

I would acknowledge that it happens, but that it is not normative. I do think it is irresponsible for Christians to portray, as normal, Christian experiences to the world that are not normative.....especially the concept of prayer - it so often reduced to "I ask God, He gives me stuff."

Alternatively, showing a Christian family lose their beloved little girl in a tragic and unforeseen accident (even though the father was praying earnestly for her healing on the way to the hospital), and then wrestling through the gut-wrenching "Why's" of that loss doesn't sound very bubble-gum to me.

I also think its humanly not normative to be too embarrassed to dance in public with a young daughter who just wants to dance. What fathers among us (Christian or non) would not have swallowed a little dignity to dance publicly with our sweet, innocent 9 year-old daughters? I could not relate to an embarrassment so acute that I couldn't get out of the car. Maybe that's just me. I found this storyline to be contrived and emotionally manipulative (albeit affecting). I did not find it to be a particularly accurate portrayal of Christian grief. I do however think it was a valiant effort. Frankly, the movie just tried to take on too many themes - all of which would each independently take the full length of the movie to effectively develop.


In what way? This seems like a pretty essential disagreement - how does their doctrine of salvation differ from yours? Truly curious.


Make a decision for Christ, ascribe to morally virtuous things (like becoming a better father) and you'll have a better life (an earlier thread topic here that was discussed at length). That's the message I get from the film. I'm opposed to the concept of decision based salvation - so that's the first part. Second, I don't think the movie defines "better life" the way I would. Again, in fairness, perhaps it would if it had more time......but it didn't, so it put in the requisite struggles and moral dilemmas and wrapped thinks up much more neatly than I was comfortable with. "Facing the Giants" was far more guilty of this btw - the final scene showing a state championship trophy in the bookcase and twin children birthed by a previously infertile couple. So, I actually see growth from Facing the Giants to Courageous - at least in the latter they acknowledge that there are not always happy endings, but at the end of the day not strongly enough, because they just tried to tackle too much.

I wrote up a little blog post yesterday on this (indirectly) and one of my frequent commenters had this to say:

I think that the reason lies in this quote: "The literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger." --Christopher Hitchens

Good literature and storytelling turn on their ability to subvert convention and expectation. That which doesn't at least give surface-level subversion and surprise is moribund and stillborn, but to the minds of people who view themselves as, for example, engaged in a culture war, the mere hint of irony or subversion or surprise is threatening.

But there's more than that. As a virtual reality technology, fiction is a liberalizing force. It allows a person to inhabit the viewpoint of an alien, and the mere act of doing so habituates readers/viewers to expanding their circle of "friend" vs. "other."

For a religion highly focused on holiness and avoiding the threat of hell or the trials of the post-rapture Tribulation, these things are not only uncomfortable, they're very dangerous.

The American Protestant tradition, particularly the post-Jonathan Edwards variety that arose in the south--has within it a very strong strand that is *terrified* of temptation, subversion, and intellect. It's a brittle religion with very brittle theology, being as it is a complex hybrid of Dutch Calvanism, dispensationalism, fideism and Anabaptist ideas of holiness that born during an era of immense cultural upheaval. Paranoia is, as it were, written into the DNA of Evangelicalism and its older brothers Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. And it's THAT tradition that the entire alt-culture movement (Christian music, Christian bookstores, Christian movies, Christian theme parks, Christian fortune cookies, etc.) is built on.

So, that's why Christian writing and filmmaking tends to pretty well suck, when so many of the earlier greats of literature who were Christians (Madaline L'engle, J.R.R. Tolkien, et. al.) told stories that could move ANYONE, and so many of today's Christian "greats" suck.

FWIW :)
-Dan

Scott:

But there's more than that. As a virtual reality technology, fiction is a liberalizing force. It allows a person to inhabit the viewpoint of an alien, and the mere act of doing so habituates readers/viewers to expanding their circle of "friend" vs. "other."

There are very few places where I see the us-vs-them, we've-got-it-right-and-they-are-rubes, Friend versus Other meme more than in these discussions on Christian art.

One bottom line that is often missed: Christianity does not attract the elites. It attracts the dregs. I'm not saying that's good or bad (though I think it's good - I'm a loser and I'm glad that God has room for me), but it's always been this way - so while I agree that we need to continue to work to upgrade our art, I'm not surprised or frustrated that the Christian consumer consumes the way he/she does.

So there's no argument there. But there are plenty of explicit (and often, heavy-handed calls) for moral causes in modern art. There are explicit pleas for more environmental responsibility. There are PLENTY of works of modern art that directly call for a rejection of traditional morals, the church, etc. There are movies who's central theme is a condemnation of racism, or films calling for more compassion (such as Pay it Forward).

Perhaps films like Courageous fall into that category. Is there a place for that?

That's funny - I disliked Pay it Forward and give it a much harder criticism than "Courageous" because I feet like the makers of Pay it Forward should have known better.

Both films have very similar "key moments" that I found VERY emotionally manipulative. I just don't think that's "good art".....again, eye of the beholder I suppose.

A recent film that I thought did a great job of driving home a redemptive theme (without being emotionally manipulative) was "Warrior". That film ended abruptly - and it intentionally left several loose ends dangling out there. However, you got the feeling (based on the simple but profound impact of the closing scene) that those loose ends were in good hands. I just like it when "art" infers things rather than beats me over the head with them.

I need to try to think of a film that I LIKE that makes pleas.......I can't think of one. Heck, I even felt like the plea in Bambi was heavy-handed.

So I guess there's a place for it, but I'm not a big fan........I give Courageous a passing grade for being interesting and having characters that I liked........even though I did find it to be preachy and emotionally manipulative.

Scott

Joining you: **deep cleansing breath** :-)

Is Courageous really the best we can do?

No. But the disagreement is, I think, that I thought it worth watching and you and nhe think it's dreck.

Aren't there Christian writers and filmmakers courageous enough (heh) to really make something challenging?

Here's where I also depart. Courageous is one of the first films I've seen that really takes on the absolute cultural holocaust that is the absent father. Did it handle it in the most skillful way? Certainly not. But it spoke to it, fairly well.

Much of our culture wants to pretend that fatherlessness isn't even a problem.

This is something I'm passionate about. I've worked with young people and the devastation left in the wake of awful or absent fathering is astounding.

nhe:

That's funny - I disliked Pay it Forward and give it a much harder criticism than "Courageous" because I feet like the makers of Pay it Forward should have known better.

I never saw PIF - I figured I would hate it :-)

Not slamming away at you (though it probably feels like it - ah, me . . . Sorry in advance:) - but what's with the patronizing double-standard. The makers of Courageous didn't know any better, but the makers of PIF should have known better?

A recent film that I thought did a great job of driving home a redemptive theme (without being emotionally manipulative) was "Warrior". That film ended abruptly - and it intentionally left several loose ends dangling out there. However, you got the feeling (based on the simple but profound impact of the closing scene) that those loose ends were in good hands. I just like it when "art" infers things rather than beats me over the head with them.

Another good example of the way different people view different things. I enjoyed Warrior - my wife enjoyed it more than I did. Speaking of portraying things realistically - the movie had a preposterous plot. Really? A 30-something physics teacher trains for a couple of months and becomes an MMA finalist?

The movie was redemptive, in a way. But it bugged me that the redemption was triggered by the father (ridiculed by his son for stopping his drinking and turning to the Lord) falling off the wagon. And he still wasn't there at the final fight. And the younger brother was still full of hate. But, as you said, there was an unwritten end to the movie inferred and I tend to think it ended with the three reconciled.

I think The Royal Tenenbaums is a great film about "fatherlessness." But of course it has a different perspective and emphasis than Courageous. :-)

Now we're talkin'!

Not slamming away at you (though it probably feels like it - ah, me . . . Sorry in advance:) - but what's with the patronizing double-standard. The makers of Courageous didn't know any better, but the makers of PIF should have known better?

Yes, a film with 10x the budget (and Jim Cavaziel) should know better.

The movie was redemptive, in a way. But it bugged me that the redemption was triggered by the father (ridiculed by his son for stopping his drinking and turning to the Lord) falling off the wagon. And he still wasn't there at the final fight. And the younger brother was still full of hate. But, as you said, there was an unwritten end to the movie inferred and I tend to think it ended with the three reconciled.

(The dad WAS at the final fight). Different strokes I guess......I thought the younger brother received a Jacobian wound of grace at the end - just a beautiful scene. I think "Warrior" is a fairy tale with a great redemptive ending, so I took the unrealistic elements with a grain of salt.........I don't follow that falling off the wagon triggered redemption, that scene just seemed realistic to me.

Warrior was OK.

That being said, I've found over time that the movies I like most people hate and the movies I could do without everyone else loves. So I guess consider the source . . . I loved Lady in the Water for crying out loud :-)

I do think, though, that there's no possible movie that has an unambiguous Christian message in it that will be pleasing to those who are embarrassed by movies like Courageous. What would a movie like that "look" like?

Can a movie, no matter the budget or cinema-craft employed, have one character say "trust in Christ and his atoning death and resurrection" (or any number of other things that a Christian might say) to another character and not be cringe-inducing to many?

I don't think so. And I don't know why.

think The Royal Tenenbaums is a great film about "fatherlessness." But of course it has a different perspective and emphasis than Courageous. :-)

Sorry, catching up on comments. I never saw RT (of course . . . :-) - what was its take on fatherlessness?

Can a movie, no matter the budget or cinema-craft employed, have one character say "trust in Christ and his atoning death and resurrection" (or any number of other things that a Christian might say) to another character and not be cringe-inducing to many?

"Luther" comes to mind.

I think it might be cringe-inducing for a more culturally-indicting reason: Christians don't talk like that. Or, at least, the majority of the ones who think Christian movies are fine cinema don't talk like that. Too many of today's Christians talk in platitudes and deal in moralistic therapeutic deism, so they're comfortable with that in their movies. Explicit gospel talk makes them uncomfortable b/c they don't know it as "natural" talk.

Just a theory.

On Tenenbaums: I only meant that it wasn't a Christian perspective. But it was moving to me, particularly the scene after the car wreck.

I may have been wrong about that. I just remember Son #1 asking Son #2 (and being ignored, because Son #2 was still full of hate) "Where's Pop?" when they popped gloves before they went to war.

He was outside the tunnel, just not ringside.


"I do think, though, that there's no possible movie that has an unambiguous Christian message in it that will be pleasing to those who are embarrassed by movies like Courageous. What would a movie like that "look" like?"

How about a modern day remake of the Prodigal Son story? The actual Luke 15 story does not mention Jesus (just happens to be told by Him). So would that make it ambiguous if it were portrayed that way on screen?

Not many want to go to a movie to be preached to (and any remote reference to Jesus or the Bible makes a lot of people feel that way, even if unintended)......but if they encounter a salt and light story full of grace, is that not an aroma of life to those whom Jesus might be calling to Himself?


I don't see a win here. For instance, many consider Chariots of Fire an extremely well done Christian movie (though not made by Christians). I loved that movie, and it had no cringe-inducing parts. But it preached a moralistic message - strength is found within, legalism is admirable, etc. (note: I actually think that the legalism of the main character was admirable, but that's beside the point).

Hey! A movie we both love! I agree that the legalism of Eric Liddel is admirable in CoF. However, I think it's because, in the film, he carries himself as a person who gives grace to others. He's not honoring the Sabbath because he "has" to, he is doing it out of love for God - or at least it appears that way. If he was kind of stoic and lording his morality over others in the film, we'd have a different take.

In fact, for me, one of the most "Gospel-Centric" moment in any film is when Eric Liddel says to his sister "God made me for a China, but he also made me fast, and when I run I feel his pleasure"........when Eric Liddel ran, he worshipped (I believe) and observing that on screen makes the same part of my soul soar that resonates with the gospel. So is it ambiguous?, maybe, but its a big gospel win for me.

BTW - have you seen "Secretariat"? If so, does not the final scene of Secretariat running the Belmont remind you of "God made me fast and when I run I feel his pleasure." For me, watching a horse run was actually a "gospel" moment for me. Is that strange?

Also - no, I didn't see secretariat (or sea biscuit). Horse movies aren't my cup of tea :-)

Where I've never quite been sold is with the notion that works of art that have a redemptive flavor and that can take people like you or me to a place where we think of God's grace also work that way for non-believers. I'm not sure they do. I've already given you my story of how LOTR got me interested in reading scripture. But I didn't become a believer until 7 or 8 years later when someone told me about Jesus (repeatedly and persistently).

Well, you're right, no one is going to watch LOTR and get on their knees and turn to Jesus. But, if we are in regular dialogue with non-Christians who have seen the film, I think we can point to redemptive moments in our conversations and look for resonance. Sometimes its not there, and I just kind of move on, but if someone says back to me "yeah, I love that part too!", I see that as an opening to talk about the gospel.

I know this sounds crazy, but I have conversations like this all the time. Good art (I think) is an awesome springboard into a gospel conversation.

Regarding answered prayer being normative, of course it is. But answered prayer (the way it went down) 2 seconds after the prayer is not normative. But, hey, Hollywood does that all the time. I just prefer a more normative situation in content that is overtly Christian.......like maybe Javier working through integrity issues throughout the film (wrestling with and praying to God over them) and then at the end getting the manager job at the factory because God honored his prayers (over the course of the film) and worked in him in the integrity area.

We do a disservice to non-Christians when we portray Hollywood shortcuts to the gospel.

Regarding Secretariat, I get the not into horse movies thing, though the trailer for the new Spielberg "War Horse" movie looks pretty good. Do yourself a favor though if Secretariat ever comes on TV - tune in for the last 10 minutes...."O Happy Day" (the old gospel tune) plays over the soundtrack during the last half of the Belmont Race - its a glorious scene, even for people who don't like horse movies, I think.

Thanks Bill, the funny thing, except for the convenient quick answer to the prayer part, I loved that scene with Javier - especially the whole who's on first routine (revolving around the mix up with the other Javier) that's probably my favorite part of the film....I thought it was pretty creative and funny.