Internet anonymity brings out the trolls and rock-dwellers. Try Fark or Slashdot (which is simply better spoken idiocy, most of the time). And a mediocre Christian film made by people whose last film was widely panned, even by Christians, is going to be a lightning rod anyway.

It wasn't mediocre. It was very good. Bill, right on!

I got the sense from Bird that the film wasn't "mediocre" - have you seen it David? (I haven't yet so can't make a judgment).

No. I know some of the basics of the story and the opinions of those I trust. The best that anyone has ever said of the movie is that its "average" and most have judged it far more harshly. It's the same 'ol paint-by-numbers redemption story, with all the "safe" defanging you can expect from Christian filmmakers. And it runs uncomfortably close to "name it and claim it" theology.

If I'm incorrect on any of these counts, then maybe I'll give it a try.

It's a Wonderful Life, if made today, would be "widely panned", even by Christians, for being too cheesy, too preachy, too corny, too... whatever.

It has some of the best actors of Hollywood's Golden Age filling out the parts, compelling drama, warm humor, pathos, and an unpretentious presentation. Cheese is fine, so long as there's meat underneath.

We're way too cool for our own good.

We're too stylish--ironic and cynical--for our own good. That's different than what most people would call truly "cool."

At any rate, I'm glad that this is better. So maybe the Giants was a slow start - it was, at least, a start. And, if the next film after this one is even better, we may get into the realm of critical consideration.

I hope so, but give a Special Forces vet with a missing leg or a scarred pastor of the Chinese House Church movement an opportunity to put raw words on the pages of a script and you're likely to end up with Dostoevsky on 35mm.

Why is it that Christians, who once produced the great works of Western literature, are now perpetually playing catch up and waiting around for non-Christians to produce works based on our art (Narnia, LOTR...)? We've settled for mediocrity. We dumb down church. We avoid conflict in the name of "fellowship," allowing the bonds of community to loosen, thus lacking any capacity to spur each other on. We allow the larger secular culture to set the tone. All of it, combined, creates one very unhealthy body. Is it any wonder that we make things that suck?

"Why is it that Christians, who once produced the great works of Western literature, are now perpetually playing catch up and waiting around for non-Christians to produce works based on our art (Narnia, LOTR...)? We've settled for mediocrity. We dumb down church. We avoid conflict in the name of "fellowship," allowing the bonds of community to loosen, thus lacking any capacity to spur each other on. We allow the larger secular culture to set the tone. All of it, combined, creates one very unhealthy body. Is it any wonder that we make things that suck?"

I think almost every work of art produced by our modern culture sucks.

I'm confused by the Narnia and LOTR comments. These are great works of art, produced within living memory by Christians. But we still suck just because (as far as we know) non-Christians produced movies based on them (that weren't as good as the books)?

Douglas Gresham took part in the Narnia movies. He's C.S. Lewis stepson, and a believer. So Christians made something that didn't suck.

"I like redemption as well...when it's believable, compelling, and has some brains."

Then you'd hate my conversion story :-)

I think almost every work of art produced by our modern culture sucks.

The problem is that even the good works are poisoned by some repugnant philosophies, but most it has been my experience that I've encountered the most thoughtful and, sometimes, the most spiritually filling art in secular culture. That shouldn't have to happen. Of course, it's resting on about 2,000 years of Christian ideas and ideals, but if you tell them that, they won't believe you.

I'm confused by the Narnia and LOTR comments. These are great works of art, produced within living memory by Christians.

About a half century ago... Can you name any classic or high quality Christian works that aren't at least several decades old?

But we still suck just because (as far as we know) non-Christians produced movies based on them (that weren't as good as the books)?

Yes, we suck, because it's yet another example of how we allow the initiative to be taken by others. It isn't that we just have a dearth of original works in quality or quantity, but that even adaptations of works are being done by others.

Douglas Gresham took part in the Narnia movies. He's C.S. Lewis stepson, and a believer. So Christians made something that didn't suck.

He was a consultant, much like Christopher Tolkien was for LOTR. He didn't write the script, direct the film, or act in it. And I never said the movies sucked. My point was that they were being made by non-Christians, when we had fifty years to do the same.

David,

Up until about 2000, it was impossible to make a believable LOTR because of technological issues. But I quibble.

One reason "we suck' (if we is the church) is because making good art is not our primary or even secondary calling. I've long said that a changed life is the best work of art there is. Do we really want the church to spend the millions it takes to make great art, rather than spend it building the Kingdom? It's partly a problem of priorities (and, i know, the church doesn't do as well as it could making disciples either. But at least that's a proper priority of the church.

A question for you: during the golden age of art in church history, how orthodox, faithful and healthy was the church?

Bill,
We've discussed this issue many, many times at thinklings. (Quality of Christian Art - "Christian Art" vs. "Art that is Christian" etc..)

I just HAVE to say that the following is the absolute best I've ever read on the subject. Awesome, Bill.

One reason "we suck' (if we is the church) is because making good art is not our primary or even secondary calling. I've long said that a changed life is the best work of art there is. Do we really want the church to spend the millions it takes to make great art, rather than spend it building the Kingdom? It's partly a problem of priorities (and, i know, the church doesn't do as well as it could making disciples either. But at least that's a proper priority of the church.

A question for you: during the golden age of art in church history, how orthodox, faithful and healthy was the church?

Oh and David, have you actually seen those animated LOTR movies? Calling them art is generous on par with calling Peeps nutritious food.

David

First, this is a good conversation. I have a post coming (I think) that's going to get me into a whole lot of trouble :-)

I do have to agree with Shrode on the animated version. Let me put it this way - if Ralph Bakshi was a Christian (who knows, maybe he is?) and had made the animated LOTR that came out in the seventies (i.e., if this was "Christian" art), you would be pointing out how bad it sucked.

So, let me ask you this: Even if were were to claim that the Church is healthier than at other times in her history, why is it that those times produced great works and we don't?

Because that's what the church was about. And, yes, it poured millions into grand cathedrals, Sistine chapels, etc. I don't know, was Michealangelo a Christian? How about Leonardo DaVinci?

The church had money. Tons of money. It spent it on building glorious things. Making good art costs money. Take The Passion of the Christ (Christian made, and I consider it good art) - cost a ton to make.

I don't know how healthy we are today (and by "we", I mean the church universal, all over the world, not just the American church) but I'll bet we're healthier than the papal empires of the middle ages were.

For contrast: How much great art did the church in the first and second centuries create, before Christians were in the elites? I would argue that today, Christians are once again not the elites. Many of us are rubes, frankly. And we get our heads bashed in by our more sophisticated brothers and sisters all the time for not being, well, more sophisticated.

Again, I think I'm going to treat this in a larger post. I don't necessarily disagree with your lament, David (and I do appreciate your heart and this conversation), but I certainly have reservations.