After my recent post about “christian movies” and the importance of letting art be art, it was with interest that I read this quote a couple weeks ago by Rich Christiano from the recent National Religious Broadcasters convention. “I think God would prefer movies to be either Christ movies or porn movies.” It was given during one of two sessions that discussed film and Christianity during the convention, helmed by Christiano and his brother, Dave, and Facing the Giants director Alex Kendrick. I’m not quite sure why he didn’t demand that movies also be shot in black and white to remove any hint of nuance. Maybe he’s saving that for next year’s NRB convention.
I’ve also been following the recent uproar regarding Christianity Today’s movie reviewers. It all started when talk show host Paul Edwards interviewed Michael Landon, director of The Last Sin Eater. In the course of the interview, Edwards read Landon the excerpt of Peter Chattaway’s review for CT that I liked so much I quoted here. He then asked Landon if it were true that he viewed the story as nothing more than a set up for an evangelical punch-line, and Landon, by the way he denied it, confirmed it. Landon replied, with obvious implications, “Oh absolutely not. I mean, that’s ridiculous. And all you’d have to do– If Peter spent any time with anybody who has turned their life over to Christ, he would know that there is a freedom in that.”
In the ensuing debate, which included Edwards calling the CT movie critics “anti-evangelical”, Jeffrey Overstreet wrote an excellent defense and explanation for his blog of his philosophy of reviewing movies. It was later posted, in an abridged form, on CT’s site here.
If you enjoy Jeffrey’s writing, I highly recommend buying his brand new book, Through a Screen Darkly – Looking Closer at Beauty, Truth and Evil in the Movies. I’m in the middle of it now, and it’s the kind of book that if I were to try and quote the parts I really like here, I would end up retyping most of the book. You can order it directly from Jeffrey, or through Amazon.
May I suggest that you see The Last Sin Eater for youself and give your review on your blog, rather than just review the reviewer. I’ve read that media dust-up on Peter Chattaway’s blog site, and it seems to me that he doth protest too much. Granted, Landon may have been a little touchy as a filmmaker defending his art, but these guys droned on ad infinitum for days defending their reviews of Landon’s art. Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t that sort of like the tail wagging th dog?
Except that they weren’t droning for days defending their reviews, they were defending their philosophy of reviewing movies against repeated attacks from Paul Edwards (who has since deleted all related posts from his blog).
And no, I am not planning on seeing The Last Sin Eater. First of all, because it is based on a christian fiction novel, which generally make me nauseous. Second, because I’ve watched the clips that have been posted online, and the acting looks painfully bad. Maybe not as bad as Chuck Norris, but still pretty bad. And third, because Peter’s review for CT confirmed that it was exactly the type of movie I thought it would be. What’s the old line about christian movies and porn movies being the same? Bad acting, bad music, predictable storyline, and made for one reason only. Why settle for that?
Your loss. But given your unwillingness to see it for yourself and make up your own mind, I’m not sure whether we should take your opinion seriously. Besides, I guess there’s no accounting for taste. Not even Peter Chattaway trashed the film like you just did… and he saw it. It’s been my experience that people who can make films, do. And those who can’t, blog about them.
My “unwillingness to see it” is based on an informed decision. I’ve talked to friends who’ve seen it, I’ve read reviews and discussions about it, and I’ve seen film clips and trailers. The main point of my previous comment was my last line: Why settle for that?. Peter ended his review for CT by saying “As a window into an older culture, or an evening’s entertainment with the family, you could certainly do worse.”. Implying, obviously, that you could also do better. So why not do better? I’ve heard some say that “for a christian film, it was pretty good.” Okay, sure, but for fast food you could do worse than McDonald’s. My point is why settle for McDonald’s when you can go to a nice steak house? For an evening’s entertainment with the family, go see Bridge to Terabithia, the best PG rated film I’ve seen since Secondhand Lions, not The Last Sin Eater since “you could do worse”.
Somehow you’ve almost managed to sway my longstanding opinion that movies, and art in general, should never be promoted or disparaged without firsthand witness. I can’t think of too many movies I’ve consciously not seen. After having looked around the web a bit, I don’t think I’m even going to bother seeing this one. The McDonald’s analogy fits very well. Have you ever read Imagine by Steve Turner? The more I read this blog, the more I think you’d like it.
Well, at least you’re honest about your close-mindedness. For some other opinions than just Chattaway’s, you should check out these three links:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070121-102604-8351r.htm
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10997
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/movies/09last.html?ex=1174708800&en=f515438418ad11f1&ei=5070
Daniel, I have not yet read Steve Turner’s Imagine, but I have heard about it and would like to read it sometime.
As a general rule, I do agree that art should not be promoted or disparaged with firsthand witness. My main focus with these blog posts has been the larger issue of being willing to settle for less with ‘christian’ movies.
Jeffrey Overstreet has been taking some heat in the last couple days for his postion on 300, and he just posted a blog entry that says part of what I’ve been trying to say (maybe not very well):
I have been out of line in some of my statements in relation to 300. I wrote things that made it sound like I was condemning the film. And I made some people who really liked the film uncomfortable.
That wasn’t my intention. And I apologize for getting so worked up about it.
As a critic, I should not judge films I haven’t seen. That’s unprofessional.
Now, technically, I haven’t judged it. I would, in fact, be delighted if I were to discover that the film was meaningful and worthwhile.
All I really wanted to do in my previous posts about the film was to point to other people’s reviews of that film, so that I could make it clear why I am not planning to see it, and so that people would stop asking me what I think of it.
Taylor, the American Heritage Dictionary defines “close-mindedness” as “Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.”. If that’s what you’ve been getting out of my posts, then I’m sorry. I think this film is like Peter said, that “you could do worse”. So sure, go and see it, but I object when people like Ted Baehr say “The Last Sin Eater could well be one of the best movies 2007.”
Did you see my sentence above about having read other reviews when it came out? That included all three that you linked to, and the NYT’s review is one that helped me decide not to see it.
Did you see this paragraph there? “The resulting “Ordinary People”-style expiation of guilt is so affectingly performed by Ms. Forbes and Mr. Thomas that the rest of the story, a blunt and rather prosaic Christian allegory, feels like a redundant epilogue. But since the movie is a big-screen Sunday school story with sumptuous scenery, graceful crane shots and Rembrandt lighting — designed mainly to impart and then repeat wisdom about guilt, sin and redemption — this can’t really be considered a flaw.” So it’s just a simplistic and redundant sunday school story, but that’s all it is meant to be so it can’t be considered a flaw? That is exactly my point. When these kinds of films are applauded as “one of the best movies of the year”, what reason is there to put time and money into crafting truly great works of art?
The debate about artistic reviews of Christian works is not a new one. The February issue of CCM Magazine has a article by John Styll recalling an 1986 open letter signed by 66 Christian artists and producers decrying the practice of critical reviews of albums and the tracking of sales and plays as “disgraceful”.
It is a line that we walk when we talk about the works that Christians do, be they artistic or more normal activities. Do we judge solely on intent, if their heart is in the right place? The obvious answer is no, we don’t. If we did judge on intent only and not ability you would find pulpits filled with lousy speakers and communicators rather than with people hired at least partially based on their ability to preach a sermon and rally a congregation. Why see critical review of Christian works as legitimate in one area but not another?
That being said, one mans dross is another mans gold. People have different artistic tastes, and some love the presentation of movies like Facing the Giants or The Last Sin-Eater while others will not. I’m of two minds about movies (Christian or secular): I really enjoy good movies, which are well acted, written, shot, etc. (which are the rarities among what comes out). But I also enjoy escapism, seeing a movie just to get away and relax. If I go for escapism, then I would definitely prefer something that wholesome over something that is trashy, and so I would likely go with something like The Last Sin-Eater. That doesn’t make it a better made movie, but to me a better choice for viewing.