Today at the Gospel Coalition website, three pieces posted regarding Christians in filmmaking – one by Brian Godawa (you should read his book Hollywood Worldviews if you haven’t already), one by Joe Carter, and one by me.
I wanted to take a moment and respond to Joe’s piece in particular. You might take a moment to read Joe’s piece and skim some of the comments. Joe wrote a provocative piece, and devoted significant real estate to assaulting The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick. Below are my responses to Joe’s points.
On point 1 – “Don’t Be Ashamed of the Christian Label”
I think things are more complicated than this. To eschew the “Christian” label for your films or (your work as an artist generally) is often not rooted in a denial of faith or a denial that faith impacts your work. In the case of most vocational Christian artists that I know, they resist the label because they don’t want their work sidelined into the Christian subcultural ghetto. Christian Music doesn’t merely mean music made by Christians or with a Christian worldview – it’s a genre in and of itself, with its own section in the few record stores that remain in the world (or in iTunes), and its own commercial market.
On the one hand, many Christians don’t want to narrow themselves to this market. On the other, they don’t to be forced into the box that the subculture demands – clear messages, inoffensive content, etc.
On point 2 –Don’t imitate Terrence Malick.
I’ll initially agree with Joe. But for that matter, don’t imitate Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarantino, the Coens or the Farrelly brothers either. Better to experiment and find your own unique voice. Other than that, I think just about everything Joe has said about Malick is wrong.
It strikes me that he doesn’t like Malick’s style. I’m not offended by that. Malick has a fairly narrow audience for his long, meditative films. So did Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanley Kubrick. They too have meanderding, meditative styles, and their work remains well-loved and respected for its unique vision and lasting impact, even if their fan base remains small.
But Joe goes a far step beyond that… saying Tree of Life fails as a work of art. That’s a bold claim that the majority of critics and film buffs would disagree with.
In the comments section, he criticizes Malick’s film for being a “tone poem”, as many have called it. Joe makes the “form and function” argument – that art genres have rules that must be obeyed in order to succeed as a movie, painting, or sculpture. There are two problems with the form and function argument though.
First – who makes the rules? Russian cinema is radically different than American cinema, with a different recipe for success. The same is true for Indian “Bollywood” cinema. Whose writes the form and function rules? My point is this – such rules are culturally conditioned, and will inevitably derive from someone’s cultural preferences.
Second - one must take into consideration the fact that art forms and rules are transient. Beethoven broke from classical music’s rules and paved the way for romanticism. Nathaniel Hawthorne broke the rules of narrative and took the story inside the minds of the characters. Elvis Presley merged country and blues, reshaping pop music forever. Art evolves as artists pioneer new forms of expression and new layers of communication.
It seems to be this “form and function” argument that makes Joe say that Tree of Life (ToL) “fails as a film.” I would argue that Malick’s approach to storytelling is an evolutionary step, following on the heels of Kubrick in particular. I would also argue that his impressionistic approach is surprisingly effective at telling a story, connecting emotionally, and arresting the viewer with a transcendent visual experience at the same time.
As for the the message of ToL, Joe argues that it’s not a “Christian” film because the god of ToL isn’t the biblical god. We don’t see Jesus – just an impersonal, distant force who (Joe argues) doesn’t care about his characters. To this, I’d argue that Joe hasn’t really dealt with the juxtaposition that drives the film – the contrast between “nature” and “grace”, illustrated through the Mother and Father characters, and played out as Sean Penn wrestles with making sense of his story. If it’s Joe’s belief that we can’t really call that “grace” because there isn’t a gospel presentation and an invitation to walk an aisle at the end of the film, I have to disagree.
Point 3 – Sometimes it’s okay for a film to Just be a movie.
I agree.
Point 4 – Don’t be knostic.
Again, I think it’s more complicated than this.
First – thinking about eisegesis: Joe talks in the comments of authorial intent. We can’t say ToL is a powerful story of Law and Gospel because the author didn’t intend it. I recently wrote on the Avengers at TGC, and blogger Frank Turk essentially argued the same thing. Because the authors of the film were unregenerate (in Turk’s understanding), there can’t be a redemption theme in it. So we can celebrate heroics, selflessness, etc., but can’t connect them to Jesus in any way unless the author is a Christian. I completely disagree.
I think such a view is too simplistic. Authors will tell truths inadvertently because of their experience. An author may not have knowledge of the DSM IV but may nonetheless perfectly portray borderline disorder, depression, or compulsive narcissism. They do so because it’s part of their everyday life. A hunger for the gospel is the same. We tell redemption stories because – regardless of whether we know it or admit it – we live as fallen people in a fallen world, hungering for a savior.
The Lord of the Rings is far from a gospel-presenting allegory (Tolkein himself said he hated allegory) but the themes of the gospel are woven through every page. For Tolkein, Lewis, Chesterton, and many others, the reason for that presence in mythology, fairy tales, and a host of other stories has less to do with the regeneration of the author than it has to do with the wiring of the human heart – the deep-seated hunger for redemption that we all feel. If the gospel is truly the greatest story ever told, the hinge of history, it’s inevitably going to color the kinds of stories we tell. This isn’t to say these stories will lead us to salvation. Rather it’s to acknowledge that a hunger for the gospel lurks behind much human creativity.
With many stories, it’s a hint or a whisper. With some, it’s much more direct. I would put ToL in that category, opening with a biblical monograph and a voice over juxtaposing “nature” and “grace.” It then tells a story littered with biblical overtones, and ends with redemption imagery. Joe seems to argue that Malick didn’t mean any of it to be biblical or redemptive in this way. I’d love to see where Mallick says so, since he doesn’t really do interviews or discuss his work.
As for making Christian films, I just wonder how you would define the purpose of filmmaking (or storytelling generally). Is it ultimately about communicating a message? That would explain a lot of the areas I’m struggling with in your post and comments. I don’t deny that all stories communicate a message, but I disagree if you think that’s the primary purpose of storytelling.
Point 5 – Don’t be afraid to make distinctly Christian films.
Quoting Gene Veith, Joe says: “All distinctly Christian art must be, in some sense, about the agonizing struggle between sin and grace.”
What about the Song of Solomon? Is a love poem that isn’t about sin and grace out-of-bounds? What about your own point 3?
Point 6 – If you want to be a Christian filmmaker make a film.
Totally agree.
In the end, I think I have a very different view of culture and of Christians working in culture than Joe. I look forward to bumping into him sometime, hopeful that he and I could enjoy a burger and a brotherly chat about these issues. Maybe after, we could go catch a movie. Just not one written and directed by Terrence Malick.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Mike, very grateful that your voice is being heard on these topics. Your perspective is very much needed within this tribe of Christ-followers. Thanks.
Thanks for chiming in. I tend to get frustrated with the Christian world too easily on these matters, and your post shows proper grace for those you disagree with. God bless, brother.
I agree with Jeff Lawrence. Heartfelt thanks on your comments about ToL.
Agree 100% with Carter.
If a movie is good, people will watch it. No one watched ToL and if they did, they had no idea what they were watching. How many of the few people who watched the movie understood that the long drawn out evolution scene represented God’s answer to Job? Certainly almost no non-Christians would catch that. And did the scene capture the same message that God was conveying in Job?
A very painful movie to sit through.
Really? I couldn’t disagree more. Some of the greatest films of all time were watched by no one, and people turn out in mass to watch total garbage. Box office receipts are often a terrible gauge for whether a film is good or not.
I agree that the masses can watch total garbage. That’s often a function of marketing.
I don’t agree that a movie can be great if no one wants to watch it. What is then great about it? I don’t accept that a small group of elitists determine what is great.
Perhaps it’s a both and? A movie can be great if it’s popular *and* the biblical allusions are clear and inspiring. But a movie can be great even if it’s unpopular and a pastor still draws the right applications that edify the church.
If by ‘great’ we mean ‘objectively great,’ in the sense that it edifies the church, perhaps the task extends beyond the movie makers to the pastors who interpret them?
Craig,
I don’t think it’s about elitism, I think it’s about education. To a man, just about every person I know who crosses the line from simple viewership to truly educating themselves on film has had a whole new world of objective quality opened up to them. These films stand the test of time. There are many great films that were seldom watched upon their release, but that today stand head and shoulders above other more viewed films from that year because they were shot better, written better, directed more sharply and acted more tightly. What makes a film great has almost nothing, in my opinion, to do with who saw it. It has to do with what went into it, and the masses have a poor track record of watching quality films. If there aren’t enough explosions or pretty girls or stupid recycled humor than most people won’t watch it, but for those that dive into film at deeper levels and truly see what goes into making good movies, perception changes. The “elite” aren’t really elite, they’re simply more educated as to what truly goes into making a film. They can gauge originality and complexity and compare it with “been there, done that”, or scripts that some guy wrote on a napkin while drunk in a bar somewhere with scipts that took real effort.
Several thoughts.
Certainly, like everything, we can always educate ourselves thus forming better opinions. Nonetheless, your response is pretty much what I think of when I think elitist. Someone who through educating themselves, does believe their opinion holds more weight. I don’t believe that is necessarily the case. The truth about great art is that there is something beautiful about it that we all appreciate whether we are able to identify it or not. I know nothing about music and can’t tell you when someone is pitchy, but nonetheless my ear appreciates the singer who is on pitch over the one who is not.
Not sure if you realize it or not, but you are somewhat contradicting yourself. You talk about movies that “stand the test of time.” What test is that exactly? Greater viewship in the future as more people appreciate its greatness? But that’s what I am saying - people watch great films, even if not immediately. What other test is there? For something to be great, eventually people watch it. Common people from all walks of life will go to museums to see great paintings. Great music will eventually be appreciated by the masses in one form or another. People will watch great films even if they didn’t at the first. ToL will disappear from our memory. Even those handful of people who appreciate it now, will not want to watch it in the future. It will not stand the test of time. Not even close.
If we need experts to tell us what is great, then by definition, the Academy would always be right. But they aren’t. Many of the films the academy gives the Oscar to will rarely be watched again while other films from the same year will become classics. Why can’t the elitists get it right from the start since they know more than the rest of us?
Btw, you should read “The Wisdom of Crowds.” Consensus opinions are almost always superior to that of the experts.
“Been there, done that.” Even many of the big blockbusters that have mass appeal rely on tried and true plot formulas. There are not an infinite number of plot lines. There are a limited number of plot lines that work. And they work over and over because they are “great.” Now obviously, just because a movie uses a tried and true “great” plot structure doesn’t mean that it will be great. But many of the big blockbusters, which we would not consider “great,” have a “great” story structure holding it up.
Because movie critics see so many movies, I can understand them getting bored. Unfortunately they are quick to give too much credit to something that looks different than what they are use to seeing. Different doesn’t mean great. Also, there are those few people that we encounter in all walks of life that hate what other people like, and like what over people hate. That makes them feel special and elite, as if they know better than everyone else. They don’t.
Certain movies can have some element about them that does something special or tries new things that others will copy. That might make the movie important to the industry and future filmmakers who want to copy those particular elements. That does not make the movie as a whole great. I acknowledge the acting in ToL was great, and that maybe within the industry, there are things that the experts appreciated. But the movie itself was a snooze fest. It will not stand the test of time. It will be sold in the DVD bargain bins, but no one will buy it.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mike. Great thoughts.
On point #1, I understand that many Christian artists don’t want to be relegated to the “Christian subcultural ghetto.” I can even sympathize. But how do we ever get out of that ghetto if our best artists refuse to consider their art Christian?
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Mike. Great thoughts.
On point #1, I understand that many Christian artists don’t want to be relegated to the “Christian subcultural ghetto.” I can even sympathize. But how do we ever get out of that ghetto if our best artists refuse to consider their art Christian?
To me it is similar to Christian scholarship. Young academics are afraid to produce work that is overtly Christian for fear of not gaining tenure. And why do they have that fear? Because older academics were also too afraid to have their work labeled as Christians, they’ve created a self-perpetuating system. How will it ever change unless a few Christians are willing to courageously take a stand?
On point #2, I should clarify that while I think some of the “rules” are created, the form of a medium is intrinsic to its nature. In the case of film, the form it takes is, in part, visual and aural—though more visual than aural. That is why you can have a silent film but a movie with a black screen and only sound would be . . . radio.
***I would argue that Malick’s approach to storytelling is an evolutionary step, following on the heels of Kubrick in particular. I would also argue that his impressionistic approach is surprisingly effective at telling a story, connect emotionally, and arresting the viewer with a transcendent visual experience at the same time.***
I think there is an easy experiment that can help us settle the claim about whether Malick’s film works as a piece of storytelling: Ask people to explain the story in ToL. I suspect that, with few exceptions, most people will have a very different idea of what the story is all about. The reason is because the movie only has a loose story structure and many of the elements (those silly dinosaurs) don’t fit into it at all. To create an advanced form of storytelling, you first have to be able to express what your story is. Malick wasn’t able to do that.
***To this, I’d argue that Joe hasn’t really dealt with the juxtaposition that drives the film – the contrast between “nature” and “grace”, illustrated through the Mother and Father characters, and played out as Sean Penn wrestles with making sense of his story.***
If nature and grace exist in a universe without Jesus, then they are stripped of anything meaningful. If nature and grace are, ala Camus, things we can choose to make sense of our life, then it can’t be considered “Christian.”
***If it’s Joe’s belief that we can’t really call that “grace” because there isn’t a gospel presentation and an invitation to walk an aisle at the end of the film, I have to disagree.***
Well, I certainly don’t think that. Consider the works of Flannery O’Conner. She doesn’t include an explicit presentation of the gospel and no one in her stories answers an altar call. But her stories are certainly Christian because the grace she presents could not make sense in a world without Christ.
***Authors will tell truths inadvertently because of their experience. ***
I think the problem with this view is that we don’t seem to carry it to its logical conclusions. If every story that includes a redemption theme hints at Christianity, then why doesn’t the presence of trees, grass, and stones mean that the film is a representation of God as creator? (In one sense it is, since all creation is God’s creation. But no one views those elements are being a need to acknowledge God as creator.)
***I’d love to see where Mallick says so, since he doesn’t really do interviews or discuss his work.***
He seems to say so in his film. God is certainly present in ToL—it just isn’t the Christian God. That means Malick is either a sloppy filmmaker (which I think we can agree, he is not) or he intentionally decided to present a view of nature and grace in a universe in which God is an impersonal force.
***I don’t deny that all stories communicate a message, but I disagree if you think that’s the primary purpose of storytelling.***
My belief is that stories are what we humans use to make sense of the world. God created us as narrative creatures. While the stories we tell don’t have to express an explicit “message” they do say something about what is true or false about reality.
***I look forward to bumping into him sometime, hopeful that he and I could enjoy a burger and a brotherly chat about these issues. Maybe after, we could go catch a movie. Just not one written and directed by Terrence Malick.***
I look forward to that too. I love talking about movies with people who love them as much as I do.
Hi Joe, glad you took time to respond as well. Just a couple follow-up thoughts.
Point 1 - you ask good questions, though I see it a bit differently. I know artists who are experiencing moderate success in the broader market, but aren’t promoting themselves as “Christian” artists. Their work is clearly shaped by their faith, though. The label almost immediately conjures up the sub-culture, and while the sub-culture can be a good thing, it’s inherently limited in its influence and scope. For some, that is embraced as a calling. For many others, it’s not.
Regarding ToL and the medium - I just haven’t had the same experiences as you regarding the film. You make it sound like watching ToL is a visit to the tower of Babel, while the reviews I’ve read and the friends I’ve talked with who’ve seen the film have all generally understood the story in the same framework, and appreciated the storytelling very much. Even the dinosaurs.
I still don’t get your distinction about grace. Grace isn’t explicitly “Christian” in many of Flannery O’Conner’s stories - yet she gets a passing grade. Is that because her Christianity is more overt? Or because its presence in certain stories is more overt? I would argue that Malick’s portrayal of grace is equally Christian - it doesn’t make sense in a world without Christ. (The same is true of the redemption metaphors in The Thin Red Line.)
You said:
**If every story that includes a redemption theme hints at Christianity, then why doesn’t the presence of trees, grass, and stones mean that the film is a representation of God as creator?**
I would actually say it does. And I think Calvin’s view of creation, general revelation, and truth would be resonant with such an idea.
You said:
**or he intentionally decided to present a view of nature and grace in a universe in which God is an impersonal force.**
That’s a cold reading of the story. God often feels distant and impersonal, and we experience Him more intimately and personally through the love of others. This is how Sean Penn’s character experiences love - through his mother. In the end, the story brings him to a place of abounding love and grace.
It’s not presented didactically or with much precision - but poetry often works that way, and so do great stories.
Regarding story and message: Perhaps we’re saying the same thing. My perspective comes from a different angle. Great writers talk about stories flowing from characters, winding them up and letting the action happen on its own. Tolkein talks about how Tom Bombadil’s appearance and actions was as much a surprise to him as it was to Frodo and Sam. I think in Christian cinema, there’s too much determinism in the process, and character-driven surprises aren’t allowed… I don’t know if that’s a helpful distinction though.
In response to Carter I just wanted to mention a few things.
1. Cinema is not intrinsically or necessarily about storytelling. That seems to be a presupposition here (and widely shared by the public) but I don’t think that’s true. A movie doesn’t *need* to have a story or have a straightforward, unfolding plot. Narrative and film have been tied together for a long time but that marriage is neither obvious or necessary.
One of our greatest filmmakers, Russian Orthodox director Andrei Tarkovsky, argued that cinema is essentially “sculpting in time”. He felt that film’s growth as a medium had been stunted by it’s being too tied to theater. Film could have gone a number of different directions early on, but one path (emphasizing narrative/plot) became dominant. He believed this harmed film’s growth as a medium and if you look at early (especially American) filmmaking this is pretty evident. Watching early films is often like watching a static, recorded play. With a focus on plot, dialogue, acting, it has taken a long time for cinematic medium to evolve and grow into itself. Of course, it has done so, even in the context of narrative, but we are still very early on in that process. Unfortunately, because film as narrative became so dominant and profitable it’s hard to be open-minded (myself included) about it taking other shapes. Cinema could function as poetry, instead of story, for example. I think Malick’s work rides that line if not often falling into the former. I think to assume he is simply “failing to tell a good story” is to put him in a box he doesn’t have to be in. That being said, I do think the narrative aspects of Tree of Life do work very well.
2. I don’t think that describing Malick’s presentation of God as an “impersonal force” is fair or accurate. Precisely the opposite is true and I think that’s a very odd read on Tree of Life in particular –– and if you want hard and fast proof here’s a direct quote from the end of the screenplay:
“Rain. Weeds in the cracks of a sidewalk. Children playing. We are back with Jack in the city. Even in these streets, the eternal shines. This is God’s world, and not an infinite plain of chaos and sorrow after all. Though he must linger here a while yet, he will not despair. A new life lies before him. A faith which sees through death.”
Malick is an Episcopalian and I have friends who live in Texas who’ve seen him in church. Is he super orthodox? I don’t know. Is he sometimes too must Heidegger and not enough Paul? Probably. Whether or not Tree of Life expresses itself as distinctly Christological is up for debate (I think there’s good arguments to be made that it does). But at the very least –– it’s a debate about an artistic choice and method of communication. I don’t think giving us a choice between him being “sloppy filmmaker” or presenting a non-Christian God is very helpful.
I only want to respond to the comments about dinosaurs.
I noticed that in Joe Carter’s original blog post and here he criticized Mallick for including the scene with dinosaurs. Maybe I am missing something. I thought the dinosaurs were part of the long scene which depicted all of creation. This scene was in response to the mother who voiced the question, “Where were you?” after her son had died. The mother is in agony and she is questioning God in the same way that Job questions God. The creation scene represents God’s answer, which comes from the book of Job. God says, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth.” Personally, I found the scene very moving.
Am I wrong in my interpretation?
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the great response. As a huge movie fan, reading both Mr. Carter and your article was encouraging; I feel like there’s some great “iron sharpening iron” going on here.
And then I was reminded of Alvin Plantinga’s “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” where he concludes with the following remarks (which I think are highly relevant):
“But then the Christian philosophical community has its own agenda; it need not and should not automatically take its projects from the list of those currently in favor at the leading contemporary centers of philosophy. Furthermore, Christian philosophers must be wary about assimilating or accepting presently popular philosophical ideas and procedures; for many of these have roots that are deeply anti-Christian. And finally the Christian philosophical community has a right to its perspectives; it is under no obligation first to show that this perspective is plausible with respect to what is taken for granted by all philosophers, or most philosophers, or the leading philosophers of our day.
“In sum, we who are Christians and propose to be philosophers must not rest content with being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians; we must strive to be Christian philosophers. We must therefore pursue our projects with integrity, independence, and Christian boldness.”
Full article here: http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/article_advice.php
Blessings,
Sungyak
I’m a novelist, though I took a screenwriting class once. A few years ago, I began asking myself why Jewish writers and filmmakers are so disproportionately successful in America compared to Christians. I began reading Jewish novels, attending Jewish writing workshops and watching Jewish movies. Though I couldn’t possibly answer such a complex question from only this exposure, I did get the following insights.
1. Jewish writers aren’t saddled with the burden of evangelism.
Because the Jewish culture places a high value on storytelling in and of itself, writers have a level of freedom their Christian counterparts could only dream of. That doesn’t mean that works like Portnoy’s Complaint haven’t caused controversy. But Portnoy’s Complaint-a Prodigal Son tale-is now somewhat of a gold standard in Jewish lierature. As one workshop leader opined, “I may not have done it with a piece of raw liver, but I’ve learned that Jewish humor is universal.” Even Israeli P.M. Netanyahu has hurled the “self-hating Jew” epithet from Portnoy at members of the Obama Administration.
2. Jews have a strong sense of cultural identity.
One of the disadvantages of being the dominant religion is that Christians don’t know what distinguishes us from the rest of the culture. So we distinguish ourselves by what we’re not, settling for two-dimensional stereotypes like those in Left Behind in which the Christians are all noble and virtuous and the non-believers are immoral and liberal.
One writer who’s particularly gifted at creating a Christian identity is Garrison Keillor, though he’s generally not regarded as a Christian writer. Keillor’s ability to step back and see the humor in his Lutheran religion creates a vision of Midwestern Christianity that’s sympathetic, modest and nostalgic; his use of irony is similar to what I’ve seen in Jewish writing as well.
3. Jews are comfortable writing about sex.
I can remember the exact moment I decided not to be a Christian writer: I was reading the first scene of Left Behind where the pilot is thinking about the stewardess he’s having an affair with. He thinks about her smile. At that moment I threw down the book. I’m a woman. I’d even be thinking further south than that. Somehow it seemed dishonest, not to mention emasculating, to portray lust in such a powerless fashion.
Jewish writers point to Song of Solomon as the example for sexual writing.
Christian writers, on the other hand, get hung up on the verse that says a man who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart. Does this apply to fictional characters?
I can tell you as a reader, I’ve never experienced lust for any character I’ve read about. Even if I did, how would I act on it? Isn’t that what Jesus was really saying? That if we meditate on an idea enough we’ll eventually follow throgh on it? And so you cut off your hand. You nip that thought in the bud. But what if the hand never existed in the first place?
Do you meditate on the things your character does in a novel? Or do you turn the page to see what happens next? It’s more dangerous for me as a writer, who has to meditate on my character’s thoughts and motivations. Most of those thoughts go away as soon as I turn off my computer. What if they don’t? For me, it’s a risk I’m willing to take for the sake of honesty.
4. Jews are (mostly) comfortable with cynicism.
Indeed, they consider it a virtue, one which, according to one apologetic, has protected their faith from heresy for thousands of years. Much of their humor derives from cynicism as well. Ironically, what many Christians dismiss as postmodernism may actually be prophesy. I personally believe writers are called to be prophets, with evangelism as a secondary calling. In America, evangelism is too often equated with marketing, which is much different than truth telling.
5. Jews aren’t opposed to knosticism.
In one literary critique comparing The Great Gatsby with The da Vinci Code, the Jewish author observed that he knew Jay Gatsby was Jesus Christ. F. Scott Fitzgerald left many clues for those willing to see them, including the 12 employees with Jewish surnames, one of whom betrayed him. Fitzgerald’s Davidic portrayal of Jesus as the adulterer, rather than the victim of adultery, seems to especially appeal to Jewish men. Still, though he grew up in an Irish Catholic family, Fitzgerald isn’t usually considered a Christian author.
I wasn’t raised in the church. I first heard the gospel while listening to my mom’s Jesus Christ Superstar album, a rock opera Christians found offensive because it was written by Jews, with a complex and passionate portrayal of Christ I to this day find more compelling than Christian counterparts. One of my favorite songs from that album is Hosanna, about the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in which Jesus says, “If these are silent, even the rocks will begin to sing,” a paraphrase of a statement he made in the gospels
If God can make inanimate objects like stones sing his praise, why do we believe he couldn’t speak through secular art? Why are we afraid to look for him there?
Mike: I take full responsibility for your misunderstanding of my comments in your previous post, and I hope to clear them up here.
Here’s what I said:
[QUOTE]
I don’t see the Gospel in this movie. Nobody in this movie wins by losing — except maybe Stark when he [spoiler redacted] at the end. They win by being more than any one of them is alone, including and especially an archer with a finite number of arrows.
It’s a secular message from a secular writer/director, and I think we need to be a little wary of reading our ethical systems into something written with no intention of endorsing the way we see things.
[/QUOTE]
And then also this, to be crystal clear:
[QUOTE]
A ‘Hero’ is a person who, in the opinion of others, is regarded as a model or ideal — and at its heart we have to ask why someone like Tony Stark or Steve Rogers or Thor Odinson are heroes. Is it because of their marvelous toys? or is it because, at the end, Thor wants his brother to be his brother and not a traitor? Is it because Stark is brilliant and jaded, or because he deeply still admires and misses his father who gave him everything? Is Cap just a dutiful soldier, or is he the man who hates a bully and can fight even a losing battle for the sake of what’s right?
The Avengers are more like a walking book of Proverbs than they are an exposition of the Gospel, a kind of piecemeal manual on how to live, than aspects of the greatest hero of all time, the son of a carpenter and of King David and of God, who conquered death by dying for the lost. They tell us about ourselves, and if we miss that, we do the art itself a disservice.
So my point here is not that TGC has somehow become Gospel deaf or Gospel complacent: it is that we have to see the thing for what it is and not make it into something we wish it was. As a guy who bought his first Avenger comic for 35 cents off a drug store rack in 1977 (Avengers #158), I wish they could have taught me the Gospel, but they didn’t. But I’m not ashamed to leverage what good they do demonstrate by general revelation for the sake of my son who is now a fan of this team of imaginary heroes.
[/QUOTE]
And then lastly:
[QUOTE]
I’m not sure we can translate every suicide mission into Gospel truth. Would you translate Steve Rogers diving on the (dummy) grenade — or his crashing the Valkyrie into the earth and then rising from his icy grave — as Gospel-eques? I think we have to say no. These are merely-virtuous acts and not inherently-salvific.
My view of it — and I think this is a theologically- and epistemologically-reasonable view of art — is that art is inherently something which is drawing from general revelation when it is presented by unsaved men. In that, the best hope for its use is to demonstrate the decrees of God which men can find in nature — which Rom 1 & 2 tells us is only the law, only the moral fabric of things.
So did Tony Stark do something heroic? Sure he did - I said as much. Did he do something which must take on metaphysical value? I think what happened to Agent Coulson was far more likely to speak to that issue — and that is utterly buried under what Fury does with Coulson’s death.
[/QUOTE]
So, in order, I was saying:
[1] The Story is one of Works and not one of Victory over Death — teamwork over sacrifice. It’s heroic, but not Gospel, and plainly not intended to be Gospel (cf. Whedon).
[2] There are virtues which we can admire which are not specifically Gospel. For example, there’s no Gospel in in “Honor thy Father and Mother.” However, there is wisdom in it, as demonstrated by Tony Stark. Admiring that heroic wisdom is not a bad thing, but it is not a Gospel thing.
[3] Every death is not Messianic — even every sacrificial death. In the prequel Cap movie, skinny Steve Rogers jumps on a grenade (a dummy, which was a test). Is that a Gospel moment — our just a heroic moment, a display of good character? If we read too broadly, we miss the real value of the story and interpose our values and aesthetics where they don’t belong.
And I say all that to say this: there is something disingenuous which outsiders will read into our efforts to make non-Gospel art into Gospel art. Let’s face it: as Christians, we don’t buy into postmodern epistemologies. We don’t buy it, for example, that a text can mean anything to anybody — because we don’t buy it that the Bible can mean almost anything to anybody. Because we have to have an epistemology that explains our rigor toward the Bible, we have to admit that this is true for other methods of communication — and therefore we have a limited number of options when it comes to Art.
We also have the Romans 1 & 2 noetic problem to deal with — that is, there are only so many things that the Heavens are declaring about the glory of the Lord, and we have our sin nature diluting God’s message in nature, /and/ what the Heavens are declaring does not include the Gospel — it only includes the Law. So great secular art is likely to get the wisdom of the Law right in some way — but it will be utterly tone-deaf on the fulfillment of the Law.
What’s most important about this point, though, is not to show how wrong the unbeliever is in his expression: it is to warn us off of being disingenuous or condescending (in a bad way) toward him. If you go ahead and tell a Josh Whedon that he made a wonderful Gospel movie, or a movie full of the Gospel, he might smile and wave at you — but he’ll see you as a liar. There’s no way he meant that in his movie, and for you to tell him that looks contrived at best. And while that is probably not your intent, you have done yourself a disservice by trying to translate the language of Proverbs into the language of Ephesians or the language of John. The later may fulfill the former, but they are not the same thing — and the author, if anyone, will know it for sure.
Let’s please not try to tell an artist what he “really meant” by what he has created. It’s corny and a little more than a little arrogant — especially when we can easily know we are wrong.
Hi Frank…
Let me take a stab at responding.
First off, my point (on my post at TGC) is not to say, “This is what Joss Whedon really meant.” My point is to say, “Joss Whedon’s story is resonant with this other story”, which is a common practice in all forms of literary criticism. One cannot see the ending of “Independence day”, for instance, without thinking of the ending of “Star Wars: Return of the Jedi”. They share themes, images, and ideas - even if that sharing is unintentional. (For a more highfalutin example, there’s a reason they say all literature is footnotes to Shakespeare. It’s not to say “Everyone wrote a riff on Shakespeare”, but to say that he probably said it first, and probably said it best.)
I am not saying The Avengers is a gospel story intentionally, or that other films with similar themes and arcs are intentionally allegorical. What I am saying is this:
The story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation is the over-arching story that shapes all of history.
As Christians, we participate in that story with the blinders off (at least to the first three movements, and the third we see “through a glass darkly”).
That story is the hope of all humanity, and even those who don’t know it grope about in the dark hungering for it. Some write poems about a god in whom we “live move and have our being.” Some write fairy tales. Some write comic books.
Is it arrogant to say “all stories lispingly point to the greater Story?” Only if it’s untrue. Likewise, it’s arrogant to believe in hell, judgment, and original sin if they are untrue. But if they’re true, our pointing is far from arrogant.
Mike:
I admit that 22 years since Grad Schol probably doesn’t leave me qualified to discern want passes for literary criticism these days, but I know Joseph Campbell’s song and dance when I read it. You have to realize that what he did with all literature and religious stories is what you are doing here: he reduced them all to one archetype. You have to see that his reason to do so is to denigrate any claims between these stories of exceptionalism — that one is in any way better than the others. That you agree with him in theory and are now just negotiating the details doesn’t seem to occur to you as you defend your view.
To quote the previously-greatest superhero movie of all time, When everything is Super, then nothing is. Consider at least that your approach leaves the reader with too-few choices for the themes of any story, and that in your view (at least, as you have expressed it so far) making any story truly redemptive is an exercise is trying too hard — they are all redemptive because (as you say) that’s how History works.
I like you; I like this movie. I may actually like most of what you write as well as I liked this movie. But in this case, you are not letting your good theology and faith influence your critical skills.
Thanks for being serious about this subject, and for being a decent host for the discussion.
Wow, Frank. Spot on. You bring a refreshing and thoughtful response. Appreciate it.
Thanks also for not trolling me for the terrible spelling.
One last push-back in this conversation….
You said: “There are virtues which we can admire which are not specifically Gospel. For example, there’s no Gospel in in “Honor thy Father and Mother.” However, there is wisdom in it, as demonstrated by Tony Stark.”
How is connecting Stark’s actions with “honor thy father and mother” (A Judeo-Christian Law that Whedon has not ever endorsed to my knowledge) different from connecting the heroic, apocalyptic victory of a handful of heroes over the minions of death with the Gospel? You make the same literary leap - which I don’t think is a bad thing. Honor thy father and mother is something that is both a creational reality - the way the world was meant to be - and the Law - the way God commanded a fallen world to respond to His revelation. Neither of those are inherent or explicit, and go beyond “intent” in the sense in which you use it.
You said: “But for that matter, don’t imitate Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarantino, the Coens or the Farrelly brothers either. Better to experiment and find your own unique voice. ”
I would say that each artist is influenced by other previous or contemporary artists. In order to find our unique voice, we first have to allow that our art has been influenced by others in order to get us to a point to find our own voice or vision.
You said: “We tell redemption stories because – regardless of whether we know it or admit it – we live as fallen people in a fallen world, hungering for a savior.”
I suggest that mankind has a sense of morals due to the Law, but is not hungering for a savior unless God places that desire within them. We are dead, dead, dead, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates us. God may certainly use art to prod us to become aware of our own need. That may include secular or Christian art. He moves however He pleases.
You said: – “one must take into consideration the fact that art forms and rules are transient…. Art evolves as artists pioneer new forms of expression and new layers of communication.”
I would add that one must know the rules in order to break the rules. Art is about stretching beyond what has already been done in order to express fresh relevant art. It is somewhat boring to be formulaic and I think Christians easily fall into this rut. So…the challenge is…how to express the glory of God in new and fresh ways like you stated.
The fact of the matter is, there is one way to reach people with the gospel. It’s called The Gospel. Anything else is man-made and flawed and going to ultimately fail. We find God in actual creation, not in our own creativite interpretations of it. I too am an author and lover of the arts, but I have also seen how easily manipulated art is by our enemy and by our own fleshly desires. We can use art for his glory as an act of worship on our part, but the only way someone is going to be saved or led to salvation is by a direct and true presentation of the Word of God. So it’s a little useless to debate about the salvation message of anything other than the Bible.
I love Christ. And I do not consider myself a Christian. My path seems to require that I love everyone, even Christians. But I don’t. I wish I did. Of course I don’t pray enough or meditate enough. As I think of Christians I have known I have seen the full spectrum of society-of mankind. I love the Christ in Krishna. And the potential Christness in you. I think of Christ as God. And I think of the comforter as the Holy Spirit. And the Father as about naught can be said. That all of us are part of God, literally, at least at the level of Soul (that which we truly are). If I do not love everyone (even the ones who do us harm) I wonder how many do love others and not kill them and have compassion and take care of others. Perhaps those doing so are not talking about it. I always liked it when Christians I have known said God loves you unconditionally. When people call themselves Christians I see that as they are separating themselves from other. But separativeness is the only sin. (Except there is no sin except in the lower belief mind of man).
So here the rule to Love comes into play perfectly. If thou shalt not kill in war then I would say thou shalt not kill via abortion. And vice versa. When you Love God with all ones heart and mind and strength and soul one is doing a commandment of God the doing of which would equal obeying all the commandments as understood except to Love others as you. One can love the Soul of anyone. And everyone. The ego or outer form is where we have trouble…perhaps the ego or the outer persona: body mind emotions are where the most pain occurs in the learning process of life. My path believes in reincarnation. I am not a Buddist. …Yet I love the wisdom of Buddha. Christ or Buddha — can inspire anyone including Hindu’s, Hebrews and Islamic faiths. And films by people of no faith or who have faith. Those who Love God and himanity and all the kingdom’s of nature are more Christlike. We are all son’s and daughter’s of God. So my path (unstated still) is not less good because I call myself not a Christian but only a lover of Christ as God. Inspiration, without doubt comes from God Divine…and his Spirit can touch our Soul at any moment. At any time. There is a problem with crystalized dogmatic forms and scripted propaganda…it hides His Truth and ultimately Truth cannot be hidden. All men are brothers and all women are sisters.
Regarding the Avengers film just released it really does sum up the Christ/Lucifer dicotomy as preached by Christians and Mormon’s…and others. Choice is freedom. God is Life Love Truth…and has several other names. Think of Spiritualized Soul as one with God. And ego as, perhaps, the Beast (not from the X-men). Most likely the Beast or 3rd anti-christ is the Media Mogul from England Rupert Murdock… or maybe just Corporately owned media or Corporatism as it is with rare excptions such as the force for good Buffett. Power corrupts absolutely. But if one watches every word thought and action one would perhaps be more Christlike or Buddha like. I know I’m a preaching it (thous I must not be living it). God Bless you and blesses you all, now and always. Turn toward him and you will have more peace and suffer less. There is only one God. God it one. Thou art that.
{ 4 trackbacks }