Good book, bad films
I just heard about the new FoxFaith movie division and thought this article by Xan Brooks made for an interesting take on it on today’s Guardian website:
The launch of FoxFaith spells good news for that one-time oxymoron, the Evangelical moviegoer. No longer will these God-fearing Bible-readers have to choke down a diet of violence, fornication and dubious moral practices when they visit their local Mulitiplex. Instead, the new Hollywood division promises major motion pictures promoting “Christian values” and “religious themes”, and resulting in “great family films that they can trust won’t be offensive”.
I sometimes wonder exactly what Good Book these easily-offended types have been reading all their lives. Presumably it bears no relation to the one that fairly spills over with acts of fratricide and adultery, child abuse and human sacrifice. Surely it has nothing to do with the one starring an Almighty who, at various stages, condones the slaughter of kids who laugh at bald people (2 Kings: 23-24) and demands that all the people of Jabesh-gilead be murdered except for the bodacious ladies (and obviously I’m paraphrasing here) who should be held down and raped (Judges 21). Because, if so, it’s hard to imagine a text that contains more in the way of full-on sex and horror than the Bible - and that includes Friday
the 13th and all of its sequels.
Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing remiss with using the Bible as an artistic inspiration. After all, it worked for Michelangelo and Caravaggio, and also for that God-fearing homosexual reprobate Pasolini, whose stark, beautiful Gospel According to Matthew is probably the finest Jesus movie ever made. Alternatively, FoxFaith’s much-vaunted “religious themes” can feed fascinatingly through to contemporary stories. I’ve often thought that Roman Polanski’s Chinatown is a Biblical epic in all but name, despite being set in 1930s Los Angeles and starring Jack Nicholson as a profane PI with a bandage on his nose.
But is this the kind of rich, challenging work that FoxFaith will be providing? Early evidence suggests not. The first film they are releasing is entitled Love’s Abiding Joy, is based on a book by “Christian novelist” Janette Oke and tells the tale of “an early American Godly family”. The title alone is enough to bring me out in hives.
In this, as in so many other things, we can hold Mel Gibson to blame. The Passion of the Christ alerted the Hollywood money-men to a previously untapped demographic that they are now rushing to exploit. And yet for all its faults, Gibson’s Passion had a certain bonkers integrity in its blood soaked, fundamentalist reading of the Gospels that I suspect FoxFaith will steer well clear of. In its place we should expect a glut of insipid morality tales and feelgood family dramas that bear as much relation to the real Bible as the actions of George Bush do to, say, the teachings of Jesus Christ. It strikes me that the difference here is between the concept of “Christian stories” and the promotion of “Christian values”. The one can, and does, lead to great art. The other produces pap. Love’s Abiding Joy isn’t even released until November 25th and I’m offended by it already.
What do you think?
technorati tags: the future now, foxfaith
September 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Having recently re-read The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus, I have been reminded just how safe and nice a book we have a tendency to turn the Bible into. And it’s not. Many of us might like it to be that way, but it’s raw, bloody, messy, and oh so real. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but I think he does have a point here. Why do so many of us settle for and want a safe, sanitised religion?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
The writer is correct in many points. Major players get too big to take any meaningful risk and most often church out rather bland and unchallenging stuff that simply makes us feel good about where we are.
As to the why? You know this stuff. A clasic example is family life. What happens when I start to have a family? Every book you read, every grandparent you talk to, every sensible family member you speak to will tell you that it’s now your duty to make the life of that family safe and help them grow up comfortable, well-fed and happy. It’s a nice little lie that we tell ourselves as a matter of tradition when in fact followers know that I’m supposed to lead my family into risky places where the outcome is unsure.
Thing is, if I don’t find the right wife who believes that and find ways to help my family and friends see that truth, I’ll be fighting alone and will eventually settle. We settle because well-meaning people tell us to do what is easier and what feels good.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Interesting article, I don’t agree with all of what he says, but I can agree that we probably aren’t going to get a lot of positive publicity from these movies. Why do we want safe, sanitixed religion, so we don’t have to do anything uncomfortable.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Parke - you’re dead on with the “why?”. Thanks for stopping by.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Thanks for the kind words. Perhaps even more pointed a challenge for people like me is what this looks like for us organizationally-minded people. I really like to put things on neat lists and in neat boxes. In those times, it’s not that I want to be safe so much as I don’t want to deal with the chaotic nature of some parts of life. That can be just as bad a temptation.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Very true. I know my own tendency for laziness and a comfortable life. We’ve been going through Chasing Daylight at Mosaic Sheffield lately and it’s a helpful reminder to not settle for a nice, safe life. I need to feed myself with that kind of material reguarly as it helps me to see the bigger picture and the need to not settle.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Ryan - good to hear from you by the way - how’s things?
September 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
There is a difference between using art as an expression of faith and exploiting faith for financial gains within a previously “untapped demographic”. One produces great works of art, borne of the artist’s spirit, while the other produces drivel in a fast food manner…easy to swollow…with vitually no nutritional value.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:46 am
In revisiting this post I realize I misspelled “swallow” in my comment. Sorry.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Thanks for stopping by Tommy!
October 10th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
I am going to chime in waaay late here and say, somebody simply must make a new film adaptation of The Robe. Possibly as one of those BBC and A&E mini-series, because I don’ think that the full scope of it could be fit into a 90-minute blockbuster.
Don’t let the Charleton Heston version fool you; this book is one of the most moving, disturbing, ruthless, beautiful things you’ll ever read. It engages me every time I read it, makes me cry every time, rebukes me every time, and gives me hope every time. It is undeniably relevant, addressing not merely the past, but the present and the future.
I’d love to see somebody really make a real go of it. But it wouldn’t be family friendly, so I don’t think these guys could be the ones to do so.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Hey Mel! Good to hear from you…it seems like AGES! How’s things? Is the moving going ok?
October 18th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
My move went ok. My Mom and Dad’s is still in process…I’m supposed to go up next week some time and clear out my old stuff and paint some walls for my mom. My boyfriend’s move is happening quite soon; he’ll leave England on Friday aafternoon and arrive in Vancouver, British Columbia on…Friday afternoon. Pretty crazy; hopefully that’ll go well too.