Thursday, June 15, 2006

InfoLink - Wrong, Right, and R-Rated

Jeffery Overstreet quizzed a selection of Christian film reviewers to comment on their thoughts on Hollywood's trinity of sex, violence and bad language in films. While it's a fascinating look into the minds of the reviewers, I find many of the arguments unconvincing. It's all well and good to deconstruct the violence and themes of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, but it's a stretch to think that Mr. Joe Moviegoer is doing the same. Themes of grace and redemption and moral choices are all perfectly good, I imagine, but that's not why viewers went to see the film and I don't think that's what they take away either. What is the fruit?

Wrong, Right, and R-Rated: Naked Truths

Wrong, Right, and R-Rated: Who Gives a...?

Wrong, Right, and R-Rated: Killing the Violence

InfoLink - What Is a Good Christian Movie, Anyway?

I'm surprised that I haven't run across this four-part series from Christianity Today on a multitude of issues related to the "What is a Christian film?" question. I never cease to find it interesting that so many can start at the same place and end up at such different extremes.

"In the end, there is frankly no simple answer to the question of what constitutes a good, Christian movie. Understanding how we use our terms is an important beginning. Appreciating the nature and intentions of art is also important. We recognize that we're dealing with a greater cultural confusion about art, about religion, and about the interface of the two, and a little essay such as this will only begin to ask helpful questions. But if the measurement of a good, Christian movie is that it be exclusively family-friendly, then surely Christians will have been robbed of their mandate to explore Christ's renewal of all dimensions of human experience—the lovely and the ugly, the romantic and the drab, the goofy and the grotesque."

What Is a Good Christian Movie, Anyway?:

Friday, June 09, 2006

InfoLink - Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film and Culture

Follow the link to where R.J. Carter offers up a review of the book Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film and Culture. Lots of snippets from the book are included, though most seen to be from the "Christians need to be a part of Hollywood," side of the spectrum. The more I read the opinions of others about Christians and their place in media production, the more I think that this is not an either/or proposition, but rather a both/and one.

Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film and Culture

InfoLink - And This Year's Oscar Goes to Social Issues

The Washington Post had this tidbit around the time of the Oscars, asking about whether or not Hollywood makes any impact when making films about social issues. While Christian films are frequently labeled "propoganda," I have seldom heard that term applied to Hollywood films. But make no mistake, there is a thread of Hollywood that doesn't want to just make escapist film.... they want to make escapist films that influence the viewers. Just about every picture is a "message picture," and anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or lying to you.

"What is motivating filmmakers and voters in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? In a director's roundtable published by Newsweek, Spielberg said: 'I just feel that filmmakers are much more proactive since the second Bush administration. I think that everybody is trying to declare their independence and state their case for things that we believe in. No one is really representing us, so we're representing our own feelings, and we're trying to strike back.'"

And This Year's Oscar Goes to Social Issues

InfoLink - Behind the lens (A Christian filmmaker in Hollywood)

Regular readers of this blog may remember earlier posts about Scott Derrickson, a Christian filmmaker who has had some measure of success directing mainstraem films with horror elements. I stumbled across an article in The Christian Century that he wrote, outlining his philosophy of film and art, along with comments on "Christian film" in general. As usual, I think I would disagree with him on several points, but boy, would I love to sit down for a few hours and discuss the subject with him. I find his viewpoint very interesting.

"The church loves truth in its prescriptive form, truth that says, 'Here's what's wrong, and here's how you fix it. Here's the diagnosis, and here's the cure.' The truth of the artist, although far more often descriptive, is still truth. Church people are uncomfortable with too much descriptive truth. It's often ugly, confusing, disorienting, problematic, wild and sensual. But prescriptive and descriptive truth don't cancel each other out. They coexist. Films and screenplays can contain prescriptive truth, but unless they're also saturated with descriptive truth they won't work. The most common problem of Christian art that it tries to get to grace too quickly. It's uncomfortable with tension. It's uneasy with any questions left hanging."

"Filmmakers must be willing to portray pure descriptive truth, and recognize that it's impossible to prescribe answers unless the questions have been properly asked. If we create with an agenda that people perceive before they feel the descriptive truthfulness of our story, they'll resist it. Why? Because we are giving them propaganda, not art. Every 'Christian film' I've ever seen is propaganda. Christian films are often resistible because Christian screenwriter have the habit of writing about what they believe instead of about what really moves them."

Behind the lens. (A Christian filmmaker in Hollywood) - The Christian Century

Thursday, June 01, 2006

InfoLink - Making of a Cult Classic

If there's one thing I love, it's "behind-the-scenes/how-we-did-it" retrospectives. In this case, the "cult classic" is a kids' show made in Canada called "Cowboy Who?" The discussion of how it was produced is fun, thoughtful and provides a look into a locally-produced series that played for four seasons. If you have a hankerin' for low-budget episodic TV production, this is a great read!

"I always crunch my teeth when I read the never ending posts on many forums about what I could characterize a "Film-look" madness. People would do anything to get a film-look adding even fake scratches and noise to the already noisy video and desperately crying for a true progressive camera. They all whine that they could create amazing films and be the next big thing, only if they have a true digital 24p camera. It has to be 24p or nothing.

"That is a total and true nonsense. It is just an excuse because most of the people are afraid of the truth - their lack of talent and vision. A good story is independent of any equipment. People could tell a great story with finger puppets, paper and scissors or a slideshow."

Making a Cult Classic