Ted Slater has a very clever and thought-provoking post up about the movie Fireproof. (HT: TC) But I don’t agree with it.

Ted argues that despite the film’s production shortcomings, we Christians should still cheer this film because of its transforming message.  I disagree.

The way the message is conveyed is less effective at accomplishing the goals of its makers than it could be, I think.  So I’m not bashing Fireproof, but I’m not cheering either.

The thinking of Fireproof‘s makers may go something like this: More people go to movies every year than go to church or to sporting events.  People currently watch movies about sex and violence and are influenced to be promiscuous and violent. So let’s make a movie about Jesus-y stuff and those same people will come see it and act more Jesus-y.

Putting theological, historical and sociological problems with this kind of Constantinian thinking aside for a moment, let’s think about the efficacy of these films as it relates to their makers’ expressed intent to influence audiences.

Have you ever seen a movie that came right out and said, “The solution to your problem, everybody, is to hate your neighbor?” Ever seen that?  Heck no.

Have you ever seen the movie gang member or the mafia guy or the serial killer go to his son and explain his philosophical and moral position on violence in a long chunk of dialogue?  Again, heck no.

This is because nowadays a movie’s message (and every movie has one right?) is shown, not told.  Because it works.

What we’re likely to see in a movie advocating violence is a sympathetic character in a situation that motivates him to commit a violent act.  Then we see the favorable or ambivalent reaction of other characters to that violence.  If the protagonists commit the violent acts and approve of them, the message is stated clearly enough to the audience. Indirectly.  Every movie goer is shown, not told, that violence is acceptable in the situation depicted.  Then each individual chooses whether what they’ve been shown is applicable to their life outside the movie theatre.  And Christians boycott and criticize these violent films (or used to) because they’re convinced this method of communication works.

But when Christians go to make movies/music of their own for the purpose of communicating a message, they don’t always adopt the same method.  Instead, what Christian movie and music makers often do is tell more than show.  In Fireproof, in just the few scenes I’ve watched, there is an awful lot of telling.  No doubt there is some showing too.  But Fireproof’s makers try to connect the dots for the audience with sermonettes.

I don’t know why this was done.  I know why I’m so tempted to do the same thing (and have done it) in my own music. I’m afraid of two things (at least): 1)Not being Christian enough to please my Christian audience.  If Christians aren’t happy with what I’ve made, I won’t make money or get to make anything else for the Christian media subculture. And, I fear (know) any subtlety in my lyrics will be scorned as “shame of the gospel.” 2)My audience might not get the point I’m making unless I spell it out in big bold letters.  And that last sentence, by the way, contained a metaphor and I fear (know) many Christians on a diet of Christian media don’t get those these days. (How many people still think “Welcome Home” is about heaven and stare blankly at me while I sing about being a hummingbird?)

Still, I prefer showing over telling simply because it works – it’s an effective memorable way to communicate a message.  Popular movies, books and music do influence, to varying degrees, the way we perceive ourselves, God and each other.  And, like olympic figure skaters, they do this without looking like they’re trying – without preaching, using mostly story.  And more than one camera, a multi-million dollar budget, and a household-name director. But is that any excuse for making yet another Christian flick that tells us to do the right thing?

.

Possibly Related Posts

  • No Related Post

Series: None