It’s catch-up week for me. After months of article ideas and concepts filling my head (they come from everywhere – films I see, news items, sermons, etc.) I am visiting my family in Houston for Christmas and find myself mostly alone with my computer. I have a long list of features to write, and worked my way through two of them yesterday. One of them, as you’ll recall, was a fairly mixed-bag review of the recent remake of “The Thing,” which I began writing in October but never finished.
I make an assertion at the end of that review that I want to reference and discuss now, because I realize that up to this point I have only done so in passing. Here is the exact text, as it appears on the home page of Film/Culture:
“I am frequently a champion of films that are dismissed by Christian viewers and critics simply because of disagreeable content. I make no bones of the matter that I consider this strategy of “discernment” to be shallow, and lacking in true understanding of what is “pure and holy.” Many times, films either make a statement that is powerful and true enough to warrant an overlooking of explicit content, or make a powerful and true statement through the use of explicit content.”
I believe these words, and if I were to write a “mission statement” for Film/Culture, it would sound something like the quote above. But as I went back to reread my post after waking up this morning (as I often do to check for typos and wording changes that I wish to make), something caused the words to catch uncomfortably in my mind. I realize that I may have been too harsh in my wording, and too narrow-minded in my own right to be justified in challenging the viewing habits of my readers.
I meant simply to say that I believe any film to be more than the sum of its incidences of vulgar language, sexual content/themes, violent content, etc. I don’t believe it fair to label a movie as “worthless” or even “evil” simply because it is graphic in some way.
Every filmmaker is a storyteller, and every filmmaker will use different artifices and strategies to tell a story as effectively as possible on a visual plane. The vast majority of directors and screenwriters living in Hollywood today are unsaved, and possibly live without any belief structure at all. Because of that, they are not uncomfortable with showing more, if they believe that more is necessary. Their decisions are the result of their circumstances and worldview.
Most directors are not, however, without a sense of morality, and many film their stories through lenses that often unexpectedly square with Christian belief on a thematic level. Sometimes, this can even be seen in the way explicit content is handled within the context of the story. Consider the recent film “Shame,” which stars Michael Fassbender as a man struggling with a crippling sexual addiction. It is one of the few films to garner such a reasonably wide release after being branded with an NC-17 rating. By all accounts, “Shame” is a film that lives up to its rating. It features a veritable parade of graphic one-night stands and online porn sessions. It has also been called one of “the least sexy movies about sex” ever made. Fassbender’s character, named Brandon, has what many ignorant people would call the ideal life. He has no problems attracting women, and even fewer issues with getting them into bed. But Roger Ebert, whose opinion I esteem highly, makes this interesting statement at the opening of his review:
“There's a close-up in "Shame" of Michael Fassbender’s face showing pain, grief and anger. His character, Brandon, is having an orgasm. For the movie's writer-director, Steve McQueen, that could be the film's master shot. There is no concern about the movement of Brandon's lower body. No concern about his partner. The close-up limits our view to his suffering. He is enduring a sexual function that has long since stopped giving him any pleasure and is self-abuse in the most profound way.”
No reviewer, from the most liberal of film critics to the most conservative, has any notion that the sex in “Shame” is glorified, or that its depiction is the ultimate end of director McQueen’s storytelling. Brandon’s addiction is shown for what it is: a deep wound in his soul that leaves him feeling empty and helpless. Without the sex that is included in the film, his suffering would be meaningless to us. We would have no sense for it; nor would we understand why something so inherently pleasurable would cause him so much pain. We would also have no baseline to reference as Brandon’s redemption, as it were, begins. Does he find Christ? No, but even the film’s recognition of his need for deliverance is in itself an echo of God’s truth and grace.
Is “Shame,” then, worthless because it is so sexually graphic? I have not seen the film, but plan to in the coming weeks. I believe I can do so safely because after deep examination of my motivations, I have been able to determine that I am not driven by any desire to become aroused by the content. Many will consider this a mistake, and will say that I am failing to fulfill the command of Philippians 4:8 by filling my mind with things that are unclean, rather than pure. But much seems to be honorable thematically in “Shame,” and whatever explicit content exists within the film’s plotline appears to be necessary. It is certainly possible for extreme content to exist in service of themes that are just, and even Christlike. “Shame” could be the most high-profile example to hit theaters in the past decade. In either case, “Shame” is a film that needs to be discussed from a Christian standpoint, and so far, not one Christian reviewer or review site has bothered to touch it. In my opinion, that’s the real shame.
After all, even though we’re told to avoid being of the world, we are also commanded to exist in it, and to engage it. I believe that this cannot be done in a study of film, with the hopes of reaching other filmgoers, without learning to see past content level and connect to the truth at the core of a film. Most movies do possess nuggets of revelation, and even some that don’t (like “The Thing”) are noteworthy simply for their craft. “Even a story told well reflects the ultimate creativity and authorship of God,” I say in my “Action!” page on Film/Culture. Therefore I have believed, and will continue to believe, that discernment means more, and must necessarily include more, than tallying swear words, sex scenes, and shots that feature nudity. By themselves, those things alone mean little in comparison to the manner in which they are employed to persuade, to make statements. If we want to know what filmmakers believe and want their viewers to believe, then every line, every shot, must be carefully analyzed and painstakingly compared with scripture. Only then will we know what is truly Christ-like about a film and what is simply incidental, or what is actually unnecessary and what is merely misunderstood.
At the same time, the mistake I made in my review for “The Thing” was to suggest that those who avoid films with explicit content by choice are ignorant. That was profoundly unjust, and if any at all read my review and were offended I offer my deepest apology. I go to school with, am friends with, and am related to many very intelligent people who will disagree with my unorthodox manner of examining films.
We are told in 1 Corinthians 8:8-9, in regards to the eating of food offered to idols, “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” After Christ had come, Paul states, because he makes us clean and because we know that he, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are One God, eating food offered to idols was no longer sinful as it had been. Some, however, Paul warned, would still find their consciences breached by eating such food. The decision of whether or not to imbibe is between them and God… but the duty of the mature brother or sister in Christ is to refrain from forcing any other believer to commit acts that would conflict with their personal boundaries.
I view films in much the same way. Movies have no inherent value in and of themselves, because we know what we believe and we know that Christ has redeemed us through his saving grace. Some, like me, are perfectly fine with partaking of them freely, as long as their motivations for doing so are honorable. The Holy Spirit does not normally convict me on such matters. I must recognize, however, that the consciences of others might indeed prevent them from seeing films above a certain rating, or with a certain level of explicit content, and I must be careful not to make generalizations or force conclusions that would put them in jeopardy if universalized.
I will continue to say what I think, and to call things as I see them. As a Christian reviewer, it is my responsibility to do so. But know that you, my loyal few readers, are important to me as well. I apologize again for my abruptness before. Understand that as Christ has commanded, you are free to make your own decisions and conclusions regarding the films that I review. Do it all to his glory, and I will endeavor to continue doing the same.
Thank you,
David Amonsen
Also read Roger Ebert's excellent review of "Shame," which I referenced above:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111130/REVIEWS/111139997
No comments:
Post a Comment