The other day, a colleague and friend and regular reader of this blog commented that I had crap taste in films. Well, sort of – but there’s more to be said about that I think. And as there is today a synchroblog on the subject of Christianity and film I thought I’d say a few things on the subject.<\/p>\n
Firstly, let’s hear from the great man Wittgenstein, who went to the cinema every week to relax (he especially liked Westerns):<\/p>\n
“A typical American film, naive and silly, can – for all its silliness and even by means of it<\/i> – be instructive. A fatuous, self-conscious English film can teach one nothing. I have often learnt a lesson from a silly American film.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So the first thing I’d want to say is that, like Wittgenstein, the majority of films I watch are primarily viewed for relaxation. I spend such a lot of my day doing intellectual analysis of one sort or another that I precisely don’t want to engage in intellectual analysis when I’m relaxing! Hence the high quantity of ‘junk’ in what I watch. But that isn’t the end of the story, as the man attests.<\/p>\n
The thing is, the analytical muscles only go quiescent, they never get fully turned off, and the films that I most enjoy are the ones which engage the muscles without ever taxing them too much, and that primarily means allowing the story itself to do the work.<\/p>\n
Now I am fully aware of, and reasonably conversant with, the way in which film is an artistic form of its own (see this book<\/a>); I am also well aware of the way in which film is ‘sculpting in time<\/a>‘, and has an essential aesthetic element (primarily through the cinematography). Those things I can understand and appreciate, and get me on a good day and I will happily discuss those more refined areas. But most of the time what I am interested in is a) story, and b) character development, ie the exploration of what it means to be human. <\/p>\n
Now clearly this is something which the ‘great’ films can do astonishingly well (I’m thinking of the Kieslowski trilogy<\/a>, for example). Yet it is also something which can be done in the ‘silly’ films. Take Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky, which I reference in an important way in my ‘The Colour of my Shirt<\/a>‘ post – let those who have seen the film understand. That film dug into my subconscious in a way few films have, and has borne a great deal of further thought. Yet Cameron Crowe isn’t a great director – something that was brought home to me quite alarmingly when I listened to the director’s commentary on the DVD, which really shattered some illusions and made me realise he was a bit of a hack! I think with that film there was just a grace about everyone involved, so that the ensemble worked.<\/p>\n
But the point I really want to make is about whether a film is edifying, in a Christian sense. For in that conversation last week, we also touched on Magnolia<\/a>, which is one of my all-time favourite films, and which I view as a profoundly Christian work. Yet it is also a gruelling film to watch – an extreme portrait of present society which doesn’t flinch from the cruelties of contemporary life. It isn’t something that might naturally be seen as Christian. Yet it is thoroughly informed by a Biblical outlook, and it is, in the most important sense, orthodox. <\/p>\n
What do I mean by orthodox? I mean informed by the resurrection; the opposite of nihilist. Is there metanoia? Is there redemption? Or are we told that life is dark and then we die? I would say that the thread of orthodoxy can be seen more clearly in some of the darker corners of the film world (eg horror, sci-fi) than in the more mainstream and ‘artistic’ areas. (My post on Sin City<\/a> covers some of this ground in more depth).<\/p>\n
That’s what I most look for, when I am after an evening’s entertainment. Something that will absorb me, take me somewhere away from my preoccupations for a little while, but ultimately, something orthodox. At the end of the day there is no peace without Christ.<\/p>\n
Lots of others blogging on this today:
Steve Hayes ponders The Image of Christianity in Films<\/a>
Adam Gonnerman pokes at The Spider’s Pardon<\/a>
David Fisher thinks that Jesus Loves Sci-Fi<\/a>
John Morehead considers Christians and Horror Redux: From Knee-Jerk Revulsion to Critical Engagement<\/a>
Marieke Schwartz lights it up with Counter-hegemony: Jesus loves Borat<\/a>
Mike Bursell muses about Christianity at the Movies<\/a>
Jenelle D’Alessandro tells us Why Bjork Will Never Act Again<\/a>
Cobus van Wyngaard contemplates Theology and Film (as art)<\/a>
Tim Abbott tells us to Bring your own meaning…?<\/a>
Sonja Andrews visits The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Christ in Spaghetti Westerns<\/a>
Steve Hollinghurst takes a stab at The Gospel According to Buffy<\/a>
Les Chatwin insists We Don’t Need Another Hero<\/a>
Lance Cummings says The Wooden Wheel Keeps Turning<\/a>
John Smulo weaves a tale about Spiderman 3 and the Shadow<\/a>
Josh Rivera at The Rivera Blog<\/a>
Phil Wyman throws out the Frisbee: Time to Toss it Back<\/a><\/p>\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The other day, a colleague and friend and regular reader of this blog commented that I had crap taste in films. Well, sort of – but there’s more to be said about that I think. And as there is today … Continue reading