February 21, 2007
A Triple Feature
This is rather an interesting piece (albeit a few years old now): Juxtaposed interviews on faith and film with Michael Medved, Jeffrey Overstreet, and Todd Rendleman (if you don't know who they are, their credentials preface the interview). I especially liked this question:
Q: What do you think is at the root of the historical tension between people of faith and Hollywood? Why are some people of faith threatened by film?MEDVED: It goes right to the fundamental difference between cinematic and religious communication. Movies are a visual medium; psychologists who have analyzed the way they reach audiences estimate that films rely on visual images for 70–75 percent of their impact. Judeo-Christian faith, on the other hand, relies on words. Whenever God has communicated to his people, he has used spoken or written words, not images. Neither Moses nor Jesus drew pictures or created visions for their followers. Movies that appeal to the eyes touch us on an emotional level, while faith messages that appeal to the ears reach for the mind and soul.
OVERSTREET: Christians are quite accustomed to preaching. Art seems threatening to us because it is more about exploration than exposition. We hastily look for "the message" of a movie, failing to understand that art is for reflection, contemplation, discussion and discovery. Further, in categorizing as "Christian" versus "secular," we prescribe where and when God can be revealed. A beautiful photograph of a mountain becomes "Christian art" when a verse is printed on the sky above the peak. Then we think we know what it means, and we do not have to think for ourselves. This cultivates an environment of lazy and reactionary intellects, and we fail to train ourselves to discern evidence of God in the excellence and beauty of art outside the walls of the church.
RENDLEMAN: Historically, this debate has always been a question of sex. Movies have the potential to move and excite us — emotionally, intellectually and sexually. Since the birth of film, a key factor in its appeal has been the promise of sexual excitement. For Christians, this is often at odds with Christ's warning to not look lustfully at others. This has created a strange, conflicted relationship between many religious persons and the movies. Art needs to thoughtfully address all aspects of human life, and the issue of sexuality in film remains a sensitive one. I can't think of an issue that merits greater discernment and reflection from people of faith.
Medved's response is dumb dumb dumb. The more I think about it, the dumber it sounds. Of course, my opinion of Medved is not generally high, but there it is. He actually surprised me with a few of his responses, though. Seems he can actually be reasonable when he's not pushing a . . . oh, what do they call those? . . . Oh, yes. An agenda. Rendleman's response is both true and thought-provoking, but too limited, I think. There's more than just that at work here, and I would have liked for him to keep going. Overstreet's response, however, is what prompted me to post this interview. Awesome stuff.
Posted by Jared at February 21, 2007 10:59 AM | TrackBack