Film, faith and profits

The front page of today’s Washington Post has an article that uses the new Left Behind film, which will be distributed exclusively through churches, as a jumping off point for exploring the growing consumer culture associated with megachurches. Like the New York Times Magazine article on megachurches earlier this year, it is another big media attempt to cautiously penetrate the strange, suspicious world of red state evangelicals on behalf of the coastal elite - and subsequently paint them as either prudish nuts of scheming profiteers. The Post would’ve been only marginally more blatant if it had titled the article “Just Look at Those Kooky Christians!”

Little to my surprise, the article, while staying within the technical bounds of journalistic objectivity, once again portrays Christians as some sort of eccentric, separatist cult group. A typical quote from a pastor:

"We want to show Hollywood that there are enough people in the churches to support good, wholesome entertainment without all the blood and guts and sex and vile language.”

As usual, Christian leaders come off as out of touch, prudish clowns who rail against that dutiful minder of community standards, Hollywood. The stereotype has unfortunate roots in truth (more on that in a few paragraphs), but it is far from monolithic, as this project, The Faith and Film Critics Circle, shows.

And if they're not old-fashioned and priggish, they’re cynical manipulators aiming to make big bucks off of suburban, middle class church attendees. The middle portion of the article wanders off topic into a discussion of how films are being used to sell, sell, sell—here you expect to see a subhead like “Hucksterism Hits the Heartland.” This, of course, is perfect fodder for left leaning outlets like The Post, as they get to toss jabs not just at wacky, stupid Jesus lovers, but at wacky, stupid Jesus lovers who make profits! Why not just add “And also, abortion is really awesome, you war-loving pigs” at the end and hit all the lefty rallying points?

Sadly, the article sheds some unfortunate light on the prevailing attitude of cultural and intellectual disengagement that is so prevalent in many churches. Along with the previous quote about blood, guts and sex, there are some depressing bits about how so-called Christian filmmakers feel about the industry.

"I tell everyone, the most important 10 minutes of this movie is not on film. It's when the pastor gets up afterwards and shares the gospel with the people who are there and invites them to make a decision for Christ," said Peter Lalonde, an evangelical Christian whose own conversion occurred 22 years ago after seeing a Billy Graham film, "The Prodigal."

. . . "When 'The Passion' came out, there was this great hope that Hollywood had discovered Christianity," he said. "But it hasn't happened. They are selling Hollywood films to the Christian marketplace, not making genuinely Christian films in Hollywood."

. . . "My conclusion is that, if we're going to have a viable system for the distribution of evangelical Christian movies, we have to build it ourselves."

This is the depressing reality of what passes for Christian filmmaking. As Lalonde admits, his films don’t actually matter: like so much of what’s referred to as Christian art and culture, art for art’s sake has been banished from Christian life, having been entirely co-opted as an evangelizing tool.

This is an extreme example of what has now been thoroughly covered in the Pinter and politics discussions (also here and here and here), where art is rejected not on any grounds of its worth as art, but because of its social, political or moral standing (or worse, the standings of the artist). Christians are perhaps the worst at this, for many refuse to even look at what a film is saying about its subject before rejecting it outright for raunchy content. With so many Christians, it often doesn’t matter what a film says about violence, much less how well it says it, if the violence is objectionable. The Passion, of course, is the exception to this rule.

Another problem with limiting art to a proselytizing role is that it forgets that Christians needs to have something to do after getting saved. If all art is geared towards bringing people into the fold, it leaves little culture to appreciate afterwards. Well, unless you’re really into Stryper.

UPDATE: McSweeney's is like a crystal ball for the internet, except it's not glass or round and doesn't tell the future.