Obviously we've seen a trend recently, with religion being a stronger element in films as of late. I saw I am Legend and noted the phrase "god still loves us" on the wall of a skyscraper in New York City.
Are people going to see films based on faith? There have been HUGE box office openings for films - for example - I am Legend opened up at $76 million....
Does anyone like this trend in film? Do you think it's a guaranteed money maker? The Golden Compass opened slow, but it appears to be picking up speed internationally...
I would say that the real money-maker is great Story. Artificially or prematurely sprinkling a bit of any faith into a weak and unapproachable micro-narrative increases the chances of it devolving into a variety of plot conveniences. Such generally washes up as tripe. When the story line of the film is grand enough (that is to say, it poses the most universally important dilemmas and questions to human existence), it can't help but necessitate asking these fundamental existential questions, which include the question of God. There is a way to do that with reflective clarity, sensibility and acuity, and, in my opinion, most (with some exceptions noted here by others in this thread) of the emotionally honest and hardcore handling of these questions in cinema have been by those decidedly non-Christian.
Arguably, most Christo-centric productions have to determine early on the audience to whom they will cater the most. Perhaps that is as much as an economic decision as it is a philosophical one, supposing that most Christian audiences may not be willing to wrestle with challenging questions (insofar as it challenges their blindly-held predispositions, if present) in the name of entertainment.
I think the fact that The Passion of the Christ - made so much money : while being a god awfull movie , sums it all up
Of the percentage of people in the United States who believe in God, some polls point to numbers in the 90's. That, and the pre-release publicity which went on for months (not to mention full-scale blitzes in Catholic and Protestant churches across the board)-- could easily account for the profit. As Yoda points out, I fail to see anything substantive undergirding your "summation." Rail against the film all you'd like, but give us some real meat to chew on that's not interstitially woven to your own hide.
Now, to the subjective: I think the idea that The Passion of the Christ is a "god awfull movie" to be both laughable, and an unfortunate choice of words.
That being said, Meat's word choice appears to be cloaked with limp intention.
Now, to the point of the thread: I don't grant the premise that there is much of a trend. I think religious symbolism has always existed in great films, and always will. Religion touches upon fundamental human themes; that's one of the things that moves us about it. Any movie that wants to move people, then, is going to find itself touching on a lot of those same themes. The Bible isn't called "The Greatest Story Ever Told" for nothing. Religion is everywhere; how is a movie involving any degree of humanity supposed to avoid touching on it?
I agree. Even more pointedly, the questions that religion poses aren't even necessarily belonging to any particular tradition to which or by which we are drawn or repulsed. The inquiry into the truth of our condition, our
whence or whither and just how it is we can know or be known belong to all of humanity and indeed seed the greatest of film-making.
While The Golden Compass did get hurt by the fact that it can be construed as an anti-god (any diety of any religion) film and that did hurt it, it also hurt it that it got rocked by reviews. And I am Legend isn't an overtly religious film (and probably more avoidable by Christians for violence), but it is a better constructed film.
True, and I would further argue that
I Am Legend more specifically deals with the ages-old conflict between religion and science and attempts to ameliorate the issue(s) in the ultimate journey of Neville, which includes themes of hubris, creation/loss, banishment/isolation, suffering, dismantling and redefining faith and the certain, salvific prototyping (if not scape-goating) of his character as a whole. That Legend isn't
overtly religious (i.e., it doesn't adopt a certain culture and attending truisms of a particular religious tradition) is the strength of its religiosity.
I would also assert that the
Passion was categorically more violent than
Legend in order to say that the inclusion of violence is not a bad thing for a Christian audience as long as it has a place in the story and it isn't blatantly gratuitous. It is inherent in Christian doctrine that the universe we live in is a
violent energy system complicated by moral and natural evil. As long as the story is served to that end, violence should be depicted; the question is just how much is visually necessary.
As for people going to see films based on faith, Hollywood did figure out, after The Passion of the Christ, that Christians are willing to go theaters if they don't feel threatened by language/violence/sex in a film, so a lot of the production companies have made divisions for Christian films. But in reality most overtly Christian films aren't going to do well for several reasons, 1) most non-Christians and a lot of the Christian youth, aren't going to see a movie without some violence or action or something that is construed in the tightest reading of it as non-Christian and 2) so many Christian movies suck because the plots, since you can't have language/sex (almost romance) or violence become so far off of the beaten path that they end up being little more then feel good drivel.
I would tend to agree with that assessment by adding that modern Christianity (with some exception to some postmodern Christian expressions) has never been very good at being conversant with cultural trends and finding refreshing, new ways to tell the same "old story." This leads to most "Christian" movies "sucking" because they wax into pallid, low-quality copycat versions of what's already being done well, artistically speaking.
I think that there is definitely a market there that Hollywood can tap into, but until there is an actually good Christian filim, Hollywood should focus more on avoiding controversial films (to bring in the Christian audience) then finding any sort of Christian film.
If your/our definition of "Christian film" stands, perhaps we shouldn't have
Christian films
per se, but films made by thoughtful and reflective Christians who can indeed handle controversy in film rather than avoid it. If all we're after is the "Christian" dollar, I'm afraid all we'll get is the "Christian" film we deplore.
Just on a side note, I am a Christian (and I refuse to debate it because when someone wants to debate/discusssion it, they already have their mind made up so it really isn't a debate/discussion most of the time) and I am trying to screenwrite, but I don't write the normal Christian drivel as I'm not afraid to write something that is more "real" and in reality, people swear and bad things happen, and Christians, to often, try to ignore that fact, which is why so much drivel is out there.
Debating or discussing the tenets of your Christian identity should not deter you from doing so regardless of the mindset of the one with whom you're conversing. That much may help to inform your screenwriting as you will inevitably be assigning various positions (for or against certain issues) to your characters as the issues are resolved (or not) in the storyline. The key for yourself and your debate/discussion "partner" is the intellectual/emotional honesty to which each can aspire throughout the process. And it's not about who's "righter" than the other because sometimes the questions and the way we wrestle with them are much more self-revelatory than the answers might ever be.
Reply to Topic
