I think I'm going to love this forum.

How many of you use or see clips as part of a sermon? There have been very few times I've used clips in preaching (although I am using a clip from the August Les Miserables this week.) I'd probably like to use it more, but I have a difficulty trying to find a scene of what I wany to convey. I can name an entire movie to be watched, but often can't isolate a quintessential scene. (I suppose I could get the Pacatte film lectionary book that was dissed here some time back, but my sermons often don't run the usual route.)

If you use them (or see them regularly) what use do you make of them? For me this week, it is a companion to the Epistle reading, 2 Cor 5:16ff. The pairing allows me to use the clip (the bishop and the candlesticks) to focus in on 3 ideas in the lection: no longer seeing others from a human point of view, a new creation, and God's reconciling the world to Godself.

QUOTE

I think I'm going to love this forum. :luxhello:

I was actually thinking of you when I set it up (despite your pronoun problem). We might not have the critical mass of media users (not just critics) here, but let's see how it goes.

I know what you mean about being able to recommend films, but having difficult isolating scenes. Heaven comes to mind when no longer seeing people from a human point of view.

As far as God reconciling all people to Himself, any Calvary-related images would of course serve; I'm thinking of "the scene" from TPOTC when Jesus says "I make all things new..." Not being a preacher, I don't deliver sermons, so you're on your own there.

QUOTE

(despite your pronoun problem)

I try to discipline myself to what I'd have to do if I were in seminary now (at least in what most DOC seminaries are like now). Whenever I read old papers, the pronouns for God (and use of "man" for all people) always strikes me. I keep thinking I have to go through and add [sic] everywhere.

Of course I've had to convince my spellchek that Godself is a word.

QUOTE

I try to discipline myself to what I'd have to do if I were in seminary now (at least in what most DOC seminaries are like now).

How...trendy...of you?

QUOTE

Of course I've had to convince my spellchek that Godself is a word.

Of course it's not--but it sounds like a spielcheck problem to me. :wink:

I try and use something whenever I preach / speak - although I don't force it, but y'know.

And that really is how I got into this. I used to just look for things that had good clips and then the penny dropped that actually films were meant to be seen as a whole unit, rather than clips. I don't object to using clips, but I've become much more into the watch whole films thing.

The other thing that really got me ito it was searching for Jesus films that would be credible to use instead of just reading from the bible in that monotone we all put on when reading the bible in church, and boy did that snowball. With the gospel of John I'll now at least have pretty much all the gospel material available.

In terms of good sites, the only one I really frequent is the Movie Theme concordance at
http://www.textweek.com/movies/themeindex.htm. In fact I've got a sneaking feeling you've contributed to it? Sometimes its a bit tenuous, and it needs more recent work, but worth checking out if stumped.

Matt

PS Alan - Love the idea for this forum - didn't even know it was coming what a nice surprise!

My father-in-law likes to send clippings & things to us--maybe your parents or in-laws do the same thing. Anyway, he recently sent a copy of Visual Parables: Faith and Film in Dialogue, edited by Edward McNulty.

The issue he sent (Nov. 2002) included reviews of current theatrical releases Bowling for Columbine, Mostly Martha, Spirited Away, Red Dragon, Jonah--A Veggie Tales Movie, The Tuxedo, Abandon, Sweet Home Alabama, The Secretary, The Ring, and Brown Sugar; cable TV movies, and video/DVD releases Here I Stand: The Life & Legacy of Martin Luther, Martin Luther, and The Christian Story--with Martin Marty.

There was also a feature "Film Guide: The Matrix" with discussion questions for using with a group.

A series of "Lectionary Links" for personal devotions or sermon illustrations.

I skimmed through most of this and would say and McNulty's approach, and that of his writers is compatible with that of most Promontory posters. It's not a "Movieguide" approach.

Brochures tucked into the magazine note that McNulty has written Films & Faith: Forty Discussion Guides for films to use with church groups, and a new book, Praying the Movies II: More Daily Meditations from Classic Films. Films discussed include American Beauty; Babe; Chocolat; The Color Purple; Erin Brockovich; Fried Green Tomatoes; O Brother, Where Art Thou; Remember the Titans; Secrets and Lies; To Kill a Mockingbird.

Soo--according to a letter from the editor included with the magazine, a website was under construction:

http://www.visualparables.net/index.html

Accessing the online journal seems to require a subscription and/or password, but the "Current Movies" reviews/discussion guides are free. Currently, he has The Passion of the Christ and TV's Judas up.

Some back issues of the print version are available from the address given at the website.

My church recently used Les Miz (the Neeson version) clips in conjunction with the Rembrandt Painting for a series on The Prodigal. IT was very powerful.

Another useful site is movieministry.com/, which has some free stuff, although their material can be a bit "churchy," it's a far cry from MovieGuide.

I've never really thought through the "Film Clips & Sermons" topic: it's not something that has had any part of my life or experience -- though suddenly lately I've been swept into a discussion of the subject and need some help. I understand the reasons for screening film clips in the context of sermons. However, I have this other side of me (which has been dominant) which says such a practice is not a step forward in cinema- or art-literacy for an Evangelical world that already has a terrible history with art and cinema, including a utilitarian approach to the arts that USING film clips as sermon ILLUSTRATIONS would seem to reinforce. I'm not trying to be the devil's advocate (once again), but I just wanted to inject into the discussion some negatives attached to the idea of movie clips as sermon material. I'm trying to think this thru: I'm cool with film clips in a film study course. I guess I'm okay with film clips in the context of, say, an ethics class. But somehow the idea of extracting a part of a work of art that was intended to be experienced whole -- for this particular audience, in a church context -- really bugs me. The imbalance in the Evangelical world, as I said, has long been tilted toward reductionism, analysis, categorizing, ultilitarianism, nailing down one-to-one correspondances, reducing a work of art to the "message" or "worldview". It seems to me that all these unfortunate tendencies are reinforced by using movie clips as a part of sermons. But I'm not wanting to be doctrinaire on this. Just trying to think it through. Anybody else have these reservations? Or am I not getting something? (And certainly I have no idea of the specific contexts in which people here are screening films, so I must confess I'm imagining the worst -- based on experience. Correct my stereotypical assumptions, by all means.)

For what it's worth, I also have an instinctive reaction against "Study Questions" included in any film promotional material or even a review. For example, if the new CT Movie Channel "Study Questions" included questions about the visual elements of the film, the director, the social or political context in which the film was made, etc., I'd be more open to the idea. Instead, the questions always seem to have the agenda of boiling down a work of art to a "worldview" to be matched against Orthodoxy and accepted or rejected as if art were a True/False proposition: which Evangelicals seem to think it is. Again.... Thoughts? Should I cut them a little more slack here?

[quote]For what it's worth, I also have an instinctive reaction against "Study Questions" included in any film promotional material or even a review. For example, if the new CT Movie Channel "Study Questions" included questions about the visual elements of the film, the director, the social or political context in which the film was made, etc., I'd be more open to the idea. Instead, the questions always seem to have the agenda of boiling down a work of art to a "worldview" to be matched against Orthodoxy and accepted or rejected as if art were a True/False proposition: which Evangelicals seem to think it is. Again.... Thoughts? Should I cut them a little more slack here?[/quote]
While I agree with you on the clips issue (especially since evangelicals need to get out and actually see more movies), I disagree with you on the questions issue--it depends on the questions. BUT, I do agree with your analysis of many questions (probably some of my own would fall into that category). I also agree completely with your sentiment.

For example, what do you think of the (admitedly weak) discussion questions I developed for The Green Mile or The Insider. Keep in mind that--in context--I use such questions to get discussions started. Mr. Spoon on this board will quote third-party reviews of a film to start it, which is a great method, too.

I too struggle with the use of film clips. I am coming at this from the perspective of a teacher who has used certain clips before, not in a sermon in the middle of a wroship service, but in Sunday School and other assorted Bible studies. I find myself echoing a number of the things Mike is saying.

The struggle for me is that I see every film as a multi-faceted work of art, that cannot be boiled down to a single point. I feel odd when I use a clip, then draw a particular point from it because I tend to see much more than simply that point in the scene. Now, I am more comfortable when I know everyone has seen the film I am showing from. But that is rare (All of this reminds me of that Kieslowski quote in another thread when he says that if he could sum up what he was trying to say in a sentence, he wouldn't have had to make a film).

This has led to me to utilize clips on the rarest of occasions. It's kind of got to be the perfect thing, and even then I am still wary. For example, a clip I felt best about was the opening scene of August's Les Miserables, which I showed from the opening credits up until he gets the candlesticks. It illustrated very nicely what I was talking about, but I still felt odd because no one in the room gets to see what happens AND because I think there are a number of other things people might come away with. Now I have kind of pigeon-holed that scene for them.

All in all, I prefer my students to encounter whole films together versus just a clip.

A couple of extra thoughts after talking to my wife, who uses clips more often than I.

First, how would using a film clip compare to quoting a passage from a book? Is this an apples to oranges kind of thing or is there some real way in which they compare?

Secondly, she made the interesting point that her use of the clip might encourage the student to want to experience the film as a whole, which she also values.

mike_h wrote:
: For example, if the new CT Movie Channel "Study Questions" included
: questions about the visual elements of the film, the director, the social or
: political context in which the film was made, etc., I'd be more open to the
: idea. Instead, the questions always seem to have the agenda of boiling
: down a work of art to a "worldview" to be matched against Orthodoxy
: and accepted or rejected as if art were a True/False proposition: which
: Evangelicals seem to think it is. Again.... Thoughts? Should I cut them a
: little more slack here?

Hmmm. I have to be honest and admit I have not really paid attention to the questions asked at the ends of other people's reviews, but I would like to think that even social and political questions could be "worldview" questions of some sort. Your point about visual elements is probably something that I, at least, needed to hear, though. Thank you.

I like your wife.

To be sure, I see films as a whole, the same with novels, but I might make reference to a scene in a novel, but it is really hard to do that well in a sermon setting.

Some scenes are perfect for a given passage, e.g. Arthur's debate about what to do about Gwen and Lance in Camelot and Hosea 11. (I have used this in spoken setting, but with a projector now I'd use the film.)

Some are just great visuals that can be fit into a sermon (In Chocolat, Renaud slamming the church door shut that the wind has blown open -- likely in my Pentecost sermon this year.)

One of the reasons I only rarely use clips in preaching is that I want to use something that fits, not just something because I have the capability of using film. I'm also trying to use a bit more visual art in preaching as well.

Mike said:[quote] However, I have this other side of me (which has been dominant) which says such a practice is not a step forward in cinema- or art-literacy for an Evangelical world that already has a terrible history with art and cinema,[/quote] (Maybe I'm exempt since I don't claim the title Evangelical)

[quote]The struggle for me is that I see every film as a multi-faceted work of art, that cannot be boiled down to a single point. I feel odd when I use a clip, then draw a particular point from it because I tend to see much more than simply that point in the scene. …(All of this reminds me of that Kieslowski quote in another thread when he says that if he could sum up what he was trying to say in a sentence, he wouldn't have had to make a film). [/quote] Exactly.

John, your wife sounds like a sharp lady and I’d be loathe to debate her on this. As I said, I’m just now thinking about it for the first time.

[quote] First, how would using a film clip compare to quoting a passage from a book? Is this an apples to oranges kind of thing or is there some real way in which they compare? [/quote] I think it may be apples and oranges. For example, as a writer, I’ve quoted all kinds of things over the years: non-fiction, fiction, plays, poems. And I’ve never felt that oddness – almost guilt, if I read you right – that you’re talking about that comes of playing a clip. Of course, if I quoted too long from the same source, unless it was vital to the point I was trying to make, I’d feel guilty. There’s a sort of an instinctive “Fair Use” law my conscience enforces. I’ve even quoted from movies – but in writing. Words on a page seem to make for a cleaner cut. Fading up and fading down from a scene feels more violent to me, a wrenching from context. Maybe this is purely subjective, and maybe I’d get over it if I ever started using clips in that way.

[quote]... I would like to think that even social and political questions could be "worldview" questions of some sort. Your point about visual elements is probably something that I, at least, needed to hear, though. Thank you.[/quote] Oops. Do you reviewers write those questions? I'd assumed they were editorial additions. Sorry about that. And, yeah, the social-political example might fall in the category of worldview issues. Bad example. I'd have better made my point (about non-worldview questions, or questions related to non-narrative elements of a film) by suggesting that study questions would do well to include historical and formal context, comparing the film at hand to others by the same director or similar films. The point being not to focus too narrowly on the worldview hunting. Wholeness is what I'm after. Which brings me to back to the point about the particular tendencies of Evangelicals: who have not been so good with wholistic engagement with arts and film. Perhaps all things are permissible, but not all things are good for this particular audience. The other thing I was thinking was that for this audience, film has been kept out of the discussion for so long, it just seems funny that it finally gets into the service like a conquered enemy, under the manacles of sermon illustration. If the church is screening whole films for the congregation on Saturday night, the Sunday morning clips might not seem to be reinforcing old bad habits.

[quote] (Maybe I'm exempt since I don't claim the title Evangelical) [/quote] Well as tempted as I am to shed that title, I’ve not yet been convinced another one fits just yet. The prefix “post” seems a stopgap, as it does with whatever this age after Modernity is called. And even if you’re not an Evangelical, I think the problem I describe is endemic to Modernity, and most everybody who has lived most of their life under that paradigm can be affected by it.

[quote]One of the reasons I only rarely use clips in preaching is that I want to use something that fits, not just something because I have the capability of using film. I'm also trying to use a bit more visual art in preaching as well.[/quote] Using a clip for more than just extracting the moral content seems different, if that's what you're saying here. At least my gut is growling less at the idea. (But maybe its because I just ate supper.)

[quote]I like your wife.[/quote] Ah yes, that makes two of us!

[quote]John, your wife sounds like a sharp lady and I’d be loathe to debate her on this. As I said, I’m just now thinking about it for the first time.[/quote] Haha, and how do you think I feel? I have to be in the room with her, and she can be pretty persuasive. She definitely has the superior debate skills of the two of us. Which is so tough when I am right! :wink:

[quote]I think it may be apples and oranges. For example, as a writer, I’ve quoted all kinds of things over the years: non-fiction, fiction, plays, poems. And I’ve never felt that oddness – almost guilt, if I read you right – that you’re talking about that comes of playing a clip. Of course, if I quoted too long from the same source, unless it was vital to the point I was trying to make, I’d feel guilty. There’s a sort of an instinctive “Fair Use” law my conscience enforces. I’ve even quoted from movies – but in writing. Words on a page seem to make for a cleaner cut. Fading up and fading down from a scene feels more violent to me, a wrenching from context. Maybe this is purely subjective, and maybe I’d get over it if I ever started using clips in that way.[/quote] I think guilt is a fair word here. I feel like I'm compromising the work somehow. Though I have to say, in fairness to the wife and her point, that we have played some clips (e.g. the opening scene of The Mission) that have spurred our students to see a film they normally would never have considered. We actually set up an evening soon after playing this clip and watched the film together as a group which led into a pretty intense discussion afterward. If we were to have just said, 'Hey, we're watching The Mission', no one would have come.' So I see some benefit there. But is the benefit worth the consequence that comes with playing the clip in the first place?

[quote]If the church is screening whole films for the congregation on Saturday night, the Sunday morning clips might not seem to be reinforcing old bad habits.[/quote] Or maybe along these lines we simply need to be watching entire films together and working to build good habits into our people, even if we aren't watching whole films in preparation for the clips. I don't know though, I have been struggling with this for some time, and have not until now had any significant conversation on the issue.

mike_h wrote:
: Oops. Do you reviewers write those questions?

Yup, although, as ever, these things can be tweaked by editors.

: I'd have better made my point . . . by suggesting that study questions
: would do well to include historical and formal context, comparing the film
: at hand to others by the same director or similar films.

My hunch is that's the sort of thing that we're supposed to address in the context of the actual review. I THINK the questions are supposed to be more like the sort of things you'd talk about over dinner after seeing the film, things like that -- nothing quite so formal as a "study". And for the average moviegoer (especially the average evangelical moviegoer), comparing and contrasting e.g. Ella Enchanted with Tommy O'Haver's earlier films Get Over It and Billy's First Hollywood Screen Kiss (or whatever that flick is called) might be a little too film-geeky (dare I say a little too "worldly"). I dunno, I share your concerns, yet I think I'm prepared to raise those issues more implicitly, in the body of my review, and to hope that my attention to such things makes the reader ask even more questions along those lines.

: The point being not to focus too narrowly on the worldview hunting.

Heck, I feel weird just trying to come up with the "family corner" stuff -- I am so not used to watching films with an eye towards what may or may not offend parents, let alone evangelical parents. One of my best friends goes to a United Church with her 9-year-old daughter and they are both huge fans of The Ring, and none of my other friends have children old enough to take to movies. The moment when I finish one of my reviews and I suddenly realize I now have to try to recall the potentially "offensive" material in a film is never a comfortable one.

: The other thing I was thinking was that for this audience, film has been
: kept out of the discussion for so long, it just seems funny that it finally
: gets into the service like a conquered enemy, under the manacles of
: sermon illustration.

My word, sir, but you have a way with similes.

Not really got time to respond to Mike's post, which refelects a debate going on in my head at the moment.

However, I got a tip the other day which said that soemtimes rather than showing clips it can work better to use trailers, as they are a reduction of the film which in some ways has the artists approval, which are designed to draw people into the film, but can often summ up the films premise a lot better than one single clip.

Mike,

what do you feel about Yancey-esue method of showing clips from Jesus films when looking at a passage?



Matt

MattPage wrote:
: . . . Joss Ackland, Claire Bloom, Peter France & Eileen Atkins(none of whom I
: knew prior to this) . . .

Really? Ackland and Bloom played Jack and Joy in the original 1980s version of Shadowlands. Ackland also played some evil-ambassador types over a decade ago in Lethal Weapon 2 (an evil South African ambassador!) and The Hunt for Red October (okay, the Russian ambassador was not evil himself, but the empire he represented was!). One of my favorite little movie in-jokes is the fact that Ackland and Anthony Hopkins, the two people who played C.S. Lewis in the two versions of Shadowlands, share a scene together in Surviving Picasso -- Hopkins plays Picasso, Ackland plays Matisse -- and the two characters are discussing whether ART can be a form of PRAYER!