In September, I'm starting a new film column for CT, and cutting way, way back on writing reviews for them.

I'm also beginning a twice-monthly film blog for Image journal.

The latter falls under the heading "Good Letters," the title of Image's blog. But the CT column needs a title.

I've just turned in a long list of possible titles, but it just occurred to me that one of you might have an inspiration.

Thoughts?

The column will be a monthly commentary on trends in contemporary cinema, contemporary film criticism, and movies that are slipping under the box-office radar. A hodge-podge, really. So that leaves the door wide open for good titles.

If your title is chosen, I'll send you one of the following (your choice):

• a WALL-E poster
• a New World poster
• a copy of Through a Screen Darkly
• a copy of Auralia's Colors
• a copy of Cyndere's Midnight

Is "Movieguide" taken? How about "Not Movieguide"?

Okay, but can I call myself "Dr."?

But seriously, the column will highlight the best movies that feature "naturalistic upper male nudity."

Today's Film Talents

Today's Trends in Film

Overstreet's Overview

Overstreet's Opinions

Cinematic Art for Today

Dr. Jeff's Jangle (depending on what you write!)

Celluloid Treats, or Celluloid Testimonies, or Celluloid Tangents, or (CT)



Denny

Offscreen.

Behind the Scenes.

Overviews -- taking part of Denny's but using just the one word. (If I win with that, I'll split the prize with Denny. Can you chop a book in half? )

The title's right under your nose, Jeffrey. Use the title of your first book: Through a Screen Darkly.

Yes, it's self-serving, but each column doesn't have to overtly refer to your book -- except for the title, of course. I think the title works well for a Christian-publication film column, and its biblical allusion is perfect. That the title subtly -- or not so subtly -- reinforces that its author wrote a book of the same title is an added bonus. And when readers Google for your column, they'll also get links to purchase the book. What's not to like?

For my prize, I would like a copy of Through a Screen Darkly.

I second Christian's call.

No prize necessary.

Christian and SDG,

That was the first title I submitted to Mark when I proposed the column a few weeks ago. He wanted to see other ideas, so we'll see what they decide. But yes, that's my #1 idea.

My other favorites, which I submitted yesterday, are "Viewer Discussion Advised" and a third one, but I'll keep that one to myself as it may be the title of the next movie book.

Cinefiles

I'd shoot for simplicity, Overstreet on Film.

Says it all.

I'll take the New World poster, thankyouverymuch.

A Good Film Is Hard to Find... you know, like Flannery O'Connor... only different.

Freeze Frame

Panning for Gold

Film Fare

Sculptures in Time

Other very good ideas:

Motion Scriptures!

The F Word

Love the Cinema, Hate the Sin

I don't know if this is... uh... legal, but ...

I had a brief think about what makes cinema what it is... images projected at 24 frames per second are somehow translated by our brains into thoughts and feelings and, like all art, they allow us to see the world in a little different way. This brought to mind a great documentary on the art of cinematography: Visions of Light.

I like the metaphor. Light is what we are called to be in this dark world, and it's an essential part of the essence of film. So I think a good name for a column about a Christian response to film would be ... Visions of Light. Glimpses of the light of Christ in the sometimes dark world of cinema. I like the Bergman-inspired title also, but that guy was kind of depressing.

Edit: Otherwise something with "lens" or "focus" could be good.

I think if Jeff had a column called Visions of Light, it would distract me. I would keep thinking it was really Roy Anker writing under a pen name. (Capitalized words like "Light" and "Love" are a big part of his writing.)

Love the Cinema, etc., is definitely a fun title!

While my editor LOVED "Love the Cinema, Hate the Sin"...

THROUGH A SCREEN DARKLY it is. He and I decided that none of the other options work better than our original idea (and that was only affirmed by the fact that others came up with and affirmed the same idea).

"Love the Cinema, Hate the Sin" should at least win something...

+1

Well, what's wrong with second best, right?

I only quite recently discovered Jeffrey's film blog, and then Peter Chattaway's, and consequently this forum. As a young, wanna-be cinephile, I'm stoked to jump in here and learn. And I'll be sure to keep tabs on that column, Jeffrey. I'm actually currently applying for a position in a totally unrelated part of CTI. Wish me luck!

Here's the first installment of the new monthly column: Through a Screen Darkly.

Very nice, Jeffrey! One question: Do you think the "Learning Through Subtitles" conclusion is necessary for most of your readers? (The first two paragraphs, not the conclusion mentioning Ben X). As I read it, I thought it was maybe redundant, but that's me, someone who watches subtitled movies all the time, and who would have been thoroughly convinced by the Island summary to see the film (or not).

Alas, I'm afraid so. The majority of the mail that comes into CT Movies makes it pretty clear that our readers mostly watch cineplex fare and whatever's in the top ten at the box office. I don't think there are many CTMovies readers who care much about foreign films...

They make films outside of America?

Yes! There are, for example, the films made in Bollywood, which is a conflation of Hollywood and Bakersfield, which is where most Westerns are made, and ... er ...

No, films are only made in America. And France. If you want to call those films.

But Hollywood isn't really part of America. Unless I happen to like the film in question.

French film should really be called Freedom film, though, right?

The "Learning Through Subtitles" section makes sense, Jeff; I have many, many friends (most in their early 20s) that have no desire to watch anything in subtitles (or black and white, for that matter). It's good to have these kinds of reminders to show people that there's something else out there besides big-budget fare.

Actually, I thought America only made movies, whereas the French make films. And the really good movies (the ones where lots of stuff explodes) are called flicks.

Sigh. That just goes to confirm the stereotype.

Well, presumably they'll watch subtitled movies if the characters are aliens (Star Wars, etc.) or biblical (The Passion of the Christ). The door ought to be ajar, there. Now we just need to push it all the way open.

Or if the movie involves kung fu.

I can see where this forum is going: an agenda to bring intellectual vigor back to the public on faith and so bring every Christian with you. Hmm.

This forum?

Do you mean the whole artsandfaith.com endeavor? Or just this thread?

It certainly wouldn't hurt if Christians exercised their intellects more vigorously in their engagement with art... and I'm pointing the finger at myself as much as anyone. But I don't think anybody here has charted a "mission statement" for this board. And if we declared the agenda you mention, that might seem a little condescending, at best, and arrogant at worst.

Now, on the subject of movies: It's not just the majority of Christians who tend to "aim low" when it comes to engagement with art. It's the majority of our culture... the whole culture. I'd like to see more people discover the riches of art from around the world, not just Christians. For what that's worth.

Annelise's comment made sense... yes, people stereotype Christians as lacking interest in forms of expression that they don't already understand and approve. But that's true of just about any community. It fits the stereotype of human beings, not just Christians.

I'm off on a tangent here, so I hope I didn't misunderstand your post...

Why go to the trouble of learning about foreign films when the good ones will get turned in to American movies? (using the film/movie distinction from earlier in the thread) As PTC notes here.

IMDB also lists an "Untitled Ben X Project". In both cases, I expect the original will be better. The well done rip offs of Kurasawa films are exceptions to this rule, probably because the cultural divide between Japanese and West is fairly significant. Difference between France or Belgium and US isn't quite as wide.

Oh, we have plenty of threads about that.

It's the eternal dilemma. Most of us here would like to encourage Christians to make Really Good Art, and we don't hesitate to offer the Carrot of Praise when that happens. But the Carrot of Praise is not a sufficient incentive unless accompanied by the Stick of Criticism.

Some believe what I'll call Meme A: Art that is Christian should be Above Criticism, even if it is Bad. This leads to Art being Praised because it is Christian, apart from the question of whether it is Good or Bad.

We reject this belief. It is our conviction--Meme B--that Art should be Praised because it is Good, not merely because it is Christian. The corollary is that Art should also be Criticized when it is Bad, even if it is Christian.

When people who hew to Meme A see us putting Meme B into practice, they may Perceive that we Criticize Art because it is Christian. It is part of our responsibility to use the Stick of Criticism justly, so that we may Honestly Refute such Perceptions.

[Edit] Huh? Looks like the post I was replying to has vanished. Wha' happen'?

I'd like to say you might be misunderstand most of the people here. If there is any hard feelings toward films made by Christians, it's because they should be better than they are. Many of us feel that most ghettoized films made for Christians by Christians are the equivalent of overly sentimental Hallmark cards: they're big and fluffy, and really don't say anything. If anything, they're designed to not hurt people's feelings, or not even get close to offending anyone.

But there are plenty of exceptions! There are many talented filmmakers that are believers, but they usually do things outside of the "Christian film industry" (I put it in quotes for lack of a better phrase). Wim Wenders comes to mind, as do the Dardennes brothers. And there are plenty more. I also think there are some films aimed primarily at Christian audiences that are good. I really liked Second Chance, for instance (starring Michael W. Smith!), and — despite some major script flaws — thought The End of the Spear was at least heading in the right direction.

So saying we dismiss all "Christian films" isn't true. We just want Christians to make better films, and to see were God's truth shows up in other films, even if the folks involved don't know Him. (Common grace!)

I second Mando's question: Where did Post #2 go?!

Guess he deleted it. But we have the evidence in quotes, ha!

Hey malfunct, I hope you're still reading. Your impression is a very common one. Some of us encounter such remarks every time we open our e-mail, and they're often not half as politely expressed as yours was. There's no need to be ashamed of having said what you said.

I would love to reply, and I did, until I lost the message when uploading it, so I guess it wasn't meant to be.

However, I deleted the earlier post because I had wanted to be clear on the matters raised, so I guess the long winded reply I was going to post, has been a blessing in disguise since I can be brief and to the point, to summarise in succinct language what I really should say ...

This is, Jeffrey, off the thread my apologies, and congrats on your column, but the work computer doesn't allow me access to start a new thread. Thank you for those who have replied honestly. Be blessed.

My concerns are, in a nutshell: (1) a rejection of our true feelings about sexual, violent, horror, profanity, gore, scenes, which, as Christians, we should feel some reaction, all in the name of contextal arrangements in a film. Can't we process our gut feelings on these without outright rejecting them in the preperation of our review of a film? That's honesty. Or doesn't anyone feel anything negative about these elements?

(2) PTC said:

Well, presumably they'll watch subtitled movies if the characters are aliens (Star Wars, etc.) or biblical (The Passion of the Christ). The door ought to be ajar, there. Now we just need to push it all the way open.

Do you mean changing the climate of Christian film criticism, which has been a movement since 1990, so that your readers will relent and "embrace" (Please, my expression) culture and art wholeheartedly, especially foreign art house cinema? I do believe your are being tounge-in-cheek PTC, for that's really unrealistic, don't you think?
This renanassiance of Christian film criticism will only have a limited appeal, I think, and be heard on the local level (in the universities of the religious sphere and perhaps universities elsewhere).

malfunct wrote:
: Do you mean changing the climate of Christian film criticism, which has been a movement since 1990 . . .

Eh? Why that year specifically? My own first film reviews were published in 1988. And I was delightfully surprised to discover a few years ago that Christianity Today had been running some pretty decent film reviews in its pages as far back as 1973, if not earlier. And I remember browsing the back issues of Sojourners, Campus Life and some other magazine whose name escapes me (something of a more charismatic bent, if I'm not mistaken) when I was at Bible school in '87, looking specifically for their film reviews. And for what it's worth, the first issue of Movieguide I can remember reading was the one with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on the cover, which would date it to 1989. All of this pre-dates 1990, no?

Conversely, the big explosion in Christian film criticism over the past decade or so is largely attributable, I think, to the rise of the internet, which really took off somewhere between the mid- and late 1990s. So that would post-date 1990, no?

: . . . so that your readers will relent and "embrace" (Please, my expression) culture and art wholeheartedly, especially foreign art house cinema? I do believe your are being tounge-in-cheek PTC, for that's really unrealistic, don't you think?

You know the story about the guy who found a starfish on the beach and threw it back into the ocean and said that he had managed to save at least ONE starfish, even if he couldn't save them all?

Sure, I am being partly sarcastic when I say that "average" moviegoers, Christian or otherwise, will embrace a subtitled film so long as it fits certain criteria. But let's face it, the evidence that such films CAN be embraced is THERE. So for those of us who want to persuade our fellow believers that there is merit in subtitled films (or in R-rated films, for that matter), it is helpful to have such obvious examples of subtitled (and R-rated) films that our fellow believers may well have embraced already.

: This renanassiance of Christian film criticism will only have a limited appeal, I think, and be heard on the local level (in the universities of the religious sphere and perhaps universities elsewhere).

Well, if by that you mean that many Christians don't like to think, then yeah, sure, that is true to some degree. (How many years, again, has it been since Mark Noll wrote The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind?) But I still think it is a good thing to encourage people to think, whether about film or about faith in general.

I don't think any of us here on A&F would say that Christians ought to "reject our true feelings" on the things you mentioned simply so that we can understand or enjoy more films. But I do think that, as a whole, we'd like people to think more critically about such things -- which, IMHO, is not the same as endorsing them wholesale.

I know Christians who will ignore or refuse to see a film simply because it's rated "R" and does contain sex and violence, regardless of the actual content, morals, and subject matter of the film -- it's like they're using a checklist of propriety to evaluate the film, and that's all. Such an approach has its uses, to be sure, and they might be acting out of their conscience and convictions, which is great and should be encouraged. The last thing I want is to cause a brother or sister to stumble. But at the same time, I know Christians for whom such a response isn't grounded so much in conviction, but is more akin to a knee-jerk reaction.

On the other hand, I also know Christians who will go out of their way to praise and lift up a film that is filled to the brim with sexual and violent content -- that wears its "R" rating proudly -- because it contains some "Christian" ideals within it, without giving much thought to the potentially objectionable and troubling material it contains.

Both approaches seem less than healthy or ideal to me. And I think that one of the purposes of A&F is to encourage people, hopefully with some humility and respect for people's personal convictions, to move past them into thinking more critically about such things.

I agree with Opus’ concerns but want to add that sometimes Christian reviews are so careful being careful that the content evaluation part is the only standout part of the review. It’s hard to blame Christians who expect only that, when so many of our reviews feed that appetite. I’m guilty of this but try, as I’m sure others do, to write with some degree of balance about other elements that go into a film.

I’ve been thinking of this in light of the beating I’ve taken among my readers for my Tropic Thunder review. As I’ve written in the past, Christian criticism is often simply dull. It conveys little enthusiasm for films, and it fails to address how viewers get caught up in a film, and why they get caught up, beyond particular plot elements that might be considered edifying. I was laughing heartily throughout most of Tropic Thunder and wanted to convey that. Instead, my readers took my comments about the film’s profanity to be dismissive of that element of the film, and condemned me for seeking “the world’s” approval.

That’s a sign that I failed to articulate myself well. Or maybe it’s a sign that there’s no justification for “excusing” (if that’s what I did) offensive material. I think I failed in that review. And yet, it was liberating to write about what I experienced while watching the movie, and why (although this defense is questionable), rather than to write: "Foul language, which is condemned in the Bible, is on abundant display here,” or something like that. I’ve written that before, and I do sometimes think such direct reference is called for. But in sum, I feel like the message from my readers to me was: “Put the straitjacket back on.” I take from that this lesson: I need to do a better job of writing lively material that challenges readers without falling into easy traps that undo those good intentions. I know I don’t want to resort to, “Here’s 10 ways this movie will disappoint you” reviews, which I could write in my sleep.

Christian thought has been involved with film criticism ever since Bazin, who established a climate for writing about film that various Christians have been taking advantage of ever since. PTC is right to point out that the "recent" explosion of film criticism is due to the internet. So we didn't see a renaissance of criticism in the 90's, we saw a proliferation of Christian criticism on the internet from people who were simply passionate about film writing. Otherwise, serious Christian film criticism has been consistently published in print for decades.

Check the bibliographies in the following for a history of the discipline:
Clive Marsh and Gaye W. Ortiz, eds., Explorations in Theology and Film: Movies and Meaning
Jolyon Mitchell and S. Brent Plate, eds., The Religion and Film Reader
Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue

These magazines have been printing film criticism for a long time:
Books and Culture, Christian Century, Christianity Today, Sojourners, etc... Peter's blog post on this is really interesting, he even references a Martin Marty review from the 60's.

As far as the appeal for "Christian" criticism is concerned, it covers a wide range of territory. I annually attend conferences at which pretty heady papers are read about theology and film criticism, such work trickles out into all sorts of popular level books and articles. I also see online magazines gaining greater success with readerships spanning Paste to CT Movies. And as this is not limited to America, I should mention the output of Masters of Cinema, Deus X in Iceland, and the Centre for the Study of Bible in Theology and Culture in Denmark, and the theology and film studies centre in Edinburgh.

This is theology: The Lord means God is transcendent in other words above and beyond the universe, of the spiritual realm, thus God is revealed as the Lord, Lord meaning the head, the master, to which all men and women are under. Amongst the idols of other lands, the Lord is set apart as the Most High God, and "men called upon His name"; the idols are lifeless and the Lord is the living God. The number one problem in Scripture is idolatry which draws people away from the Lord and into sin and rebellion against the Lord. This is due to the curse on life after Adam and Eve's fall in the Garden of Eden which continues to impart on people its various effects of sin and brokenness of human completeness. Transcendence also means transcending this state through salvation – a fuller humanity through Jesus Christ as well as rational methods if needed and appropriate. God is a God of transcendence. I like that theme, humanly speaking, and how it humanly relates in movies. Some call this the inspirational drama but it is also in "Schindler's List" to some degree.

Critical Christian film criticism starts with human-orientation as every Hollywood movie is character-driven down to its spine (read Robert McKee's screenwriting guide "Story").

God is above and beyond (which, by the way, is a title – "Above and Beyond" - of a 1952 film; look up your movie guides please and seek it out at DVD or video stores).Therefore, you cannot bring the Lord down to a human-orientated story if you intend on using theology in film if theology is from God's perspective meaning we read the Bible primarily with an eye to God's positioning in the text. Otherwise, like in Hollywood biblical epic "Samson and Delilah", we are left with a human-orientated story from Samson's perspective but we must draw our understanding about God (theology) from how the Lord is interacting and "poising". How many movies do that? None, perhaps a few at least.

Few movies are really theological if any. If you try to bridge theology into a movie review you inevitably fit theology into a human-orientated story as it is critiqued. So, biblical theology and movies is redundant unless truly theological in the sense of the Lord as the main character, such as in the Bible, and in a Bible story with the Lord's perspective, the Lord as present, active, or mentioned in some way.

Theology is especially relevant in film when it deals with broader aspects of divinity and the supernatural not Christian which is abundant in cinema. Notice how 'God' is mentioned more than the Lord in dialogue. Even the demons tremble at the name of God. 'God' can refer to any religion but the Lord is distinct and the one true Lord. To the contrary of biblical theology, the name of Jesus is often blasphemed in movies but the name of 'God' is regularly referenced.

So this is a Christian's intellectual starting point when viewing and approaching movies. I leave this with you all:

The Lord is a reality and so is His revelation to men and women. The common ground a Christian believer has with movies is in how they reflect life as we and the world are left in a climate of sin, spiritual incompleteness (maybe soulish incompleteness, but there are other remedies that deal with the soul too) without Jesus Christ, how we interact in our relationships, and how life can spin curve balls from a human standpoint. There are varieties of interaction when we deal with the vagaries of life itself which in movies truly belongs in the human realm.

In the issue of relationships (the challenging love they neighbor) the Bible clearly addresses with specific boundaries which don't need a critical evaluation unless you are debating the Bible's authority. Here is where a Christian reviewer could decide on how an act of inhumanness is treated but it is still inhumanness and I am a human being watching inhumanness. Could it be an act of sin? The problem of idolatry?

The evidence is already there that movies do the following and this is my observation of how movies generally function: Movies philosophize (or more intently provide political, social or religious idealogues) on life from minds of men and women and so they intellectualize life as well as observe and judge it with value-placements. They could serve as reminders of life's incompleteness while seeking a better place because the artist could make a value judgment rendering life is incomplete without it or they merely record from reality the effects of life.

Critical intellectualism in a review could serve to make the realities of the world intelligible or draw us further away from reality into a game of the mind.

It's a human lot, film. Very rarely does biblical theology enter the equation and if so it is usually from the character's perspective (including in other expressions of divinity, religion, the supernatural), which in terms of faith is always the starting point in someone turning to the Lord for help, or as a point of view of ridicule, questioning, uncertainty, etc, but once God gets through to someone and you follow the Lord you might notice that biblical theology changes the perspective into the Lord's and before Him we are very weak, vulnerable and oh so human in the privacy of our souls. Then God strengthens us, changes the heart.

Most movies reveal incompleteness, perhaps unknowingly, as a naturalistic recording but hardly in God reaching out to incomplete mankind. In movies men may occasionally seek God or think of God (whoever that is the movie); in the Bible the Lord seeks men.

So, there is a big theological, possibly moral, difference between movies and Christian faith. (I find I can only honestly relate to a movie on the human level which is frustrating because I had liked to think, wrongly, that there was more Lord in movie when there really isn't so I am left with art itself and art tends to flow from recording and observation of life which the reviewer assesses as helpful, accurate, challenging and why, honest, inhuman, human, unnecessary, integral, wasteful etc. In my life I know the Lord is good, not many, if any, mainstream movies draw this out).

first off Jeffrey a belated Congratz on the column at CT! and also at Image as well, very cool.

and secondly welcome aboard, Malfunct u bring up some thoughtful points... in charity I'd like to share the following, as your posts here reminded me of some (ahem) ok alot of sentances written once by one of my favorite poets and playwrites whose own life inspired a few movies.

Malfunct said: " So, there is a big theological, possibly moral, difference between movies and Christian faith."

"Believers find nothing strange in this: they know that they have had a momentary glimpse of the abyss of light which has its original wellspring in God. Is it in any way surprising that this leaves the spirit overwhelmed as it were, so that it can only stammer in reply? True artists above all are ready to acknowledge their limits and to make their own the words of the Apostle Paul, according to whom “God does not dwell in shrines made by human hands” so that “we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold or silver or stone, a representation by human art and imagination” (Acts 17:24, 29). If the intimate reality of things is always “beyond” the powers of human perception, how much more so is God in the depths of his unfathomable mystery!"

The knowledge conferred by faith is of a different kind: it presupposes a personal encounter with God in Jesus Christ. Yet this knowledge too can be enriched by artistic intuition.

Every genuine art form in its own way is a path to the inmost reality of man and of the world. It is therefore a wholly valid approach to the realm of faith, which gives human experience its ultimate meaning. That is why the Gospel's fullness of truth was bound from the beginning to stir the interest of artists, who by their very nature are alert to every “epiphany” of the inner beauty of things.

Mine is an invitation to rediscover the depth of the spiritual and religious dimension which has been typical of art in its noblest forms in every age. It is with this in mind that I appeal to you, artists of the written and spoken word, of the theatre and music, of the plastic arts and the most recent technologies in the field of communication(italics mine). I appeal especially to you, Christian artists: I wish to remind each of you that, beyond functional considerations, the close alliance that has always existed between the Gospel and art means that you are invited to use your creative intuition to enter into the heart of the mystery of the Incarnate God and at the same time into the mystery of man.

Human beings, in a certain sense, are unknown to themselves. Jesus Christ not only reveals God, but “fully reveals man to man”.(23) In Christ, God has reconciled the world to himself. All believers are called to bear witness to this; but it is up to you, men and women who have given your lives to art, to declare with all the wealth of your ingenuity that in Christ the world is redeemed: the human person is redeemed, the human body is redeemed, and the whole creation which, according to Saint Paul, “awaits impatiently the revelation of the children of God” (Rom 8:19), is redeemed. The creation awaits the revelation of the children of God also through art and in art. This is your task. Humanity in every age, and even today, looks to works of art to shed light upon its path and its destiny.'



Pretty heady and heart-full stuff there. i get charged up so just reading it and i hope in charity as the good book says it helps. I think these paragraphs say it best don't you? those paragraphs are from Karol Józef Wojtyla , of Poland he was an actor, a poet, and a playwrite and a professor of theology and philosophy too,,, truly amazing but even more so he descided to serve the Lord and become a priest... a life eventually known to the world as Pope John Paul II, plz dont disqualify or try to invalidate these paragraphs due to its Catholic take and a differing theology. History hasn't. oh and thanks for having the patience of Job and have gotten this far, these are but a few excerpts from a Letter to Artists that he wrote in 1999.

Would somebody please find a place to break this thread, since we departed from the topic a long time ago?