I don't know about others, but I have a hard time taking reviews seriously when they come with discussion questions. This seems to be a popular practice among Christian review sites online... but why? They remind me of terrible Bible-study curricula. The kind that thinks the most insightful question that can be asked about any given epistle is "From where was Paul writing?"

I'm being a little harsh. This is just something that's bugged me ever since I started reading Christian movie reviews. I know it's no one's decision here whether or not these get attached to their reviews, but what do you all think of the practice? Why did it start? Do Christians have some odd desire to be guided in questioning the things they read? Is it a helpful practice, or is it redundant as the questions should be expressed by the review itself? Why don't secular movie critics include discussion questions? How do the purposes of Christian critics differ in ways that would make discussion questions necessary?

Wouldn't you love to see these discussion questions at the bottom of a movie review somewhere?

I think in a lot of earlier cases the questions were one of two things: they were well-meaning Socratic devices that tried to teach Christians how to think about movies, or they were the natural by-product of Christian reviewers falling back into the familiar Bible study discussion group routine because that is the path of least resistance. (And to be fair, these are the kinds of question that come out in film discussion groups anyway - so they aren't always unnatural or even unwelcome.)

As you point out, in a lot of recent cases the questions seem like a marketing ploy designed to make people think a review is just like all those small group bible studies they have been involved with. It makes reviews more acceptable even when dealing with films of questionable moral content. Since so many Christians are used to a few pages of text followed by a number of questions designed to foster group interaction, reviews that mimic this learning process are easier to digest. The content of some outlets' questions implies that they use this strategy, and it gets annoying. The goal of criticism is to enable us to think on our own two feet. Some outlets could give its writers a few hundred more words to lead readers to important questions more naturally.

And this is not to say I don't like bible study group booklets, I actually like them a lot.

It depends on the questions themselves. Surely secular film studies classes pose discussion questions?

I do think that approaching films as if they were packaged Bible studies can lead to awkward questions. (E.G., "How is Jesus the TRUE 'Iron Man'?") But as someone who's conducted inumerable film discussions, having a few questions up my sleeve to get discussion going can be helpful.

I think where it really doesn't belong is when the discussion is merely academic. If questions reduce films to 'teachable moments', you might lose both teachability and the moment itself. For some reason, the stories of people standing up to deliver a message at the conclusion of The Passion of the Christ come to mind. Some films are such powerful experiences that immediately leaping into structured, question-driven discussion just isn't appropriate and elevates dissection at the cost of cinema. Sometimes you just need to say "wow" over a cup of coffee. Sometimes you need immediately to share and discuss a powerful experience.

It depends on the questions. For example, a study question for Iron Man such as "How does the film reveal Tony Stark's need for Jesus?" might be a bit shallow. But a question that asked "What are some ways that Tony Stark fails to find meaning in his life?" or "How does Tony Stark ultimately find meaning?" might be more appropriate.

It depends on the audience. If someone at Flickerings asked the need-for-Jesus question, I think it would lead to a great discussion. But using that same question in a high-school group with lots of non-believers would be just Strange (cough).

Best discussion question in the thread so far.

theoddone33 wrote:
: Do Christians have some odd desire to be guided in questioning the things they read?

FWIW, I take it as a positive sign that Christians want to be ENGAGED with a film and the issues it raises, rather than simply passive consumers of cinema. It can be frustrating, though, sometimes, when you're reviewing a really dumb or shallow movie and you have to come up with questions to make people Think More Deeply about that film.

: Is it a helpful practice, or is it redundant as the questions should be expressed by the review itself?

Interesting question. I know it's happened once or twice that an editor has asked me to rewrite a review to include some aspect of the film that I alluded to in the questions but didn't spell out quite so explicitly in the main review. There is certainly a temptation to regard the questions as the section where you get to talk about the "other stuff" that you didn't make time for in the review itself.

I guess that they do. This particular set makes me quite sad. I always feel like discussion questions that merely rehash basic plot points are a bit insulting to the reader's intelligence... but I guess a quick perusal through IMDB's comment section might reveal that a lot of people miss these things.

I guess I wonder if attaching discussion questions to a review makes sense. What's the review trying to achieve that's enhanced by the addition of discussion questions? Do they occasionally end up being used as an apology of sorts? "I know that this film contains swearing, sex, and violence with which you may not be comfortable, but here's how watching it can help your walk with God."

I don't really disagree with a lot of what's been posted here. The usefulness of the questions depends on how well they're constructed and how the reader uses them. I'm interested more in the actual practice... possibly because I've seen it not just in one place, but on multiple Christian review sites. Are the reviews written with the intent that they could be used as part of a film discussion group? Should they be?

I understand that significant differences in the target audiences is going to mean that movie reviews in Christian publications have some marked differences from reviews in secular publications. I just think it's an interesting discussion because this particular difference is one that was really unexpected for me when I first started reading Christian reviews.

If they went away, would we occasionally lose interesting insights on the films in question? Peter's anecdote suggests that the act of creating the questions can point out a facet of the film that's unexplored in the review. Hmm... this is starting to make me wish that readers used the comment sections after each review for discussing the questions raised by the film (whether or not they're asked by the review), rather than for trashing the reviewers or film content.

I think Christians generally prefer exposition, which is why Christians have never really been at ease with humor with any kind of edge or layered meaning to it. Questions are the do-it-at-home kit following the review. (And these are nothing. I was once in a Christian band that had overhead transparencies of their lyrics while performing, and these weren't worship songs. We had to MAKE SURE EVERYONE GOT IT.)

Those Fellini questions are pretty "flat" and strike me as the kind of thing I might see in a (fairly boring) high-school class. (The phrase "essay questions" is a giveaway, perhaps?). Asking things like "What happened..." strike me as designed to ensure that teenagers don't slack off, so they CAN serve the purpose of making sure that the audience is paying attention. But you might as well ask "What color scarf was the heroine wearing by the river?" I'm glad I work with grown ups.

: But you might as well ask "What color scarf was the heroine wearing by the river?".

Isn't La Strada in black and white?


Matt

It's a Zen question, then...ponder the color of a colorless scarf...

ZEN??? And I thought this was a CHRISTIAN site ;0)
Uh...

I find questions at the end of reviews a strange concept. While I appreciate good questions, what happens if the review was negative? If the reviewer decided the film wasn't worth our time, why should there be questions at the end? Then again, unless you are on a Web site specifically designed for the discussion of such things, there may not be a better place to include questions...

I think the Ratatouille principle applies here. Even bad art can be more worthwhile than the reviews designating it so. Sometimes you find the marshmallow on the cow pattie, sometimes lesser films nevertheless deal with issues in profound ways (e.g. Phone Booth) which can stimulate broader discussion of the world in which we live.

Great thread.

At cinema in focus we added questions after about 9 years because one of our readers said that since our purpose was to increase thoughtful analysis of a film it would be helpful if we added questions at the end. It is interesting to me that even our secular outlets - where we tell them they don't need to publish the questions - always use the questions. I have had mixed feelings about the questions but have had so many people write and thank us for them that I've become more comfortable with their purpose.

So, that being said - I would find it interesting to have response to some questions and get some feedback.

Let me give our two most recent review questions. How can I make them better?

RELIGULOUS

Discussion:
1. The first verse of the first Psalm explains the progression from walking with the wicked, to standing with sinners and finally sitting with those who mock people trying to do good. The author says: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.” Why do you think mocking is more destructive than being wicked or sinful?

2. When Maher ridicules the beliefs of the people he is interviewing who believe the biblical accounts, many of the people explain that you have to believe that a miracle is possible. Maher says he does not. Do you believe that a miracle is possible? Why or why not?

3. Though Maher is against religion, it is clear from the way he speaks to the Christians that he admires Jesus. Do you only admire Jesus or do you follow him? What is the difference in your understanding? What a difference has that choice made in your own life?

BOB DYLAN'S JESUS YEARS: Busy Being Born ... Again

Discussion:
1. It is implied by at least one of the people interviewed that Dylan was simply trying to reach a new group of consumers with his Jesus albums. Do you believe this is all that Dylan was doing? Why or why not?

2. The fact that Joel Selvin would change his review of both Dylan and his albums done during the “Jesus years” and be more sympathetic reveals a shift in perspective. Why do you think Joel has become more open to Dylan’s Christian albums?

3. The description Al Kasha gives of spending hours with Dylan discussing the Bible implies that he was a true seeker. Do you believe Dylan was a true seeker? Why or why not?

Denny