Full Version: Attention Folks wth Film Websites
That's right. My students have been given the annual Film Approach Analysis Assignment. They must visit five Christian filmwebsites and decide which of the Johnston approch(es) to film you use. (AVOIDANCE-CAUTION-DIALOGUE-APPROPRIATION-DIVINE ENCOUNTER) I'll pass along any interesting comments.
> gulp <
Alan, actually I used your site as an example and walked through it with them. (You may notice a jump in your visitors number) They concluded that you generally fit nto the Appropriation category - which means roughly that you use film to inform and refine your theology. But that you might be seen secondarily as a Dialogue website. That uses film as a catalyst to inspire discussion about theology.
Your links page was helpful to me. Although I had to add some unsavory (eh...hem Baehrish websites) to give them some variety in approaches.
Your links page was helpful to me. Although I had to add some unsavory (eh...hem Baehrish websites) to give them some variety in approaches.
| QUOTE |
| They concluded that you generally fit nto the Appropriation category - which means roughly that you use film to inform and refine your theology. But that you might be seen secondarily as a Dialogue website. That uses film as a catalyst to inspire discussion about theology. |
Yikes. I had thought I was a Dialogue type, as I would have understood that term, but the idea of "using film as a catalyst to inspire discussion about theology" leaves me distinctly cold. And I like even less the definition of Appropriation, "using film to inform and refine my theology."
What I think of myself as doing is using theology to inform and refine my approach to film, approaching and engaging film from the perspective of faith, illumined by divine revelation.
Perhaps my perspective is simply contrary to Johnson's taxonomy?
| QUOTE (SDG @ Sep 10 2004, 10:26 AM) | ||
Yikes. I had thought I was a Dialogue type, as I would have understood that term, but the idea of "using film as a catalyst to inspire discussion about theology" leaves me distinctly cold. And I like even less the definition of Appropriation, "using film to inform and refine my theology." What I think of myself as doing is using theology to inform and refine my approach to film, approaching and engaging film from the perspective of faith, illumined by divine revelation. Perhaps my perspective is simply contrary to Johnson's taxonomy? |
SDG
One of my students said your site was a bit of an anomoly. Though she split you between Caution and Appropriation. Since you note that films can both enlighten and harm one's theology depending on their content.
Don't let the Appropriation thing scare you, it does not equate film with scripture, it merely implies we can learn and grow from film, and we seek to do so.
| QUOTE |
| One of my students said your site was a bit of an anomoly. |
| QUOTE |
| Though she split you between Caution and Appropriation. Since you note that films can both enlighten and harm one's theology depending on their content. |
See, this is what I don't get about Johnson. His terminology seems to me to connote not so much different approaches to Film per se, as different approaches that are variously appropriate for different films.
I mean, in my book, watching Diary of a Country Priest or A Man for All Seasons is a Divine Encounter. And I certainly wouldn't hesitate to Appropriate whatever I could from, say, Treasure of the Sierra Madre or Citizen Kane. For Dialogue, give me the likes of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or I'm Going Home any day of the week.
But I'm also perfectly capable of exercising Caution where I feel it's necessary, say, in the case of a Gangs of New York or a Mumford. And certainly it's no surprise to anyone here that when it comes to certain films, say Man on Fire or Half Past Dead, my stance is total Avoidance.
So I haven't yet glommed to the usefulness of these categories as a taxonomy of overall approaches to film as such, as opposed to ways of approaching specific films. Yes, I realize that "avoidance" or "caution" might be as far as some people ever get, and so in that sense one might say that someone's approach is AT MOST a Dialogue approach or an Appropriation approach.
But can there be anyone who thinks that Caution is NEVER warranted, who feels that EVERY film can equally be approached as a Divine Encounter? Even pornography? Even snuff films? Even granting that it's perfectly possible to "find Jesus" or to have some sort of meaningful religious experience while watching a porn film or a snuff film, and that in that sense ANYTHING can be the occasion of a Divine Encounter, from mainlining heroin to committing adultery or murder to getting hit by a bus, even so Caution and Avoidance are obviously still mandated in connection with some of these experiences.
I can even acknowledge that a film that I regard as a slam-dunk Avoidance-worthy film, other responsible Christian cinephiles may sincerely approach as a Divine Encounter (Exhibit A). But I don't see how anyone can not strike a stance of Caution or Avoidance from time to time.
All of this is of course so patently self-evident that I've always taken it it for granted that Johnson is talking about something else, and that I have yet to glom to what he's trying to do.
Now, though, you tell me that your student finds me an "anomoly" and splits me between Caution and Appropriation because I "note that films can both enlighten and harm." ISN'T THAT OBVIOUS? Don't all of us here recognize that? How the heck does that make me an anomoly?
My only question is why she stopped at Caution and Appropriation, instead of splitting me all the way from Avoidance to Divine Encounter.
Either way, it was fun to lay all of this out.
Johnston's the first to say we don't have to be hemmed into one approach. The biggest dvision he makes is between the first two (Avoidance and Caution), which he believes looks at films through a lens of theology, only allowing in that which preconceived notions will allow passage. But the latter three allow the film to take in the viewer to take in the film completely, then later, apply theological implications to where the film brought them.
I think, but I'll have to read the chapter agian the appraoch may have to do with the goals of a film watcher. What are they hoping to walk away with from a film? Perhaps.
| QUOTE (DanBuck @ Sep 10 2004, 11:41 AM) |
| I think, but I'll have to read the chapter agian the appraoch may have to do with the goals of a film watcher. What are they hoping to walk away with from a film? Perhaps. |
Anyone who habitually sits down to watch a film with the goal of having a Divine Encounter (I mean, in any sense beyond that in which brushing one's teeth is a divine encounter) is either going to be seriously disappointed on a consistent basis or else they're going to have to regularly go well beyond critical engagement into free association or homiletic-style spiritual springboarding or something.
When you sit down to watch a film about which you know nothing, presumably the best stance is receptivity -- willingness to find whatever is there, whether it can be appropriated or whether it warrants caution, or, in rare cases, whether it may even be an occasion of divine encounter or an instance of something to be avoided entirely.
On Johnson's scale, the closest thing to that I can find is Dialogue.
In preparing for my class (starting tomorrow), I think there is a place for each of Johnston's approaches, depending on the film--even avoidance. There are some films (porn, for instance) for which avoidance is entirely appropriate. There are some films (for me, Babette's Feast comes to mind) that would constitute divine encounter. Also, Johnston cites Paul's Mars Hill experience as an example of dialogue--but Paul himself appropriates extra-Biblical principles (ex: Acts 17:28; 1 Co 15:33, etc.). That would seem to put Paul in both the 'dialogue' and 'appropriation' camps himself.
So, Alan, do you think there's any value in Johnson's categories as a taxonomy of approaches to Film per se?
! We get to talk about film at last !!
Yes, I think they are very valuable and plan to use them in my class. They do, however, seem self-evident and can be used as a spectrum for just about anyone approaching anything. However, I see them as appropriate as a general categorization, with significant variance on a per-film basis.
In fact, I was thinking they compare to your "Moral and Spiritual Value" scale...
Yes, I think they are very valuable and plan to use them in my class. They do, however, seem self-evident and can be used as a spectrum for just about anyone approaching anything. However, I see them as appropriate as a general categorization, with significant variance on a per-film basis.
In fact, I was thinking they compare to your "Moral and Spiritual Value" scale...
| CODE |
+2 "A Feast for the Spirit" = Divine Encounter +1 "Positive" = Appropriation 0 "Basically Harmless" = Dialogue -1 "Problematic" = Caution -2 "Poison" = Avoidance |
There are deeper correlations as well, taking into account that (using your scale), the artistic and entertainment value of "poison" films would be irrelevant to the overal recommendability, etc.
...so then you agree with me, Alan, in seeing Johnson's scale as more evocative of a range of approaches to different films than as as a taxonomy of approaches to Film per se. So, like me, you wouldn't tend to use this scale as a way of classifying an individual regarding his approach to Film in general, but rather as a way of classifying an individual's reaction to this or that film.
We agree, then. But my sense is that Johnson means to offer a taxonomy of attitudes toward Film per se. In other words, some people are Divine Encounter people, others are Appropriation people, still others are Dialogue people, and so on. Even if as Dan says Johnson doesn't lock people into only one approach, still one's approach is supposed to be, in Johnson's view as I understand it, predominantly characterized as a matter of personal predilection by one or another of these "approaches."
Which I think is a massive confusion of the most elementary sort. At least, either I'm still really, really confused about what Johnson means, or else Johnson is really, really confused about how to approach film.
Since Johnson has written a book on film and that book has met with some success, I've always figured that he's given the matter more attention and thought than I've given his book or his theory, and so my default assumption has always been that it was more likely that I was confused about what he meant than that he was so confused about how to approach film. (Certainly I'm nowhere near ready to write a book on the subject of Johnson's confusion.)
But the longer this thread goes on and no one corrects my presumptive misunderstanding, or explains to me what Johnson was really about, the more I begin to wonder if I'm really the confused one after all.
Of course I could always go and pick up his book again....
We agree, then. But my sense is that Johnson means to offer a taxonomy of attitudes toward Film per se. In other words, some people are Divine Encounter people, others are Appropriation people, still others are Dialogue people, and so on. Even if as Dan says Johnson doesn't lock people into only one approach, still one's approach is supposed to be, in Johnson's view as I understand it, predominantly characterized as a matter of personal predilection by one or another of these "approaches."
Which I think is a massive confusion of the most elementary sort. At least, either I'm still really, really confused about what Johnson means, or else Johnson is really, really confused about how to approach film.
Since Johnson has written a book on film and that book has met with some success, I've always figured that he's given the matter more attention and thought than I've given his book or his theory, and so my default assumption has always been that it was more likely that I was confused about what he meant than that he was so confused about how to approach film. (Certainly I'm nowhere near ready to write a book on the subject of Johnson's confusion.)
But the longer this thread goes on and no one corrects my presumptive misunderstanding, or explains to me what Johnson was really about, the more I begin to wonder if I'm really the confused one after all.
Of course I could always go and pick up his book again....
Yes, we do agree ... but I also think it's possible to understand Johnston (there's a T in there) as describe the general / default approach towards film. However, I think the approach one takes towards individual films trumps the general approach.
I'm sorry. So far I haven't been very clear about what I'm trying to say.
My impression of Johnston's theory (thanks) is that HE is attempting a taxonomy of general / default approaches to cinema per se.
My impression of his proposed categories is that it is remarkably inapplicable for this purpose. Rather, his categories could more appropriately be applied to appropriate responses to individual films (but I don't think that's what he was TRYING to do in fact).
I have a hard time imagining anyone of any aesthetic awareness having a default approach to cinema in general that could be characterized with words like Appropriation or Divine Encounter. It would be like having a default approach of Appropriation to Literature. How can you pick up every book you lay your hands on with a default intention or expectation of being able to Appropriate it? Don't you have to see what it is first, and then decide whether it can be appropriated, or whether it warrants caution, etc? I am really baffled by Johnston's approach.
My impression of Johnston's theory (thanks) is that HE is attempting a taxonomy of general / default approaches to cinema per se.
My impression of his proposed categories is that it is remarkably inapplicable for this purpose. Rather, his categories could more appropriately be applied to appropriate responses to individual films (but I don't think that's what he was TRYING to do in fact).
I have a hard time imagining anyone of any aesthetic awareness having a default approach to cinema in general that could be characterized with words like Appropriation or Divine Encounter. It would be like having a default approach of Appropriation to Literature. How can you pick up every book you lay your hands on with a default intention or expectation of being able to Appropriate it? Don't you have to see what it is first, and then decide whether it can be appropriated, or whether it warrants caution, etc? I am really baffled by Johnston's approach.
Gotcha. That is a valid objection, and perhaps my use of "default" is too specific or binding.
I think some people do have a "general" approach to movies that is more or less along a scale, if not Johnston's scale. For example, I have read comments from both J. Robert and Stef about a "worship experience" at a film. (At least one of these was referring to Ordet IIRC.) Certainly many people had that response to The Passion of the Christ.
Does that mean their approaches are "Divine Encounter" for all films? Of course not--but it might mean that some of them are more open to the idea that, say, I am. On the other hand, a more traditional fundamentalist attitude would be "avoidance"--a basic refutation of film in any form.
As with many non-scientific taxonomies, the tighter you apply it, the less useful it becomes, perhaps nowhere moreso than in the arts. The Johnston scale has been useful to me (as I have appropriated it), as a Christian educator, in trying to meet and understand where individual believers are and what assumptions may be involved. That's as far as I take it, really. From there on, it's on a film-by-film basis only.
Another use for it is as a bridge out of narrow-mindedness. Most of the church, especially the evangelical protestant church, is still stuck in an Enlightenment, overly rationalistic, mindset. The J. Evands Pritchard approach to the arts, if you like. If a system like Johnston's can help folks understand and begin to dialog with culture in a meaningful way, then it will have served its purpose.
I think some people do have a "general" approach to movies that is more or less along a scale, if not Johnston's scale. For example, I have read comments from both J. Robert and Stef about a "worship experience" at a film. (At least one of these was referring to Ordet IIRC.) Certainly many people had that response to The Passion of the Christ.
Does that mean their approaches are "Divine Encounter" for all films? Of course not--but it might mean that some of them are more open to the idea that, say, I am. On the other hand, a more traditional fundamentalist attitude would be "avoidance"--a basic refutation of film in any form.
As with many non-scientific taxonomies, the tighter you apply it, the less useful it becomes, perhaps nowhere moreso than in the arts. The Johnston scale has been useful to me (as I have appropriated it), as a Christian educator, in trying to meet and understand where individual believers are and what assumptions may be involved. That's as far as I take it, really. From there on, it's on a film-by-film basis only.
Another use for it is as a bridge out of narrow-mindedness. Most of the church, especially the evangelical protestant church, is still stuck in an Enlightenment, overly rationalistic, mindset. The J. Evands Pritchard approach to the arts, if you like. If a system like Johnston's can help folks understand and begin to dialog with culture in a meaningful way, then it will have served its purpose.
Johnston attributes his approaches to a tinkering of the ideas put forward by Neibuhr in his classic Christ and Culture. Which is definately a book which describes people's predispositions to culture and how they interact with it.
for what it's worth. I'll try to transpose some key elements from the chapter here when I'm near a copy.
for what it's worth. I'll try to transpose some key elements from the chapter here when I'm near a copy.
Ah, thanks, Dan--that's one of those books on my 'to read' list--one of those I never seem to get to. I guess I really should!
Darrel Manson and I will be eagerly anticipating their $0.02 on our work at HJ. Keep us posted...
Re: SDG's concerns and DanBuck's response, here is what Johnston himself says (pp. 41, 59-60):
Although these approaches developed more or less chronologically over the last seventy-five years or so, one can still find good contemporary representatives of all five of these types of theologian/critic. Moreover, as each approach is more a type than a firm category, some theologians have adopted over time multiple perspectives, while others have proven somewhat eclectic in their approach. Despite this fluidity, these options are nonetheless identifiable. . . .
Those familiar with H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture will note the similarities between the model presented above and that of Niebuhr. One might, in fact, see the preceding discussion as an application of Niebuhr's classic typology to the medium of film, film being one particular cultural expression. . . .
That I have wrongly pigeonholed critics by placing them in rigid categories while they actually are more fluid in their approach is possible; but typologies are artificial constructs built to help sort out critical options. It is clearly the case that a given theologian/critic might adopt several different approaches to the conversation between movies and theology depending on the film in view or the audience addressed. . . . We can be eclectic about critical methodology and still find it useful to develop constructs for understanding how we proceed.
So Johnston recognizes a degree of fluidity, but he doesn't quite come out and say specifically that he BASES his typology on Niebuhr.
Although these approaches developed more or less chronologically over the last seventy-five years or so, one can still find good contemporary representatives of all five of these types of theologian/critic. Moreover, as each approach is more a type than a firm category, some theologians have adopted over time multiple perspectives, while others have proven somewhat eclectic in their approach. Despite this fluidity, these options are nonetheless identifiable. . . .
Those familiar with H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture will note the similarities between the model presented above and that of Niebuhr. One might, in fact, see the preceding discussion as an application of Niebuhr's classic typology to the medium of film, film being one particular cultural expression. . . .
That I have wrongly pigeonholed critics by placing them in rigid categories while they actually are more fluid in their approach is possible; but typologies are artificial constructs built to help sort out critical options. It is clearly the case that a given theologian/critic might adopt several different approaches to the conversation between movies and theology depending on the film in view or the audience addressed. . . . We can be eclectic about critical methodology and still find it useful to develop constructs for understanding how we proceed.
So Johnston recognizes a degree of fluidity, but he doesn't quite come out and say specifically that he BASES his typology on Niebuhr.
Yeah. Okay, well, I now officially think the whole thing is weird and bizarre. I can't even begin to imagine setting out to "sort out the critical options" and coming up with this list.
"Appropriation" is not the name of a critical option in approaching cinema per se. It is the name of a response that will be applicable to some films and decidedly inapplicable to others.
"Fluidity" is not a helpful concept here. One might as well set out to characterize scientists on a spectrum from "affirmation" to "denial," and then admit to some "fluidity" to account for a "denial" scientist acknowledging the second law of thermodynamics or an "affirmation" scientist denying geocentrism.
Surely scientific method includes both affirmation (of truth) and denial (of falsehood), and a moral-critical approach to the arts runs the gamut at least from caution to appropriation, if not from avoidance to divine encounter, depending on the work in question.
So I don't get the value of setting out to pigeonhole critics or critical approaches, rightly or wrongly, rigidly or fluidly, on this scale.
"Appropriation" is not the name of a critical option in approaching cinema per se. It is the name of a response that will be applicable to some films and decidedly inapplicable to others.
"Fluidity" is not a helpful concept here. One might as well set out to characterize scientists on a spectrum from "affirmation" to "denial," and then admit to some "fluidity" to account for a "denial" scientist acknowledging the second law of thermodynamics or an "affirmation" scientist denying geocentrism.
Surely scientific method includes both affirmation (of truth) and denial (of falsehood), and a moral-critical approach to the arts runs the gamut at least from caution to appropriation, if not from avoidance to divine encounter, depending on the work in question.
So I don't get the value of setting out to pigeonhole critics or critical approaches, rightly or wrongly, rigidly or fluidly, on this scale.
Thinking about this more, I'd say the TRUE meanings of the approaches have to do with what a viewer hopes to take out of a film. I generally go into film at his appropriation level - ready to add, amend, affirm or negate portions of my views of god, the world and myself. Not all films acheive that, but I'm ready for them. This does not mean I don't have "caution" but being Cautious is not what the CAUTION approach is about. It's about weeding out the un-holy elements. Like Baehr's lists of questionable offenses. While you are cautious SDG, I'd say you never use the CAUTION approach. Entering a film merely to find the objectionable. Beware of using the typical meanings of the labels (Avoidance, Caution) at face value, the meanings are abit deeper than that.
Thanks Pete for finding those quotes. Those were the exact passages that were coming to mind, but alas, I was not near my copy.
Thanks Pete for finding those quotes. Those were the exact passages that were coming to mind, but alas, I was not near my copy.
Not had time to read all of all of the posts, but FWIW my understanding of Jonhnston was that he was roughly grouping critics'/Christians watching films/theologians' General approach to the medium of cinema.
So it's not how much we approach a range of specific films, but more when we walk into a cinema to watch a film are we going in with our arms folded (metaphorically) or not?
Do we look to see what good is there in a film and be open to being changed by it or do we approach it like say Baher does, unable to get past the number of swear words. Or are we the kind of person who is actually barely influenced by theology and much more swayed by modern culture and film. (And I'd see these three as the middling approaches and on either end ther are extremes of "Movies are evil I never go" at one end, and"Love Actually is a great film" sorry I mean, a "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food" / anything goes approach at the other end.)
So its more about approach to cinema than to specific films, and therefore within that approach you may well dislike a film no matter what your perspective is, or you may well love it depending on your appraoch, but in all probability the ration of the two is determined by how you approach it in the first place.
Thats probably not what he was saying at all, but when i interpreted it like that I found it helpful, eventhough over all I feel a bit "so what" about his book in general.
Matt
So it's not how much we approach a range of specific films, but more when we walk into a cinema to watch a film are we going in with our arms folded (metaphorically) or not?
Do we look to see what good is there in a film and be open to being changed by it or do we approach it like say Baher does, unable to get past the number of swear words. Or are we the kind of person who is actually barely influenced by theology and much more swayed by modern culture and film. (And I'd see these three as the middling approaches and on either end ther are extremes of "Movies are evil I never go" at one end, and
So its more about approach to cinema than to specific films, and therefore within that approach you may well dislike a film no matter what your perspective is, or you may well love it depending on your appraoch, but in all probability the ration of the two is determined by how you approach it in the first place.
Thats probably not what he was saying at all, but when i interpreted it like that I found it helpful, eventhough over all I feel a bit "so what" about his book in general.
Matt
Hey folks, enjoying the discussion, which has caused me to skim through the chapter at issue here in Johnston's Reel Spirituality. I came across this quotation (pg. 59) which I think speaks to the issues being raised here.
| QUOTE |
| That I have wrongly pigeonholed critics by placing them in rigid categories while they are actually more fluid in their approach is possible; but typologies are artificial constructs built to help sort out critical options. It is clearly the case that a given theologian/critic might adopt several different approaches to the conversation between movies and theology depending on the film in view or the audience addressed. |
It also seems to me that Johnston argues in this chapter for viewers to be open to the divine encounter in film. To do this, in his view, involves approaching the film aesthetically (his word), as opposed to ethically. It involves viewing the film on its own terms as opposed to bringing a checklist of criteria (things that must or must not be there for the film to be "good"). I think he would see the value of laying out the five approaches as showing the various options on this larger scale, of whether one approaches the film aesthetically and on its own terms versus those who approach it ethically and on their own (theological) terms.
re: Decent Films
"Not only does the Decent Film Guide give rational caution to moviegoers, but it also includes educated, well-written articles. [apparently, SDG educates his articles] ... For the most part his site does not completely shun popular films, nor does it obsess over every detail that could possibly be Christian related. It seems to give unbiased attention to most popular films with a slight Christian caution." -Jamie (11th Grade)
re:Looking Closer
"Browsing through Looking Closer, I noticed their minimal mentioning of Christianity." -Jamie (11th Grade)
re: The Film Forum
"The Film Forum uses the Appropriation Approach. ... I read the review of Requiem for a Dream and was especially glad to hear a positive note about this movie from a Christian reviewe, whereas most Christian critics rebuke this movie in the name of Jesus." -Frank (12th)
more to come
"Not only does the Decent Film Guide give rational caution to moviegoers, but it also includes educated, well-written articles. [apparently, SDG educates his articles
] ... For the most part his site does not completely shun popular films, nor does it obsess over every detail that could possibly be Christian related. It seems to give unbiased attention to most popular films with a slight Christian caution." -Jamie (11th Grade)re:Looking Closer
"Browsing through Looking Closer, I noticed their minimal mentioning of Christianity." -Jamie (11th Grade)
re: The Film Forum
"The Film Forum uses the Appropriation Approach. ... I read the review of Requiem for a Dream and was especially glad to hear a positive note about this movie from a Christian reviewe, whereas most Christian critics rebuke this movie in the name of Jesus." -Frank (12th)
more to come
| QUOTE |
| re:Looking Closer "Browsing through Looking Closer, I noticed their minimal mentioning of Christianity." -Jamie (11th Grade) |
I wouldn't take that as a criticism, actually, since the goal of the page is to examine art, not Christianity. But I find this very surprising...
I was thinking it was praise
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.