191 replies to this topic

[kenmorefield]

Here is the podcast I mentioned Todd and I were working on. He liked it a bit more than I did.

Quote

SHOW NOTES:

• 0:00 – Intro, plot, and overall impressions
  
• 7:00 – The “Christian” label redux; broadening the audience
  
• 10:45 – Satire vs. Bildungsroman
  
• 19:21 – Horatian vs. Juvenalian satire
  
• 23:00 – Apology, confession, or confessional apology?
  
• 32:00 – Writing vs. directing and closing remarks

[Stephen Lamb]

Bob Lamonta, on 18 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Oh, and I saw some comment about the "other" college we filmed at. It wasn't Belmont. I honestly can't remember the name, but it is near Vandy, and it does look a surprising amount like the real Reed. How's that for a Fun Fact!*

* I openly acknowledge that there is nothing fun about this fact (either the fact itself or the way in which it was shared).

Ah, sorry. I had some friends who were extras, and they had mentioned being at Belmont for the shooting. I must have misunderstood them.

[Bob Lamonta]

Stephen Lamb, on 23 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Bob Lamonta, on 18 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Oh, and I saw some comment about the "other" college we filmed at. It wasn't Belmont. I honestly can't remember the name, but it is near Vandy, and it does look a surprising amount like the real Reed. How's that for a Fun Fact!*

* I openly acknowledge that there is nothing fun about this fact (either the fact itself or the way in which it was shared).

Ah, sorry. I had some friends who were extras, and they had mentioned being at Belmont for the shooting. I must have misunderstood them.

Maybe your friends were right after all. I wasn't on set, but all the footage I saw was either Reed or Scarrit-Bennet (I think that's what it's called) which is near Vandy. I went to Belmont, so I like to think I would have recognized it, but that place has changed a lot since my day, so maybe your friends are right and I was wrong. Either way, clearly this is the most boring and unnecessary response to a post ever. Sorry about that!

Also, I listened to the above podcast while shirking work responsibilities today (the purpose of all podcasts!). Nice to hear people discussing the movie with such thoughtfulness. Kudos.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Tyler, on 21 March 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

The Christian Movie Establishment vs. Blue Like Jazz
by Steve Taylor

Quote

So maybe I should be flattered that, based on recent evidence, the Christian Movie Establishment they represent is out to get us.
Exhibit A: The Executive Pastor of Sherwood Baptist (where the Kendricks Brothers movies are produced) issued what amounts to a fatwa against Blue Like Jazz when he made it known that nobody who worked on our movie would be allowed to work with them in the future. . . .

The Kendricks reach out to Steve, and he apologizes, sort of, for making wrong "assumptions" about them.

I'm still waiting for someone to dig up what was really going on here. Shortly after Steve's "fatwa" post, CT ran a story in which Steve said he had heard about the "fatwa" from two of his associates, and therefore he wasn't just passing on "hearsay" -- and yet, if Steve had no evidence for this assertion beyond what a couple of guys had told him, then that WOULD be, by its very definition, "hearsay", no? On the other hand, it sounds like Alex Kendrick did not dispute Steve's assertion that a "fatwa" had been issued; he only said he had been unaware of the "fatwa" until Steve made an issue of it. But we still, as far as I can tell, haven't seen anything resembling a quote or a leaked e-mail or anything that would tell us what, exactly, this "fatwa" consisted of, or to whom it was issued, or why, etc., etc., etc. Has anyone spoken to Sherwood's executive pastor about this yet, or gotten his side of the story? If so, I haven't seen it yet.

I am not at all surprised that Alex reached out to Steve, though; I have interviewed both filmmakers multiple times and found them very passionate and articulate and, for lack of a better word, self-aware; they know their limitations and they know they're trying to improve. (As Steve says in his latest post about the Kendricks, "They’ve had extraordinary success using very limited resources, and each time they do it they get better.") It's a pity this conversation couldn't have happened earlier, before the "fatwa" hit the fan and gave evangelical culture warriors more ammo to lob at each other. But better late than never, I guess.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Thomas S. Hibbs @ National Catholic Reporter:

In one sense, Miller does at Reed what he did in church: he fits in. He admits as much toward the end when he confides in another student that he hid his faith because he wanted to be liked. Miller wants to widen the circle of likability, to include liberals. But when he proceeds to confess that he’s tired of being a hypocrite and a coward, the testimony rings a bit hollow. Miller has shown no signs of internal conflict or deep struggle. The period of his play-acting at Reed comes off as gentle farce and it is, in its way, entertaining. But it is not the set-up for tragic tension.

What is also striking about the film is how utterly absent from Miller’s Reed is the notion of college as an arena of the serious exploration of ideas. Moving from the Baptist world of Texas to the liberal, even atheistic, world of Reed does force Miller to confront opinions alien to his initial views. But these are articulated as nothing more than slogans. In the seminar discussion of Homer, an author in Reed’s famous core curriculum, students do indeed engage in a lively exchange. But they have precious little to say about the book itself and the professor seems quite content to let the students go around the room opining their views of religion and politics. There is disagreement here but it’s not informed by the assigned text or by much of anything other than personal testimony. In this respect, Reed is the mirror image of personality-drenched Christianity, rooted in individual testimony, that Miller left behind in Texas. . . .

Miller knows this is not enough. He knows that art needs humor. He also understands that Christian art must engage, encompass, and transform rival worldviews and alternate artistic visions. But, like his Christian counterparts, he suffers from impoverished theological and artistic sources. The film begins with a caricature of the Gospel, moves on to the farcical liberalism of an elite university, and ends by proposing a kind of mediation. The result for the film is the opposite of what Miller had hoped. Instead of reaching a wider audience, the film seems to have reached only a sub-culture of a sub-culture. Blue Like Jazz is not nearly blue enough and it’s actually nothing like jazz.

Incidentally, what ever happened to this film's Canadian release?

[Christian]

Peter T Chattaway, on 01 June 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Thomas S. Hibbs @ National Catholic Reporter:

There is disagreement here but it’s not informed by the assigned text or by much of anything other than personal testimony. In this respect, Reed is the mirror image of personality-drenched Christianity, rooted in individual testimony, that Miller left behind in Texas. . . .

What a great line!

Quote

Incidentally, what ever happened to this film's Canadian release?

Interesting question. Somewhere earlier in this thread, Scott had said, after seeing the film's opening-weekend box-office figures, that the film "won't be expanding," When a film platforms in North America, does it always start in American cities only, and then expand to Canadian markets? That seems doubtful as I write, but I'm not sure how Canadian release strategies work for platform releases in North America.

Related the film's box-office performance, I happened to look at Box Office Mojo yesterday and noticed that Blue Like Jazz was the last film on the Daily Box Office chart to report grosses for Thursday. And how much did Blue Like Jazz make that day, all showtimes combined, across the 3 theaters where it's still playing?

$15.

Edited by Christian, 02 June 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[rjkolb]

The wife and I watched Blue Like Jazz last night and both enjoyed it. It made me laugh out loud several times and; l enjoyed the quirky sensibility and overall vibe. The film fits easily within the fish out of water learns life lesson genre and as far as that goes does not break any new ground. I did not think it any worse either directed or written than any number of mainstream Hollywood films that are released each year or make money at the box office.
The film does have some script and pacing issues and often comes across as a series of funny vignettes rather than a cohesive whole; but it was not a major distraction for me.

I found the film refreshing in its portrayal of faith as a journey of discovery as most popular films avoid faith like a plague and most "Christian" films present an us vs. them black and white view.
Also, as has been said earlier in the thread the films soundtrack is one of its best features and is what keeps the film for me at least from seeming totally fragmented.

I hope that Steve can continue to make movies in the future.

Edited by rjkolb, 29 August 2012 - 11:31 PM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Lest there be any doubt that Christian hipsters are this film's target audience, Relevant magazine is putting out its own special edition DVD, with exclusive bonus features, on September 11. (Only on DVD? No Blu-Ray?)

Christian, on 02 June 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

When a film platforms in North America, does it always start in American cities only, and then expand to Canadian markets? That seems doubtful as I write, but I'm not sure how Canadian release strategies work for platform releases in North America.

Delayed reaction here, but it's not uncommon for films to play in Toronto only when they open in the U.S., before expanding to cities like Vancouver (the 3rd-biggest city in Canada) and then to other cities as well. Sometimes Vancouver is part of the first Canadian wave, but the first Canadian wave sometimes happens a week or two after a film opens in the States. Also, a lot of the bigger indie distributors have ongoing distribution deals in place with Canadian distributors (so it's possible for, say, Miramax in the U.S. to coordinate its release schedule with Alliance in Canada), but *smaller* indie distributors sometimes have to work on a film-by-film basis, and sometimes it can take weeks or months for a film to secure Canadian distribution, even after it has opened Stateside. (The first time I met Overstreet in person, I had driven down to Seattle to see Robert Duvall's The Apostle, which had been out in the States for a month or two but still didn't even have a Canadian distributor, much less a release date.)

In this particular case, I recently came across a story which indicated that the film finally played in a Toronto theatre during the week of the film's DVD release (the story is dated Friday August 3, it says Steve Taylor will appear at the August 4 screening, it says the film will play until August 10, and it notes that the DVD comes out on August 7). But I haven't heard of it playing anywhere else.

Incidentally, how often is a "special edition" DVD announced only a few weeks after the regular DVD came out? Ordinarily -- with, say, a Best Buy exclusive or something like that -- it would be released simultaneously with the regular DVD, yes?

[Jeremy Ratzlaff]

I live in Canada as well, so my hopes of seeing this film in the near future were very low.. until I started browsing my local movie store just trying to kill some time and stumbled upon a single copy of the DVD by sheer accident. My heart almost stopped from surprised excitement. Incredibly, on the next shelf over sat a copy of The Mill and the Cross. Thank God for Mongrel Media's distribution.

I really enjoyed Blue Like Jazz. It's probably not one I would quickly recommend to everyone I meet ("omg you guys, this movie is a 'Christian' movie that doesn't suck!"), because it does immediately come off as amateurishly earnest and slightly naive. But being previously educated as I was in light of the controversy and reviews, and having a good idea what to expect from Steve Taylor, my expectations were ideally matched. Even surpassed, to my pleasant surprise. I proudly add this film to collection, and look forward to Steve's future endeavors!

[winter shaker]

I went to the US last week for a camping trip with my dad. I made sure to buy a copy of the DVD (although I tried in vain to find Lost In Translation by Sixpence). I had not read the book in a long time so I was caught off guard by some of the subplots (there seemed to be a lot that was not in the book; did Donald Miller write about it in his latter books?). I was surprised by the language and content, although not disturbed or offended by it. Still, I was actually rather disappointed with the movie.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Finally saw this last night, at a movie night hosted by an old colleague of mine. There were almost a dozen of us there, and it seemed like the majority of us didn't care for the movie, which surprised our host (he and his wife were the only ones who had seen it before, and he hates most "Christian movies" but had said good things about this one).

The most vocal in their dislike were a couple who are big fans of the book, and who felt that the movie missed what made the book work; the word they kept using was "contrived" to describe all the various plot mechanisms that the movie introduced.

As for me, if I had to sum up my reaction in one sentence, I think I would say that this felt like a Steve Taylor album and I want to see him make Chagall Guevara albums again. In other words, this is very much a Christian subcultural product, made by and for the Christian subculture (or at least the segment of it which uses four-letter words, drinks beer and dislikes Republicans), and it follows many of the narrative beats that I would expect of a "Christian movie" (there are a couple of "reveals" at the end that were absolutely unsurprising). And some of the straw-men set-ups, like the debate at the bookstore, brought to mind some of the weaker moments in Taylor's songwriting (where it's always the unbelievers who are cowards or cynics and the believers who are brave and sincere). And it didn't help that the blonde love interest, i.e. the character who is supposed to draw our protagonist back to faith of some sort, was probably the weakest link in the entire film, acting-wise; I honestly couldn't help but think of the acting in movies like Fireproof whenever she was onscreen. But what I'd really like to see Taylor do at some point is just Make A Movie without worrying about what sort of audience his film will have, or whether it will fit into some corner of the Christian subculture.

Two other words I ended up using in our post-screening discussion were "self-conscious" and "deliberate", in reference to not just the writing but also the cinematography, e.g. the way that, even fairly late in the film, a shot of the laundry room has a bra rather prominently placed in the frame so that we are reminded, yet again, that this is a Mixed Gender Facility and that our protagonist is Seeing Things He Never Saw In His Good-Church-Boy Days. I would have preferred that stuff like that just be part of a naturalistically detailed background.

One of my colleagues (not the host) also quibbled with the fact that the film seemed to paint Southern Baptists in a consistently negative light, while giving more credit to Episcopalians (or whatever that one church was). I also wondered why the resolutely Protestant protagonist felt he had to "apologize" for things that had basically been done by Catholics (the Crusades, etc.). (The film does refer to Catholics doing good things, too -- in Canada, at least. By the way, do Catholics really get their communion wine from factory-filled cups? For that matter, do the Catholic laity even get to drink communion wine in the first place?)

Oh, and then there was that odd animated bit with the rabbit. If the film had had a couple other moments like that, it might have been part of the movie's "style", so to speak, but as it is, it's just an out-of-nowhere effect that just sort of sits there in the beginning of the film. (The spaceman shots are a recurring motif and thus sit on a parallel track of their own; the bunny isn't really in the same universe as those bits.)

I know I should try to focus on some aspects of the film that I *liked*, so, hmmm. The bit where the protagonist tries to smash the pastor's car's windows comes to mind. "Gashole", too. If I sat here a while longer, I could probably think of some more...

[NBooth]

Finally saw this movie tonight and rolled over here to post my thoughts only to discover this:

Peter T Chattaway, on 15 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

In other words, this is very much a Christian subcultural product, made by and for the Christian subculture (or at least the segment of it which uses four-letter words, drinks beer and dislikes Republicans), and it follows many of the narrative beats that I would expect of a "Christian movie" (there are a couple of "reveals" at the end that were absolutely unsurprising). And some of the straw-men set-ups, like the debate at the bookstore, brought to mind some of the weaker moments in Taylor's songwriting (where it's always the unbelievers who are cowards or cynics and the believers who are brave and sincere). And it didn't help that the blonde love interest, i.e. the character who is supposed to draw our protagonist back to faith of some sort, was probably the weakest link in the entire film, acting-wise; I honestly couldn't help but think of the acting in movies like Fireproof whenever she was onscreen. But what I'd really like to see Taylor do at some point is just Make A Movie without worrying about what sort of audience his film will have, or whether it will fit into some corner of the Christian subculture.

--which pretty much sums up my response to the film. I've got to say, I thought the first half was really good...and then the pieces started falling into place and the machine started running and suddenly everything interesting about the movie vanished; Penny goes from being an at least semi-interesting character to being--well, the mouthpiece character, just like in every other "Christian" movie. The lesbian character becomes "that cool brunette who's like a sister." The Pope--who has a nice moment of empathy earlier, a moment that gives his character more to do than be [entertainingly] obscene--suddenly goes full Hollywood Atheist. Where the first half of the movie is lively, the second half feels evacuated.

It doesn't help that--even after certain late-film revelations have been made--the atheist guy still presents a more compelling alternative, not because of any ideas he has, but because he's interesting to watch--and gets dialogue that at least rises above the level of sermonizing--while Penny remains a kind of static "good" (and, increasingly, comforting--notice how her activism moves steadily overseas the longer the movie rolls on).

Really liked the first half, though.

Edited by NBooth, 10 May 2013 - 11:03 PM.