Jump to content

Saved!


Peter T Chattaway
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's an article on the Wall Street Journal's site, OpinionJournal.com, about Saved!:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005236

In case you were wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Alan T,

Okay, I agree, at least in part, with your disagreement with my second point. Your agreement with my first point however I don't think goes far enough.

It's not simply that the film doesn't allow for the possibility that the beliefs of dogmatic Christians are actually TRUE. It doesn't even allow that dogmatic Christians can hold those beliefs and also be good people (morally, intellectually, or in any other sense).

I could make a movie about atheism that didn't remotely allow for the possibility that the disbelief of atheists is actually TRUE, but did allow that atheists can adhere to atheism and still be good, honest, sympathetic human beings. Saved! doesn't extend that same basic honesty to dogmatic Christians.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I can see your point and agree with you, but it is a secondary point. Goodness is secondary to truth (although a semantic point since they are [in truth] inseparable as expressed in the person of Christ).

I don't know that I agree that goodness is secondary to truth. Both are fundamental aspects of God's nature. (We must pursue goodness because it is true that good and evil exist, but equally we must pursue truth because we are morally obliged to do so.)

I do know that I would have far more respect for the work of an avowedly Marxist filmmaker capable of displaying sympathy or respect for his Christian characters (even if he made them deeply flawed as well) than that of a Christian filmmaker who displayed contempt for his atheist characters.

A genuine and productive encounter with the other generally begins not with the truth or falsehood of the other's point of view, but with being willing to engage people on the other side in a fair way, which generally requires us to acknowledge, not that the other side is or even could be right, but that people on the other side aren't necessarily malicious, idiotic, woefully ignorant, etc.

I'm much more prepared to have a discussion with a person who is convinced that Christianity or Catholicism is dead wrong but acknowledges that some smart and good people have sincerely and honorably held Catholic/Christian beliefs, than I am with someone who acknowledges that Christianity could be true for all he knows but is convinced that all Christians are idiots and hypocrites.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, one could argue that Duck Soup doesn't allow for the possibility of a benevolent ruler, but the film is so clearly a farce that such a consideration would be ridiculous. Saved! fails because it tries to be more than a farce. I think its farsical elements are wonderful, but the rest is slop.

I don't think there is any very meaningful degree to which Saved! is a farce. It's a social satire, but satire is worlds away from farce. Duck Soup may have satiric elements, and Saved! may have farcical elements, but the difference between them is fundamental and one of kind more than degree.

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value the film most because it shows us what kind of impression popular culture has of evangelical Chrsitianity. Sure, it doesn't come up with a gospel-accurate conclusion... far from it. Sure, it's sometimes mean-spirited and even contemptuous toward Christians. But as I peruse Seattle mainstream media, it's clear to me that the perception many people have of evangelical Christians is exactly what's reflected in the film. So I'd rather talk about what the film SHOWS us about contemporary Christian culture, what that tells us about the "impact" contemporary Christian culture is having, and whether or not contemporary Christian culture needs to take this film as hint that perhaps it needs to rethink its evangelical approach. I'm not saying the film gives us an answer about what we need to be... again, far from it. It just holds up an mirror that Christians should really look at, long and hard. Then we should consider, are we modeling Christ, or are we more like the aggressive pompous salespeople that populate this film?

So yeah, SDG, I agree with you about the shortfailings of the film, but I still find it a tremendously valuable document of a young unbeliever's perception of Christianity, which comes largely from the fact that that's how evangelicals are presenting their gospel to him.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah, SDG, I agree with you about the shortfailings of the film, but I still find it a tremendously valuable document of a young unbeliever's perception of Christianity, which comes largely from the fact that that's how evangelicals are presenting their gospel to him.

i agree here, too. my reaction to the film (having seen it in an audience composed mostly of non-christians) was that it might prove detrimental for people who already had negative stereotypes about evangelical christians. it seems that Saved! could justify such stereotypes, allowing them to believe that ALL christians are like this.

however, i think Saved! could be extremely helpful to the American evangelical church at large. it is, as jeffrey put it, a mirror, summed up in the bumper sticker on cassandra's car: "Jesus loves you. everyone else thinks you're an asshole."

it would probably be good for evangelicals to deal with that widespread sentiment (which has quite a bit of truth to it), and this film does a good job of bringing it into popular consciousness.

Edited by kebbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late to this discussion, but SDG is making some fine points, and I wanted to offer my support.

- SDG's observation that there's no room for Christians with "genuine compassion, human decency, intellectual honesty, and honorable religious commitment" is dead on. The problem, to me, lies in the fact that other characters in the movie DO exhibit some or most of these characteristics. The Christian characters in the film are parodies of real people, little more than cartoons. While they do bear some surface resemblance to people with whom we've all come into contact (which is why they resonate with many on this board), they don't have enough complexity or nuance to exist alongside the other characters in the film. They're types, not humans. Had the film stuck with outright parody, I would have had far less argument with this approach. But it's intellectually dishonest, and a cheap shot, to stack one-dimensional characters up against two-dimensional characters. We're meant to identify with and feel compassion for Mary, Roland, and Cassandra. They're not parodies, and they exhibit qualities we're meant to admire. I think this is why the discussion of genre above became somewhat confused...the characters in Saved! are really in two different films.

- Jeffrey, being no great fan of modern evangelical culture, I can sympathize with your admiration for the film to a certain extent. However, I'm not sure that we agree on what's at the heart of this film's attack on Christianity. While hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness are part of the film's concern (and worthy of condemnation), it's clear by end, and reinforced in the last scene, that what really bothers the writers is the exclusivity of the gospel. The gospel, they think, requires adherence to standards that can't be met (here, they're right to some extent), and excludes those who don't accept its definition of morality or its offer of Christ as the only means of salvation. This is what the world hates about the gospel, and will always hate about the gospel, so long as it's honestly presented.

We can take the film as an opportunity, as you suggest, to examine ourselves, but the sinners whom Christ has called to bear his name will always be weak representatives of the gospel. Even were all of the characters in this film (or all of the Christians in the world) not mean-spirited hypocrites, the central problem that this film (and the world) has with the gospel would remain the same. Several posts have acknowledged the weak ending of the film, but I don't think that it can be severed from all that's come before it. In fact, I think it's profoundly illuminating that the final confrontation is NOT at all about hypocrisy, but instead about standards that are too high. A film about hypocrisy would seek to advocate more fervent, more consistent, belief, not a rejection of the central tenets of one's beliefs.

I think the point was made earlier about effective satire requiring an ultimate fondness for its target. That's not here in this film--or, to the extent that it is, the Christianity that this film wants to allow has little to no resemblance to Biblical faith.

I'm sure this wasn't very well-stated, as I don't have time to go back and review it...my review is on the WORLD blog if anyone's interested...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDG, I think I made pretty much the same points you've made, at least regarding the film's lack of nuance, in my article on the film (sort of a combination review-interview), to which I linked earlier in this thread. In that article, I quote the director admitting that he should have "trumped up" the fact that the Patrick Fugit character was supposed to be a devout believer (we DO see him wear cheesy Christian T-shirts) who happened to be compassionate etc. Then again, compassionate sentiments and adherence to certain beliefs are two different things, and one comment that did not make it into my article ("My own idea was that he went out to witness to the world, and the world witnessed to him and he had a different understanding of his religion") suggests this character would NEVER have addressed the concerns you raise here.

As for the Mandy Moore character, I did not have space to quote the director's comments on her, so here they are, made in response to my question re: whether he ever considered Moore's earlier star-making role as a pious Baptist pastor's daughter in A Walk to Remember when casting or directing her in this role: "I never did but I knew she could use that information to inform [her performance]. . . . It's like the other side of the same coin. I love it, at the end of the film she has gone through all of this stuff, and she crashes her van into it and she says, 'Do you think Jesus still loves me.' I love that her brother gives it to her. 'Probably not, but sure.' I just think that's a really sweet moment, especially for her. 'I didn't lose my faith, I've made some mistakes, is there still hope for me.'" To which he added, "Once you get under the surface, you realize people are more than who you think they are." So I think HE thinks he's giving the Mandy Moore character some nuances and some depth. But I guess Louis Malle thinks the same thing about his treatment of the Alfred Molina character in Chocolat.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple thoughts after reading all your comments and seeing the movie last night.

I saw most of the characters, even the christian ones, as genuine people with real problems. Hilary Faye was mean but she wasn't being mean just to be mean. She really believed in her causes.

spoilers1.gif

Tolerance. I don't think the message was tolerance but more about humility and the fact that we can't know it all. The scene at the prom with Mary talking to skip about how can you be sure you're right. And also Patrick talking to Mary saying the people that sent Dean to Mercy House are the ones who need more help then Dean. It was their unloving, judging approach that needed to be changed. I didn't think the film was trying to say it's ok no matter what you believe. I think it's bigger point was, whatever you believe, communicate it with love and grace and humility.

The only character that was somewhat one dimensional to me was Hilary Faye. And even she had some depth after the accident at the end.

The film obviously uses exagerration to make it's points. For example, the distinction between the nonchristian characters and the christian characters. The film goes out of its way to make the christians the villains and the nonchristians the lovable heros. Roland and Mary preferred the company of Cassandra over Hilary and they all preferred the company of each other over the christians. Even Patrick, a christian, preferred to hang out with the nonchristians. This reminded me of something Donald Miller wrote in Blue like Jazz. He talked about a month long experience of hanging out in the woods with pot smoking hippies. He talked about how much love and freedom there was there, as a christian. He then went back to his christian group and realized he much preferred the company of nonchristians to christians. He said something about unconditional love around the hippies and conditional love around the christians. I think this point is made in the movie, in an extreme way by showing such a stark contrast, but I think there is some truth to that.

I also loved Mary's faith. It was honest and real and I love how she never did abandon it. She didn't succomb to the religion of tolerance even though there was so much hate around her from the christian side.

The film also had a lot of little moments filled with truth. I enjoyed the scene in the cafeteria as Cassandra is approaching Hilary's table and Hilary wants everyone to start laughing so she can show that christians CAN have fun too. It reminded me of how hard christians try sometimes to look cool and like they're having fun. Like Pastors kinda going over the top with party symbolism to prove a point that even though we can't smoke pot, we can still have fun. Pastor Skip was a great example of this with how he talked.

In the end, I thought the film had genuine characters, great moments, and alot of truth.

george

"I am quietly judging you" - Magnolia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, SDG.

Spoon wrote:

: I don't think the message was tolerance but more about humility and the fact that

: we can't know it all.

I would feel a lot more secure in that assessment of the film if, say, the gay character was more humble about his coming to terms with his sexuality, and not proudly touting his boyfriend. The film does NOT encourage a mere humble agnositicism ... it DOES make specific assertions about what sort of actions we can boldly embark upon based on what we think we know.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He talked about how much love and freedom there was there, as a christian. He then went back to his christian group and realized he much preferred the company of nonchristians to christians.

I wouldn't say this is true of all of the Christians I've spent time with, but overall, I'd have to agree.

Of course, it also depends on which Christians and which non-Christians you're hanging out with. So long as all of us are addressing each other with humility and respect here, I'd have to say I prefer the company of this board to most in-person company I encounter. This community here is remarkably loyal, communicative, and patient.

Of course, the Christian's call is not to decide who they're most comfortable around, but to go and show love even to their enemies. It's awfully easy to love those who get along with you.

But I'm off on a tagent.

Spoon, I agree... I do sense a real faith in Mary, even if she's still a very immature Christian. She is growing because, for once, her faith is something she's choosing instead of something she's merely going along with. I find the shot of her standing at Jesus' feet, staring up and cussing out loud to be the first moment of real honesty, the first moment of real relationship with God in the film. She's letting out her anger, fear, and confusion to the one who can take it and make something out of it. She's a faucet that's been shut off for many winters, and now that she's opening up, there's gonna be a lot of garbage coming out before the good stuff can flow freely.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Coffin wrote:

SDG's observation that there's no room for Christians with "genuine compassion, human decency, intellectual honesty, and honorable religious commitment" is dead on. The problem, to me, lies in the fact that other characters in the movie DO exhibit some or most of these characteristics. The Christian characters in the film are parodies of real people, little more than cartoons. While they do bear some surface resemblance to people with whom we've all come into contact (which is why they resonate with many on this board), they don't have enough complexity or nuance to exist alongside the other characters in the film. They're types, not humans.

I have spent years in Christian communities in which young Christians, unsure of themselves and their own real feelings, put on behavior, shows of emotion, sermonizing... almost exactly like the behaviors of the students in the film. And I also found more honesty, however crude, and more nuance, however rough-edged, in some of the non-Christian kids I encountered. Perhaps the movie's impact is going to have a lot to do with the experience of the person watching it. I keep calling it a satire, but seriously, I don't find the film to be much exaggerating the behaviors of the evangelicals here.

I do believe that there are wiser, more thoughtful, more complex Christians out there... of course. But when I was exploring Seattle looking for a church in the early 90s, I walked away from one after the other for encountering exactly this kind of attitude among young people and grownups. As in Dogville, I found communities that projected their complete lack of need for each other, because they had all the answers through Jesus, and how they couldn't wait to shovel all the answers into my lap as well. I was treated with a sort of pious condescension (presumably because I had long hair, and because the woman searching alongside me had a pierced nose). I could feel them testing me, with one supposedly casual question or inquiry after another. I could feel them deciding, based on my responses or statements, how I sized up, and how much work was going to be required to "bring me into the fold." Each time, I said, "Lord, I'm not sensing any place for relationship in this community, and I truly do not believe you want me to select a body of worship by choosing whichever one is most pious and most clueless to its own sin, to its own personality, to its own need."

The effect of these Christians on me and my Significant Other of the time was disspiriting and exhausting. We needed love. We needed relationship. We needed community. Most of all, we needed to worship with others who understood that they needed to worship. We did not need a community of doctors or platitude-spouting clones. We certainly did not need worship servies of emotional catharses, tearful hugs, and projected images of waterfalls with tinkly music piped in over the speakers.

The long-term effect of these believers' behavior was to drive my dear friend to an intolerance of her own. Her last words to me, in the dissolution of the relationship, were these (in paraphrase): 'I can no longer stick around and be a part of this. And I realize that you will never be able to walk away from it; that's your fight. But I'm leaving.' She left the church, wanting nothing to do with the sort of holier-than-thou facades, the exclusionist lingo, and the judgmentalism she'd encountered. Because I would not, that was the end of it. I had to choose--marriage, or fighting for the body of faith. Of course, for me, there was no choice but to fight to keep the marriage alive, because it was impossible for me to give up faith. The relationship, in every way, flatlined, and there was nothing but a dial tone on the other end. In short, that was the low point of my life.

I'm being vague in order to be respectful of this person, who's still on planet Earth somewhere, and with all the years that have passed, for all I know God finally chased her down. Today, though, I am speaking now from a place of flabbergasted gratitude for the grace God has shown me in pouring out blessings on me and leading me to a church that is deeply aware of its own need, its own brokenness, and full of joy and love for those within it. To say nothing of my marriage, which has been a story of blessing upon blessing for seven years. I feel like Job, standing in awe of the abundance of God's blessings, having done not one single thing on my own to earn any of it.

And so yes, I believe the church can be better than it is portrayed in Saved! And yes, I believe that Saved! concludes with a devastating lie... one just as devastating as the wrongs displayed by the evangelical characters of the film.

But I do not blame Dannelly for portraying his impression of Christianity so narrowly and so searingly... I can't, because for all I know, that's the kind of behavior he's encountered from the church. He's probably been to those churches.

How can I expect him, as an artist (or as an entertainer... he's more that than an artist at this point), to come to a conclusion that's profoundly truthful when he hasn't experienced it yet?

I'm grateful for his honesty, for what it shows us and what it can say to us. And I'm hopeful that, through the experience of making the film and putting it out, he'll discover that faith in Christ does not lead to narrow-mindedness, intolerance, judgmentalism, and pride.

Indeed, true faith in Christ leads to humility and openness, which bears the fruit of mercy and love. But (Dannelly, take note) true faith leads to conviction, and true Christian conviction requires submission to truths that run too deep for us to uproot them and rotate them to fit our preferences.

Jeffrey, being no great fan of modern evangelical culture, I can sympathize with your admiration for the film to a certain extent. However, I'm not sure that we agree on what's at the heart of this film's attack on Christianity. While hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness are part of the film's concern (and worthy of condemnation), it's clear by end, and reinforced in the last scene, that what really bothers the writers is the exclusivity of the gospel.

I do, actually, agree with you on that. And as I've just said, I'm not at all surprised at his misguided conclusion. I'm not holding up Saved! as a great work of art. It's severely flawed. And, whether or not this is a gutsy thing to do, Dannelly has at least been one of the first to hold up this particular mirror on the big screen.

To compare Saved! to The Magdalen Sisters doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Magdalen Sisters makes next-to-zero attempts to consider Christian faith, and it paints believers as bile-spewing devils. Saved! portrays them as proud, as prone to immature fits of ego, but at least it makes an effort to understand them, and to portray the kind of Christians we might actually encounter in the world. I believe in American Eagles Christian High School, for the most part, because I've encountered it. I've never encountered anything like the villains of The Magdalen Sisters. And while there may indeed have been people who committed those violent and wicked deeds, it's a massive crime to villainize the faith because of their behavior. I don't think Dannelly's mission is to villainize the church the way Magdalen Sisters does. I think he's been severely put off by the way that the church has treated him, and so he's merely responding... with a lot more openness and humor than what he's encountered.

Yes, I am making some presumptions about Dannelly's experience. But I have little doubt that he's encountered believers like those he portrayed on the screen. And I'm surprised he didn't take the easy route of portraying them all as bloodthirsty zombies the way other directors do.

Hey... have I done it? Have I posted my longest post ever?

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to this thread intending to defend the film against charges that it ought to have had "real" Christians in it, but I find myself agreeing that a better film would have had more diverse characters: sympathetic and unsympathetic Christians and non-Christians. Without that diversity, it *does* come off as one-sided and disappointingly dogmatic in its particular brand of tolerance.

BUT - I agree wholeheartedly with Jeffrey that the satirical elements are dead-on. I've known so many Christianismists just like the folks in this film that I am profoundly grateful that somebody's finally managed to skewer them on the big screen. I've seen most of the elements of Christianismity that the film portrayed, though its exaggeration is in packing those bizarre and twisted elements into such a small cast. It might normally take 20 or so Christianismists to accumulate the ultrarighteous logic ("Jesus told me to have sex to rescue him from homosexuality"), hypocrisy, and social/cultural insecurity ("Are you down with the G.O.D.?") exhibited by a handful of the characters in Saved!.

And here's is a broad generalization for everyone: The extent of one's experience with Christianismists like those in Saved! tends to weigh heavily in one's willingness or unwillingness to praise the film for its satire.

And while a better film would have had more diversity and better understanding of more characters, I'm not convinced that it's fair to call this one "anti-Christian" (as Berardinelli does). After all, the film considers Mary and the father of her child to be Christians even at the end of the film. I think this film is against only a certain kind of Christianity. I agree with it that the self-righteousness, judgementalism, and cheesification are all condemnable. I disagree with the film that inconvenient moral conclusions should automatically be tossed out, and I disagree with the film that because "God has made us so different" (i.e., sinners in unique ways) we should just roll merrily along in our sin. Granted, if a viewer of this film honestly has no idea that there are decent Christian people in the world, for that person this film may be considered "anti-Christian". For anyone else, who either knows a decent Christian person, or who knows a decent Christian person but is unwilling to admit it, this film should not seem to be "anti-Christian".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Beyond the Baptist boycott

MGM promoted the film directly to believers who were sure to hate it. "It seemed like they did everything they could to get a boycott," said Walt Mueller, head of the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding in Elizabethtown, Pa. "They wanted a boycott. They needed a boycott. I am sure they were stunned when they didn't get one."

Terry Mattingly, August 18

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabethtown, Pa. Interesting. Mr Mueller's organization is right here in my neck of the woods and I've never heard of it before...

"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So ... now that it's out on DVD, who's gonna check out the director's commentary?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're doing a screening of Saved! (with discussion to follow) for our monthly film and theology group on Friday Oct 8th, 2004 at a home in South Seattle. Desert at 6:30 -- film rolls at 7pm -- email info at harambeechurch dot com for directions.

Would love to have any Seattle folks drop by.

Other upcoming features include "Eternal Sunshine..." in November and "Collateral" for December.

Much Love --

pastor z

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extras could offer 'Saved!' redemption on DVD

Tidbits include the fact that director and co-writer Brian Dannelly showed the 1972 film Marjoe to the cast before shooting a scene in which a rebellious student (Eva Amurri) disrupts an assembly by pretending to speak in tongues. Marjoe, an Oscar-winning documentary about ex-child evangelist Marjoe Gortner, revealed a similar pretense, as Gortner coached folks on speaking in tongues as a fervor-fueling ruse. For a scene in which Malone's character Mary, who suspects she's pregnant, steals a home pregnancy test, Malone admits she stole "lots of candy" as a kid -- and seems to feel no remorse. Moore, who plays the uptight "good girl" of the film, is horrified on the commentary, too.

Houston Chronicle, October 5

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I watched this last night. I can't remember what all others have said, and I don't feel like weeding through the thread, but here are my first impressions:

Way too preachy. I think the main character's voice-over really represented that. But even from the other characters, there was so much obvious and overt preachiness from the filmmakers' perspective. Which is rather ironic, no?

Acting really wasn't all that good. Very 2-dimensional. It seemed that the actors were in love with how "witty" this movie would be, and didn't really focus on fleshing out the characters.

And it really wasn't written all that well. Pacing and rhythm were also off, so the story did not pull me in like it could have despite the amatuer acting.

Basically another case where hype doesn't match the reality.

But yeah, the movie was witty in parts. They may have missed the target, but they nipped the tree and hit the grove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're showing saved! this weekend at calvin, and my office usually puts together a power point presentation that loops before the movie starts. (students usually get to films up to an hour early, so we figured we might as well use that time wisely.) these presentations feature about five or six discussion questions to get them thinking. this is a christian college, so these students will likely have some context for the film's setting, charicatures, etc.

any suggestions for such questions? i've got a bunch in my file, but just thought i'd throw the query out there to the arts and faith crowd.

thanks!

kate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...