Religious Minded Films- Are they so terrrible? (1 Viewer)

[Jeremiah]

Jeff, I guess we will just have to disagree.

Gabriel was beyond being a badass, he acted more like a Demon than an Angel and his way of thinking(if I remember correctly) was NOT a sinless way of thinking.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, let's please refrain from discussing religion in and of itself. Stick to how it works in these movies, and whether or not the movies are any good.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

This statement is quite interesting, to me. Wouldn't this suggest that yes, films whose message and point of view take higher priority over their artistic delivery CAN be good, indeed?

The comments suggests that the works of the old masters were first biased by the people/institution who commissioned them - the Church. It further implies that the religious motive was, to some degree, the first element that had to be satisfied - the artist had to satisfy the Church's wishes and took the job not [necessarily] on religious inspiration, but out of the need or want to sell his services.

And yet, these works are masterpieces. So, shouldn't a film be able to accomplish the same thing? Sounds like funding [resources] is the only issue.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Gabriel was beyond being a badass, he acted more like a Demon than an Angel and his way of thinking(if I remember correctly) was NOT a sinless way of thinking.

Right, remember, he's a Fallen Angel in The Prophecy, just like Lucifer.
Frankly, I always loved Peter Cook's portrayal of Lucifer in "Bedazzled" the best

 

[Damin J Toell]

This statement is quite interesting, to me. Wouldn't this suggest that yes, films whose message and point of view take higher priority over their artistic delivery CAN be good, indeed?

I would suggest some fact-checking. I'm not arguing against your conclusions, but the premise that the Catholic Church was the only patron of the arts during the Renaissance is quite faulty.

DJ

 

[Mitty]

In the last few years, there has been an emergence of films financed, produced, and marketed for groups of religious people.

I think this is exactly the difference between the recent "Religious Minded Films" and the films Rich has listed in his pair of posts (by the way Rich, did the Vatican distinctly specify "not the Talking Mule picture?" ). The recent batch of films is not interested in exploring the lofty topics of religion, spirituality or faith; they're just about telling a captive audience what they want to hear. The subject matter is not approached with an open mind at all. Even Kevin Smith's Dogma is a better "religious" film that any of the ones Jonathon lists in his initial post IMO. As a person who is not at all religious, I do find stories of religion fascinating.
It seems like the best films dealing with religion are the ones which A) tell a compelling human story (as some of the so-called "creaky" epics from the 50s and 60s do) or B) examine the concepts of faith (see Rich's post for a list).
I'd call these recent batch of films propogranda pieces, except that they only preach to the already converted.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Damin:



First, that point was already established by the time I posted. Second, your response to my comments (the ones you chose to quote) has little to do with what I said, or at least shows my comments to be misread.

I never concluded that Renaissance art was commissioned only by the Church. In fact, I never even stated that. I was responding to someone who asserted that most of the art was religous in nature because it was the best way to make a living.

Since this thread is about discussing/gauging the potential for a religious film to be both or either high in quality versus campy/preachy, I found the original comments interesting. As I said in examination of the other member's analogy: If the Renaissance Art in question was heavily religious, and its religious content was motivated by the Church or the monetary gains involved in working for the Church, and yet these pieces are still considered art of the highest kind, then what stops films from being equally so? The "message" or "Faith" the film is trying to spread can be the primary motive, and yet that does not mean technical quality has to be sacrificed.

If the beauty and technical brilliance of the Sistine (sp?)Ceiling was painted first with its message and religious content being foremost in mind [at the time of creation], why can't a film acheive the same goal?

So, Damin, if you are trying to difuse the original analogy, I would expect you to provide me (us) with something which evidences that the old masters' art did not have religious intents and messages as a (or the) primary motive.

Your comment does not speak to mine, and it is hardly constructive to path of reasoning which my comments were following.

 

[Jeremiah]

I kind of liked Liz Hurley more.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

And yet, these works are masterpieces. So, shouldn't a film be able to accomplish the same thing? Sounds like funding [resources] is the only issue.

Of course, we only remember the great works, not the terrible ones that were commissioned, some of which, I assume, must exist. I don't think the situations are comparable either, but I guess I don't feel like elaborating much on that point for the time being.

 

[Phil Florian]

Religious movies could be a bit more pragmatic in their presentation as well as artistic in a time when there was little to no competetion for spiritual butts being in the pews. Today, there is more competetion in religious circles and like it or not, religions are businesses. They only exist if enough people pay for them to exist. Fundamentalist Christians have the hardest time about this, though they are doing better now than ever before. As increased awareness of history and science marches on, it makes it harder and harder to accept some things as literal. Thus, a new approach is required. Where to look? Business. The fastest growing churches in this country are doing so not because they enjoy the exploration of the spiritual path and other wishy-washy ideas...they succeed because they present a clear, easily remembered messages that is repeated week to week.

Thus, the same approach to art and films. Music that once was inspired by the Almighty (like many great classical music, choral music, gospel music, etc.) and the Divine, is now pop crap that has lost all the beauty, wonder, and mystery that can be religion (and coming from an athiest, that is high praise). I love sacred choral music...but if I hear another pop anthem saying how great God is, I will wretch. They are pop anthems with no more heart and soul than cheerleaders yelling cheers at a football game...and just about as creative. But it has one thing going for it: Clear, intentional message.

Same with movies: No more of this wishywashy questions of faith and the nature of the divine (like in "The Apostle" and "Last Temptation of Christ"). That isn't clear enough. Give them a clear "Follow God or you shall burn!" and that will get butts in the pews. And it works.

The question is, can even a clear message movie still be good? I think it can. I was thinking about this thread while driving home from work and was trying to remember a "message" movie that was entertaining and "artful" yet still had a clear message it was portraying. Two came to mind instantly. The first is "Citizen Ruth" which is clearly a scathing look at the pro/con abortion industry. While the movie doesn't share a clear "In favor/Not in favor" of abortion, it does clearly show a message of how people with extreme views are seen. But still, not a very clear message and it requires some thought.

One that didn't require thought and I remember distinctly enjoying as a kid (it's target audience). The mantra "The only way to win is to not play" is still repeated today and even has more resonance now as we get back into the nuclear fear that was the 1980s. "Wargames" was clearly an anti-war movie for the popcorn generation with a very clear statement of belief but it was presented in a light and entertaining way. We didn't get gobs of nuclear fallout, tons of blood and wastelands. We did get a fun summer romp yet ended with that nifty scene of scenario after scenario playing out like fireworks as the computer (a "child") comes to the conclusion that nuclear war is bad and it can't be won. Is it high art? No, but it wasn't trying to be. Was it at least entertaining? Yup. Did it appeal to a wider audience than anti-nuke protestors? I don't know the number, but I remember it being at least a minor hit for that year.

Any other examples of movies where a clear message can still come through in an entertaining yet profitable manner?


Phil

 

[Mike Broadman]

I'm sorry if I'm beating this analogy into the ground, but I can't resist...

In the Middle Ages, visual art sanctioned by the Church was very simple and very awkward-looking. The images were done for the purpose of portraying an idea or religious theme, but they are not particularly aesthetically pleasing or artistically interesting.

The Renaissance brought forth the legendary artists, ie Michaelangelo. But the primary creative force of this period was Humanism, even though they still were believers. So, religious themed art was created with the understanding that the piece must be injected with the artist's talent and skill.

With religious movies, perhaps we are in the "Middle Ages" of sorts: these movies are concerned primarily with portraying a message and not with the cinematic quality. Maybe this will change. Maybe it won't, and the better films are being made but pass under the radar because they aren't so bad as to be laughed at (I only know about the Omega Code because people keep making fun of it).

So, to answer the question: "Can a film whose primary intention is to deliver a religious message, or preach, be of high cinematic quality?, " I don't see why not. Heck, they are probably out there.

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Go ahead Mike, beat it to death! This is what I was looking for in the first place - and pretty much what I thought was the case (I know a good deal about the Renaissance, but the history of art is one of the areas I come up short).

Essentially, the existence of crappy or "not so good" religious art is beside the point. As Mike pointed out, both sides of the coin existed. This thread has spend a lot of time ripping into the crappy and "not so good" of message-laden religious film. Jack and a few others then push the question: Where is modern film's version of "the other side of the coin?" Does it even exist?

And trying to elaborate and re-illustrate that question is all I can do; I honestly can't think of any preachy or very "slanty" contemporary films that also have the technical quality of a masterpiece, or even a "really good film." But that doesn't mean it can't be done. But again, just because it can be done, doesn't mean it will be done anytime soon.

And I think the cash cow argument is a strong one. If a studio or individual producer wants to invest a ton of money into a religion-slanted film in order to get the quality aspect out of it, they would have to be very dedicated to the cause. Like others have said, this kind of venture would risk turning a lot of people off, both during a viewing and even before people got into the theater, even if it was very well done. When a sloppy film of the same core message can be made for a tenth of the cost, preach to the choir and turn over its budget, that risk of producing that film at a higher level looks a lot less "necessary."

I guess there's an assumption that a preacher-movie will only be accepted by the choir, and that a few viewers outside the core target audience are not worth the risk for a studio or company to inject a load of cash into the prospective film.

I don't know...more wandering thought.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Your comment does not speak to mine, and it is hardly constructive to path of reasoning which my comments were following.

Speaking of comments that do not speak to mine: It was not meant to be "constructive to path of reasoning." It was meant to get us all on the same factual page, borne from a (mis?-)reading of your post. I wasn't trying to argue any sort of point here, although you seem to be trying very hard for some reason to get me to debate something.
To sum, I'm not trying to argue in any way that art created for a religious purpose cannot be great. I'm not sure how in the world you extrapolated my 2 brief sentences (one of which flat-out told you I wasn't disagreeing with you) into such an argument.
DJ

 

[Doug Cummings]

Rich is absolutely correct and his list of films illustrates a more accurate picture of the integration of religion and art. It's inconsequential whether these films are "more popular" or reach "the average moviegoer" at all. The problem is not religious themes (an integral part of the human experience), the problem is inherent in art-making. Self-professing Christian groups marketing their products to church-going audiences tend to make a lot of crap because they aren't interested in making art, only making money off a particular media subculture. But Christian filmmakers (indeed, filmmakers of many religious stripes) who understand the value of the religious life as a means to truth, goodness, and beauty -- and understanding the human condition more fully -- have unquestionably made art which sets the standard for all. The problem is niche market profiteers, not faith-based inspiration.

 

[Paul Richardson]

First of all, let me retract an earlier statement that insinuated that ALL art during the renaissance was commissioned by the church. That is false. However, the VAST MAJORITY of what are considered "masterpieces" today from that period was. Now, keep in mind that these pieces were not made for entertainment, whereas most films are.
Which brings me to another point: most people go to films to be entertained. Religious films, generally, are not very entertaining. When somebody does mix entertainment and religion (Dogma, Life of Brian) the protestors show up in droves. Go figure.
Which brings up another problem: censorship. If you are making a religious movie funded by a religious group, they will have their hands in everything. Generally these people are not artists, so in their effort to make your film more "holy" they will sabotage the aesthetics.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Welcome to the forum Doug. I think your post just ended the conversation because it effectively sums up the points being made.

 

[Aaron Thomas]

The chief patrons of Renaissance art and literature were the merchant classes of Florence and Venice, which created in the Renaissance palace their own distinctive home and workplace, fitted for both business and rearing and nurture of the next generation of urban rulers.

I DO think that it's interesting to compare Renaissance Art to those films this topic began with:
1. privately funded pieces of art
2. overtly religious
3. not fully adherent to the reigning church dogma
4. often publicly viewed, more concerned with the original small audience
And there are probably others...
I think the best consideration in trying to answer the question of "Are they worthwhile?" is #3; the more questions asked, and the more interesting the answers, the more likely I think they will be remembered.
(As for "Are they so terrible?", others have pointed out that it depends, just like any other movie. I mean, if you like 70s exploitation movies, "The Cross and the Switchblade" is no worse than any other Erik Estrada-Pat Boone vehicle could ever be. Like bad independent film, but instead of wooden acting and incredible amounts of violence, it's wodden acting and incredible amounts of salvation.)
Aaron Thomas
"You could cut me up into a thousand pieces and lay me in the street. And every piece will still love you!"

 

[Alan Benson]

Just wanted to throw a title into the mix -- it's sadly OOP, even on VHS, but Franco Zefferelli's sumptuous Brother Sun, Sister Moon (the St. Francis of Assisi story) had a huge impact on me as a religious teenager (and I'm not even Catholic...) It seemed very profound and beautiful at the time, awakening a wonderful sense of awe and worship in me... I'd love the chance to see it again as an adult...

 

[Robert Dallas]

There is a film called in spanish called "Soldados de Dios" which shows the angels and demons as real people very good film.

And has anybody seen Hal Hartley´s excellent "The Book of Life"? Its a film that dares as many other religious films out there defy the religious standards.

It was shot on Digital Camera translated to 35 mm and it stars Martin Donovan, P.J. Harvey and Thomas Jay Ryan.
The soundtrack is also excellent from Hal Hartley himself to Yo La Tengo.
You can buy it from amazon or ask for it at Barnes and Noble were i ordered it (not from the web).
But look it were they have Fox/Lorber or Winstar Cinema DVD´s because it´s a real pain to find it somewhere.

 

[Pascal A]

Just throwing my two cents into the pot.
I must admit that I really don't care for any of the St. Francis of Assisi films out there (Franco Zeferelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon or Roberto Rossellini's The Flowers of St. Francis), not because St. Francis is portrayed as an average "human", but because in the respective directors' attempts to show the human aspect of achieving divine grace, they have lost sight of the indefinable essence of spiritual enlightenment. As with any other class of film, I find that the most successful films about religion and spirituality tend to be open and honest about the personal struggle of faith and the constant need to find balance.
What makes a film like Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (or more precisely, Kaj Munk's play Ordet) or Krzysztof Kieslowski's Decalogue resonate as religious-themed films is the innate realization that to have true faith is to realize its imperfect and non-absolute essence. The Borgen family all think Johannes is crazy in Ordet. All of the literal Commandments are broken in Decalogue. Similarly, St. Joan momentarily acknowledges being "bewitched" in The Passion of Joan of Arc, the beleaguered priest constantly questions his faith and suitability to minister in Diary of a Country Priest; Mizushima steals the monk's clothing to avoid capture in The Burmese Harp, etc. In essence, all of the characters are imperfect, and it is the emotional honesty of their "struggle of the soul" that elevates these films from the banality of religious films-as-novelty commodification.
Some other films to consider:
Krzysztof Zanussi - Weekend Stories, especially the episode entitled Little Faith
Tian Zhuangzhuang - Horse Thief
Maria Luisa Bemberg - I, the Worst of All (ignore the titillating, lesbian overtoned tagline on the First Run video )
Ladislao Vajda - Marcelino, Pan y vino