Ambrosino, in his essay, basically argues that Christian films subsume the actual art of film to the message; what's important isn't that the film is good--that the actors give authentic performances, that the story is compelling, etc--but rather that the message itself is presented foremost and, worse, as literally as possible:
But even if Hollywood films do contain embodied messages, they're not always as explicitly drawn out as they are in Christian movies. That's because, says Godawa, many Evangelical Christians, who are people of the Good Book, have come to value words over images. "They don't know how to embody their messages in the story," he says. "They have to hear the literal words [of the Gospel]."It's an important point that most movies contain some meaning, and it's worth pointing out that many secular films can either be interpreted in religious ways (I like to think of No Country For Old Men as a religious allegory), or contain some reference to religious figures (the Coen brothers' A Good Man is described as a retelling of the Book of Job; Simon in Lord of the Flies, as well as even Alex Murphy in Robocop are often cited as "Christ figures", which itself is a motif in other countless "secular" stories). Equally important is that it used to be possible for Christian authors--one or two in particular--to write stories that were Christian in the strictest sense and were compelling for people who may not be Christian: Namely, Fyodor Dostoevsky and CS Lewis.
The possibility of telling a good, captivating story that engages audiences about philosophical/theological issues without beating them over the head seems to elude the people producing contemporary Christian movies. Even "mainstream" Christian movies, such as Heaven is For Real--which certain evangelical factions attacked for being exploitative and manipulative, and eventually turned out to be complete bull--tend to go out of their way to openly attack people with differing opinions. In a review of the film, Odie Henderson writes, "Preaching to the choir is just fine by me, as I was once a member of that choir. But doing victory laps, sticking your tongue out at non-members and hi-fiving the choir while chanting 'Amirite, amirite?' does not help the cause." Kinda hard to do victory laps when the subject publicly renounces the whole damned enterprise. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary starring Ben Stein that eventually sunk so low as to invoke Godwin's Law to attack Charles Darwin, is another fantastic example of the abject failure of contemporary Christian film making. It would be safe to postulate that Expelled compelled exactly zero "evolutionists" to reconsider their positions.
At issue, I think, is Christian culture as a whole. Let me be frank: They have outright lost the Culture War. I know that battles in the Deep South are still being waged, but Texas--Texas! Can you believe it!? Hallelujah!--is about to recognize same-sex marriage. The larger culture is now--with certain outstanding exceptions--wary of anything that even smells like Jesus' three-day-old body odor. They know that Christian parenting compelled Leelah Alcorn to take her own life. Now is certainly not the time to "run victory laps...and [chant] 'amirite, amirite?'" But the fact that this kind of celebration continues--that may appear to outsiders as delusional (jumping on this word would be far too easy)--betrays a much darker side of Christian culture: Is it possible for the kinds of Christians for whom this media is produced able to recognize and understand perspectives that are not their own? This is a really important question to ask because as Christianity loses ground to other ideologies, it will have to quickly learn to cooperate with others in order to achieve its goals. If it cannot recognize other ideologies, it will quickly be extinguished (I will withhold judgment about its demise being good or bad).
Returning for a moment to the literalism of the messages in Christian film, there is an important point to be made about this Christian culture that Ambrosino did not touch upon, perhaps because it was outside the scope of his essay. Films and novels--not to mention religious texts--are open to individual interpretation. This was a fundamental (pardon my use of the term) point of the Protestant Reformation, and one that is notably absent. I would argue that this glaring omission is intentional, and ties into my previous point about recognizing differing opinions. Fundamentalism excludes at the outset any possible historical context, any symbolism, metaphors, or hidden meanings. It also does wonders to establish a monolithic authority and suppress individualism in its base. This suppression of individualism within its ranks not only strangles its own culture--and it is from this position that these films are made. But if dialogue is impossible from within, then it absolutely follows that dialogue without is triply impossible. If it works to suppress interpretation within itself, how can there be any hope of engaging non-believers on a meaningful and productive level?
As pointed out in Ambrosino's essay, the stated goal of Christian film making is "...is engaging and converting secular culture." I'm not going to deny that those are laudable and possible goals in theory, and were actually attained by prominent figures in the past, but given the contemporary "monolithic" nature of what is considered "Christian" culture, in attempting to bridge the gaping wound that is the Culture War, Christians are going to need to be much more humble.
