I must admit, the opinion expressed by Andy Crouch regarding the latest “Christian film” Courageous caught me off-guard. (Thanks to E. Stephen Burnett for highlighting this article.) In How to Respond to Christian Movies that Could Be Better Artistically, Crouch writes:
I’ve seen neither FIREPROOF nor COURAGEOUS. My friends who know movies are pretty skeptical of their artistic merits (to say the least). For my part, I suspect they are pretty thin artistic efforts (like an awful lot of stuff that pa
sses for cultural creativity from Hollywood itself). But I celebrate them, for two simple reasons.
First, it is better to create something worth criticizing than to criticize and create nothing.
Second, one or two Christian kids with real talent somewhere in this vast land are going to see these movies, get the sacred-secular dichotomy knocked out of them at an early age, move to LA, work their tails off, dream, fail, and try again . . . and one day make truly great movies. These movies are significant not for their own excellence but for the door they open to cultural creativity that the church never should have lost. (emphasis mine)
This is a gracious response, and frankly, it’s a response I often lack. I did see Fireproof and, as a result, have no desire to see Courageous. In that, I share Crouch’s suspicion about most Christian films being “pretty thin artistic efforts.” However, does it help anyone — either Christian artists or consumers — to sit in judgment of such efforts?
Many would say “no.” Who are you to determine what’s excellent anyway? they retort. People are inspired, lives are changed, by Christian films like Courageous and Fireproof. That’s proof enough of their effectiveness. So why nit-pick over technicalities? Hollywood has a good share of its own crap. Besides, the Gospel is getting out there.
Hard to argue with that.
However, please note: Crouch is not dismissing artistic mediocrity, but seeing it as part of a growth trajectory toward excellence. This is an important distinction and one that, I believe, is a watershed in the discussion.
An argument can be made that if something is worth being done, it’s worth being done poorly. That reasoning used to bug the crap out of me, probably because I couldn’t rebut it. As someone who’s obsessed with details and takes pride in wanting to do certain things well, I have to concede that some things are just too important to have to do perfectly all the time.
Perhaps Christian art is one of them.
- Corporate worship is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
- Christian music is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
- Gospel preaching is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
- Christian film-making is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
- Christian fiction is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
- Evangelism is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.
But while there’s good reason to tolerate average, inferior, “pretty thin artistic efforts,” there’s a big difference between doing that and uncritically exalting mediocrity. It’s one thing, as Andy Crouch does, to see films like Courageous as brave, even necessary stepping stones towards Christian excellence in cultural creativity. It’s another thing to see Courageous as evidence of Christian excellence in cultural creativity.
We must give artists — in this case, Christian artists — grace to grow. Confession: I need to do this more. I do it with myself. I know my first book had flaws, weaknesses. It was my first novel, how could it not? So I’ve given myself grace to grow. Well, I need to do that more with others (like the film-makers of Courageous).
Here’s the thing I struggle with: If something is worth being done, it’s worth being done poorly. But how will it ever get better if we don’t acknowledge it’s being done poorly?
It is one thing to give ourselves grace to grow in the arts. It is another thing to admit we NEED to grow in the arts. Frankly, it’s on this latter point that many Christians disagree. If Christian consumers don’t see something as artistically inferior, how can we ever raise the bar? If there is NO critical analysis of films like Courageous, or if that criticism is roundly dismissed by those inside the Christian community, how can we ever hope to “make truly great movies”?
So, yeah. If it’s worth being done, go ahead and do it poorly. Just, next time, do it better.
Man, this is very thought-provoking. I need to stew on this a bit. I appreciate the part about you giving yourself grace to grow. I really enjoyed Resurrection, but I also understand we all have room to grow. I just released my first novel last week so I’m gonna have to learn that real soon as well.
Thanks for another intriguing post Mike.
Brandon, I love your site. Would like to know more about your writing journey. Can you email me?
Sure thing…just sent you a line, looking forward to talking more.
Funny, I was pondering this after watching “To Save a Life” the other day. For a Christian film it actually had decent actors and good production values for what it was. I too have been put off by the quality of some past films. They will remain nameless, but some were quite bad. Yes, I’m sure they reached some people, but shouldn’t we be saying, how can we reach much more? Too often these films are only being seen by believers anyway. Yes there is a market for people who will only watch “Christian” films, but just being Christian doesn’t make it good. Should we settle for substandard? And being “Hollywood” doesn’t make it bad (think “Henry Poole is Here” or “Signs” with Christian messages).
Could Christian filmakers have raised the 100s of millions that it cost to film movies by Christian authors Tolkien and Lewis? Yes it does cost money to make a film. We can’t get past that. “Passion of the Christ” “only” cost $30M, a far cry from the average $150M.
Christian films have improved. They are still vastly underfunded. The independent film market has exploded and Hollywood mainstream companies often distribute such films as part of their overall revenue stream. Should Christian filmakers be looking to parter with Hollywood? The estates of Tolkien and Lewis did. One of the reasons is that they wanted their films made right. They knew it would take a sizable investment. Who was able to that for them?
Maybe it’s also a matter of figuring out the business of selling films. Besides raising money for them, selling and marketing seems to be the big problems. How do you reach people with your message if you’re not reaching them to begin with?
DD, you’re right about the complexity of issues involved in film production. A Christian film-maker could have a fantastic story, a good script, even a firm commitment to quality, but if they’re limited by finances, it will show. It’s a lot different than writing a novel, where the majority of the power (i.e., the actual story) is in the hands of the author. Perhaps this is one more reason to give Christian film-makers some grace.
Nevertheless, I would say there’s an important distinction between Christian film-makers whose films suffer from lack of financial backing and those that suffer from a lack of ideological depth. Would Fireproof have actually been better had the creators had more money? I’m not sure.
Thanks for your comments!
To Save a Life! That was what I was trying to think of when I read this post. I liked that one, too.
I think part of the problem is that Christian artists sometimes feel obligated to include the Gospel message in their work, as if that’s what makes the work “Christian”. The thing is, the Gospel message is for witnessing to unbelievers; those of us who are generally interested in Christian art are believers, so we don’t need to be witnessed to.
Thus the disconnect.
When you’re trying to reconcile all these ideas of what “should” be in your work, and what it has to do, it’s hard to make it good. And when you’re desperate for something, you’ll take whatever’s close and rave over it, because it’s the best you can get.
Consider how Christians with limited access to Scripture react to getting just one book of the Bible. Sometimes it seems to me like that’s how we privileged folks react to anything that’s passably “clean” art, regardless of quality.
It is possible to create quality Christian art. But I’m with you, Mike, that it can’t happen if nobody actually points out that it needs to grow. I probably could be more gracious when I read Christian fiction, but I wonder, when I read bestselling Christian authors (some of whom have been recommended to me many times), should I have to settle?
A local “clean” indie film was a smash hit in the local independent theater, but they’ve barely started recouping costs. I don’t know how much the movie cost, but I’ve heard the numbers for how many DVDs sold vs. how many need to sell to recoup costs, and they have awhile to go. (I’m talking about More Than Diamonds, if anyone’s interested—and if you mind the mention, Mike, please feel free to delete my comment.)
“Christian fiction is so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.”
Should it though, when we have had such great writers in our history? T.S. Elliot, George MacDonald, C.S.Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Fyodor Dostoyevsky…
I get what you are saying, but not enough people are admitting that there is room for improvement. They have settled for what is. That’s not to say that there aren’t great writers out there. There are plenty.
I recently stumbled upon the sci-fi trilogy by Chris Walley. Never heard of it, but it was excellent. It could be an epic bestseller. But I get the feeling that because it wasn’t the usual same-old that the publisher didn’t know what to do with it. Or maybe they just didn’t know what they had. How much sci-fi do you see in Christian bookstores? It’s not that they (or we) don’t read it. I think publishers would be suprised if they didn’t limit their genres.
There’s a lot of issues at play here. Good to discuss.
“An argument can be made that if something is worth being done, it’s worth being done poorly. ”
— at first.
Critical addendum, that. It’s not enough to mean well. We have to do well.
I’ve always understood – and used that thought – to point to the Learning Curve. Like you said: “Grace to Grow”. Not “Persist in Mediocrity.”
Another good post. Thanks, Mike.
I’m not part of the film community and I don’t understand all the ins and outs, but as a person who would LOVE to go to more movies but will not because of content, I can tell you what I see–I see a Christian community that, except for a small percentage of its population, is not interested in supporting the Christian film industry. And I do think the fact that Christian films don’t have hundreds of millions to support their production is a direct link to quality. Tough decisions have to be made. Decisions that people producing the big budget movies don’t even have to think about.
It takes monumental effort just to get the word out about Christian films–it is slightly better now than it was five years ago but it’s still terrible compared to the advertising of big budget movies.
But specifically with relation to quality–while I agree there are areas for improvement, I HAVE seen improvement in the Christian films in the last five or so years. And I do believe it will continue to get better. I applaud the people who work hard against such odds to bring these films to us. I hope it won’t always be such a terrible struggle to get the support they need to keep growing.
Since I actually WORK in the “Christian Film” industry, I have a couple cents to add.
First off, thank you, Mike, for your post and realizing we need to allow grace to grow. I thought my first debut novel was pretty streamlined perfect–until about one day after its release and everyone started pointing out errors I (nor my editors) ever caught :p
Look, I’m the first to admit that Christian films often pale in comparison to mainstream Hollywood outings. We just don’t have the money. Having a budget at 1 million dollars is considered a blockbuster–when, I think, Jim Carrey won’t even READ a script unless he’s paid 20 mil. So, we don’t have a lot of money. And, we don’t have huge Hollywood stars. Why? Partly is money, but partly because the filmmakers often think it’s dishonest to have non-Christians playing Christians. Not like it’s immoral, but just that “How can a non-believer really get this?” I’ve seen it. I’ve seen what happens sometimes when you’ve got non-believing actors playing believers. They just plaster on perfect smiles and imitate what they “think” Christians are supposed to be. It’s ugly. So, filmmakers are trying to balance that line between finding good, CHEAP Hollywood actors, but also ones that are, at least, sympathetic to Christians and can carry it off. Not always easy to do. I’ve seen really good actors who simply don’t “get” what it means to portray a Christian on screen. It’s not just a role–it’s a whole mindset. A worldview or whatever. It’s sort of–and forgive me if this offends, because it’s not meant to–hiring a white man to play a black man in a drama. How in the world can I, as a white guy, ever REALLY understand what life is like for an African American? (I can’t) People would be outraged, I’d think.
The other thing that would, no doubt, boggle people’s minds is this: Christian filmmakers are TRYING. And they are trying hard. I have countless conversations with these guys and they KNOW people laugh at them–including Christians. They know they’re low budget, they know they don’t always have the best actors. They work months on scripts–somtimes years–, going back and forth trying to get it right. They are studying film trying to understand what makes a movie truly great. People slam them for being mediocre, but it’s not like they’re all sitting back saying “Ah, that’s good enough. We don’t have to try very hard–we’ve got the gospel in here”.
Plus, it’s a lot of pressure. How many Hollywood movies open up in a year? And they run the gamut–some are excellent, some are mediocre, most are lousy. But there’s enough there to forget the bad ones and remember the excellent ones. Christian movies get, what, one a year? One every two years? And that movie’s got to carry the weight of the entire industry and be used as a gauge for an entire industry for that year. That’s incredibly unfair.
That’s not to say we should just say “All’s forgiven” and accept everything they do as high art. Again, there are few Christian movies that I just enjoy. If there were a hundred released every year, I’d probably find more. But when it’s just a couple a year, it’s high odds that it just won’t be my kind of movie. But I don’t for one second accuse those filmmakers of “phoning it in”. They are passionate, they are hard working, and they get very little praise for anything. But they keep making movies. They keep trying to grow from one film to the next and to maybe reach some place where they are taken seriously as “real” artists.
I think grace is needed as they grow.
Thanks for your post Greg. While I’m not involved with the film industry I know a few who are. It’s very hard work. Not only trying to craft the best possible story but doing all the tedious work to raise funds.
Due to the hard work of these folks who HAVE put out movies in recent years, I am starting to see a microscopically slow shift in the minds of Christians–that “hey, maybe this is something we should be investing ourselves in.” But it is very very slow going.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t a education process. Does the average Joe just figure whoever puts out a movie has millions of dollars for it? I would bet they do–just as people assume anybody who has published a book is rolling in the dough.
Thanks, Greg. I’d never thought about the “non-Christians playing Christians” dilemma. While I agree with everything you said here, I still find myself returning to the kernel of my contention. Christian film, like much Christian fiction, seems to be predictable, simplistic, preaching to the choir type stuff. Having all the money in the world wouldn’t change that. It would just turn the film into a $30 million celluloid version of the 4 Spiritual Laws. So I’m wondering if the grace to grow doesn’t just apply to aesthetics, but to the role of Christians and their films in creative culture.
And I agree a bit there, Mike.
On the money thing–that doesn’t just affect who acts in the movie. That goes down to writers, composers, crews, etc. It’s the same reason you don’t have Stephen King, Clive Barker, and Dean Koontz submitting short stories to these small upstart presses that don’t pay anything. Someone wanting to make a living at doing movies is NOT going to be making a living at doing Christian movies. There’s just not any money there, period. So, what you have are a lot of volunteers and well meaning types that maybe just aren’t as talented. We’re taught that, if we’re talented at something, we ought to be getting paid for what we’re worth–which means that you’re going to have Christians who are super talented and they’re going to want to devote their talent to Hollywood pictures because that’s where the money’s at. I believe Kirk Cameron did Fireproof for FREE. You’re just not going to find that a lot. But Kirk believes in it. He’s passionate about it. I know, for instance, that when they were filming the Left Behind movies, they’d lose Kirk in between shots. “Where’s Kirk?” They’d start looking around, trying to find him–he was outside, on the street, ministring to people. No cameras around, just out there talking to people. That’s Kirk. But that’s a rarity.
As for the 4 Spiritual Laws–I agree it’s tough to overcome that. I think the Christian Film thing is just so new and they don’t know what they “should” be doing in regards to how best to affect culture. There’s a lot of trial and error. Hollywood has been at the moviemaking game for a little over a hundred years. Christian films haven’t entered the public conscious–haven’t even really TRIED to–until the late 1990s! Before that, they were novelties–short films that were basically televised skits, shown to church groups on Wednesday services. They were meant to be low on the story, high on message, and leave the pastor with a built-in altar call. It was just something that was done within the Church, for church members and services–like big home movies. It wasn’t until the late 90s, when all the Church film libraries started shutting down that filmmakers started taking it to the mainstream market. But a lot of times, they’re still operating on that whole “insta-message” that was their entire point in the early days.
I really agree with what you said in the initial post–if nothing else, things like Fireproof and Courageous encourage others to try harder, to go farther. I’ve always said, “If you think you can do better, then do it” That’s not meant to be negative, but it’s hard doing this stuff. If someone has a better idea, then by all means, make it happen! Change the way we look at these things! But a lot of people who feel that way want to make their mark in Hollywood. And they DO make their mark, but the people they leave behind in the Christian Film Industry are those who are willing to do it for next to no pay–which usually draws a lot of heart, but not always the same level of talent.
Christian film making is a relatively new enterprise. There is a steep learning curve, but I’ve seen big leaps recently. They’re headed in the right direction. There are Christians in Hollywood, maybe some will take notice.
Mike, you should try a couple movies: Dangerous Calling and The River Within. Both Christian flicks by filmmakers despeartely trying to break the mold.
Needless to say, they didn’t get much support from Christian moviegoers…
Yes, all artists need to be given room to grow. I fell in love with two bands in middle school, one I still listen to, one I do not. The latter grew to a certain point, and then just started churning out more of the same. Safe perhaps, but mind numblingly boring. The former has since written many songs that miss the mark, but along the way they’ve grown and stretched artistically, even created a few masterpieces. It’s much easier to forgive failed attempts among signs of growth, than it is to forgive an artist who is stuck at one place creating technically proficient work.
As for Courageous, I saw many hints of potential greatness in the movie, so I look forward to seeing their next. If they prove committed to growth and improvement, I will remain an eager audience member who’s excited to see what they do next.
“If something is worth being done, it’s worth being done poorly.”
I don’t think I like that saying: What does that even mean? Do something poorly? Who wants to do something poorly? And if you’re only endeavoring to do something poorly why do it at all, that’s like the student who aims to not flunk but doesn’t work achieve more.
I guess I’m not understanding the purpose of this phrase, I will have to think on it…in great detail!
Right now I can only say that if we (Christians) are only going to aim for poor quality in anything we endeavor to do, we are not going to reach the lost world who is motivated by high quality materialism.
Seriously, can anyone help me understand?
As to the other parts of this post. I saw Fireproof, not the best movie, but it is a stepping stone in the right direction for Christian entertainment. Haven’t seen the new movie, but I have heard good reviews.
Hi TC,
I don’t think the purpose of the idea “important enough to be worth doing poorly” is meant to suggest that poor quality is all that Christian art should aspire to be. Rather (and please correct me if I’ve misunderstood, Mike), it is important enough to exist — in some fashion or other — while it improves. That is where the “grace to grow” comes in.
I understand what you’re saying by, “if you’re only endeavoring to do something poorly why do it at all,” but the logical conclusion of that idea is to tell Christian filmmakers, actors, screenwriters, etc., “If it’s not Ben-Hur, don’t even bother.”
I would say that exercising “grace to grow” is exactly what you did in the end of your post: seeing Fireproof as “a stepping stone in the right direction for Christian entertainment,” and not giving up on Courageous, or the entire genre, just because Fireproof was “not the best movie.” (For my part, I liked Fireproof and I haven’t seen Courageous yet, but I’m looking forward to it.)
Thanks for answering my question and for the clarification. I went back and re-read the post and agree that is the meaning. I must have been super tired and not giving the reading my full attention.
I am happy to see Christian movies being made. I hope and believe they will continue to improve so that those who are not Christian will view them in better light.
Courageous has gotten some really good reviews and that is encouraging.
I haven’t seen Courageous, but my husband saw it when he was out of town, and he loved it. It encouraged him, blessed him, and he came home talking about it. He felt that, although it was low-budget, the producers did a good job. Most of all, he felt it was sincere. A lack of sincerity is difficult to mask in any artistic attempt, and sincerity shines through even mediocre work, while a lack of it glares from a well-crafted production. He recommended it to his dad, who saw it and cried while watching it. So I don’t know what to say. Different stories have different purposes and reach different audiences. I would go see it for myself, but it’s not playing anywhere near my hometown.
I did watch Soul Surfer with my kids last week, which also got very negative reviews. I came away wondering what was wrong with people, anyway. You’d have to be really jaded in order to dis a movie like that–because it isn’t meant to be great art. It’s meant to tell the story of a young girl who has triumphed over adversity. Could it have been more artistically done? Maybe. But it worked for me. And I’m the most cynical person I know.
FYI–Courageous is worth seeing just for the “back of the patrol car” scene alone. Trust me, that got the biggest reaction from moviegoers on the film’s opening night.
I’ve heard nothing but rave reviews in my neck of the woods for Courageous and for Fireproof.
As Christians we sure are pretty picky…I read that somewhere in a blog that people are afraid to touch Christian films because if we don’t have a conversion scene, theology is disputed, etc, etc, the film gets tons of criticism.
I mean, think about it. We’re all in church for the most part. We know the “church crowd” who argue over hymns verses contemporary music, or whether or not we should have pews, or what-not. I’ve even heard people argue over Christian books regarding edginess verses traditional. We are picky.
Fireproof was great. Some lines were probably a little too preachy, but otherwise, it was great. I didn’t see Courageous. I don’t have kids and so it’s hard for me to put down the dollars to go see a movie I would have trouble relating to on that level. We’ll see it though when it’s available to rent through Direct TV.
Mmm, I like this concept, seeing artistic mediocrity in film as part of a growth trajectory toward excellence. We could liken it to… Mozart’s childhood symphonies, with everyone enthusiastically applauding an 8 y/o prodigy. The music exhibits hard work and much imitation of established composers, but not many musicians actually PERFORM those early compositions. Yet they were a vital part of a growth trajectory toward excellence.
(GK Chesterton, by the way, is behind the “worth being done badly” quote. My first son shall suffer under the appellation Gilbert Keith, so, yeah, you know how I feel about HIM.)
Doing something poorly and doing it poorly on purpose are two different animals. The thing is, if we start creating something and then realize it is being done poorly, then we are intentionally creating something we know isn’t our best effort. At that point we should stop (and even pull it from the public eye) and work at doing it better. So no, I don’t agree with your list of things that are “so important we should tolerate it being done poorly.” We shouldn’t tolerate (accept as ‘good enough’) poorly planned and executed worship, music, preaching, film-making, fiction writing, evangelism, etc.
Mike, will the last book you ever write be better than the first? Should we wait until then to read your stuff?
Oh my goodness. Since I switched all my subscriptions to Google Reader I’ve been missing posts. (they are showing up, I just keep forgetting to check google reader.) I’m glad I caught this one.
Excellent post.
Great article! I appreciate this.