My friend Mark Joseph wrote an interesting article about the current state of Christian filmmaking in Hollywood. If you're interested in such things, give it a read.
Roger Ailes Knows How to Do It
A future for faith-based films.By Mark Joseph
On the heels of the Weinstein Company's decision to jump into the
faith-based film market, and a disappointing box-office showing for
The Nativity Story in December, 20th Century Fox's new "Fox Faith"
division recently released two new films Thr3ee, and The Last Sin
Eater, adaptations of popular Christian-oriented novels made on
shoestring budgets. Both opened to severely disappointing box-office
turnout and are prime examples of the problems facing the
Christian-oriented film industry.Fox Faith was created after 20th Century Fox missed a chance to
distribute The Passion Of the Christ theatrically, but picked up home
video rights. Seventeen million copies later, it has turned out to be
a cash cow for the studio. Fox didn't intend to miss out on
opportunities like this in the future. Thus, the creation of Fox
Faith, which aims, according to its website, to distribute
"faith-based" films. "To be part of Fox Faith, a movie has to have
overt Christian Content or be derived from the work of a Christian
author." As part of what looks to be a growing trend, the Weinstein
company also recently jumped into the faith-based film market.Fox's creation of Fox Faith has been met with mixed reviews by many
observers in the film and faith community. Some see it as a step
forward, getting faith-friendly fare into the studio system. Others
see it as a step backward, one that will result not in faith-driven
films going mainstream and reaching a broad, values-driven audience,
but rather in the creation of a steady stream of cheaply produced,
second-rate products that will then be marketed exclusively to
religious Americans as "Christian films" and will not be widely
available to more secular moviegoers.Before studios rush to create faith-oriented divisions to handle
mostly Christian-oriented films, they should consider whether such a
move is wise and whether they desire to make films to be viewed only
by those who want to see their faith in the films they watch or also
by a broad, values-driven audience.After spending years studying and writing about the formation of the
Christian music industry, it's clear to me that the mistakes and
successes of that industry have much to teach the burgeoning community
of devout filmmakers. While the creation of the Christian music
industry was heralded by some as a chance to bring Christian-themed
rock music to the masses, in reality it became little more than a
subculture of sometimes interesting, sometimes derivative music that
was exclusively marketed and distributed to religious Americans,
outside of the mainstream system. It wasn't until artists like
Switchfoot, P.O.D., Sufjan Stevens, Flyleaf, and Cold War Kids went
outside of that system and signed with mainstream labels that they
began to have the kind of impact they are today having.Artists, including filmmakers, like to have their art viewed and heard
by as many people as possible. But the Christian music model makes
artists' work accessible only to those in the habit of shopping at
religious music stores or listening to religious radio stations. If
Fox Faith, the Weinsteins, and other similar efforts follow this
model, filmmakers who work with them can expect to reach only a
limited audience.So, for the faith community, the creation of Fox Faith and the foray
of the Weinstein Company is a good news/bad news scenario, one that
could either lead to a steady stream of interesting faith-driven fare
like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Passion Of The Christ, and Luther,
or sub-par works like The Omega Code, Seven, and Left Behind. Some
fear it may be the latter.Tellingly, there's the name, Fox Faith, which presumes a number of
things about this country — namely, that the U.S. is a secular nation,
hungry for secular entertainment divorced from morality and faith,
making faith-oriented fare somewhat of an anomaly deserving of its own
division, constituting just another "niche market." This was readily
acknowledged by a Weinstein Company spokesman, who noted, "This deal
fits perfectly into our strategy of acquiring and producing films that
target niche audiences."There would be a logic to creating a Fox Faith brand if we were living
in highly secular countries like, say, France or Japan. But the U.S.
is one of the most religious nations on earth, where 92 percent of the
people profess a belief in God and 84 percent call themselves
Christians. So perhaps Fox should consider mainstreaming Fox Faith,
folding it into 20th Century Fox, and instead finding a really smart,
secular Hollywood-type to run a new division called "Fox Secular."It's not that Americans who aren't particularly devout shouldn't be
able to enjoy films, or that Fox shouldn't produce them. But Fox and
the Weinstein Company have the equation backwards: The niche market is
comprised of a rather small group of highly secular Americans who want
a high wall of separation between faith and film, in contrast to the
millions of Americans who hunger for entertainment that references, or
at least isn't ignorant of, their deepest spiritual beliefs and
impulses.A reshuffle of the deck at Fox could look something like this: The
newly minted studio, led by an executive who has a better
understanding of the massive faith and family market, could produce
and distribute dozens of faith-friendly films, beginning with a film
version of The Purpose Driven Life (a book with sales of more than 30
million copies), which was published by Fox's sister company
Harper-Collins. A nice $75 million budget and some A-list actors,
complete with a Passion-style marketing campaign, could very well turn
it into the biggest blockbuster of all time.Fox Secular, on the other hand, could also make an important
contribution by reaching its niche audience, continuing to produce and
distribute important films that speak to more secular Americans. A
Borat sequel would be a good candidate for Fox Secular, as would have
been Kinsey, a film celebrating the life of America's best known
sexologist, released last year by Fox. Perhaps other important secular
biopics on important historical figures like Charles Darwin, Dr. Ruth,
Frederic Nietzsche, Marilyn Manson, and others could be brought to
market on a limited number of screens. Secular Americans deserve to
have inspirational stories in their local theaters, and Fox Secular
would be there to meet that demand, releasing films on, say, 400
screens nationwide and focused on blue states. Occasionally, some of
those films may even cross over to the wider values-driven mainstream
audience outside of the secular niche. After all, there may very well
be some churchgoers who enjoy watching Sacha Cohen play tasteless
practical jokes on suspecting Americans or who want to see films that
feature secular American heroes.Such a move on the part of a studio like Fox would send a strong
signal to millions of heretofore disenfranchised traditionalist
Americans who have, for various reasons, either never or rarely
attended films in the past 50 years. The sudden appearance of many of
these first-time moviegoers in theaters was one of the key reasons for
the success of The Passion of the Christ.In 2004, shortly before the film's release, the Los Angeles Times
predicted the film would take in $25 million at the box-office opening
week. When the dust had settled it had instead earned a whopping $115
million—meaning that somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million
people who were not "in the system" (that is, those who rarely or
never attend movies) had supported a film they were finally interested
in.Of all the studios, Fox is best positioned to understand this dynamic,
having launched the Fox News Channel in 1996. In so doing, executives
like Roger Ailes understood that America was basically a center-right
nation viewing center-left fare simply because nothing else was
available, even as it hungered for programming that more closely
reflected its values. When Fox finally figured this out, they doubled,
and in some cases tripled, CNN's audience. If and when Rupert Murdoch
and company realize the same lessons are there to be learned in the
film world, it's entirely possible that they will realize
unprecedented profits and discover a new and far larger filmgoing
audience.— Mark Joseph is the author of Faith, God & Rock 'n' Roll, editor of
Pop Goes Religion, and founder of the MJM Group. He has worked on the
development and/or marketing of a dozen films including The Chronicles
of Narnia, Holes and Ray.
Interesting perspective, eh? By the way, the Weinstein brothers, best known for their former company Miramax and extremely edgy fair like The Crying Game, Trainspotting and the extremely controversial NC-17 film Kids, just showed the world how serious they are about the Christian market by launching an initiative to develop six "faith-based" films per year, and picked up general market distribution rights to, of all things, VeggieTales.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Phil
The Bible says something along the lines of “You will know them by their fruits”. Take a look at the Weinstein brother profiles on IMDB and you’ll see there has been a heck of a lot of sour grapes coming from them for quite a few years.
That being said, I can’t help but feel Tom Newman and Tom Winter’s partnership with the Weinstein brothers is a huge mistake.
To me there is a fine line between partnership and being “unequally yoked”. I have no problem with Christians establishing business deals with secular companies when they keep complete control of their destiny.
According to the news reports I’ve seen, the Weinstein brothers will co-produce and finance the films created by Impact.
When I hear the term co-produce, I think equal say. When I hear the term finance, I think of control! Now I’m sure there was a big meeting in a fancy conference room somewhere and Bob and Harvey probably said some things along the lines of, “Tom and Tom, we know that you know your audience and we trust you to make the decisions regarding future productions”. However, when it comes down to it, there is an element that Impact can’t control. That element is where the money is coming from. Like it or not, the Weinstein brothers are paying the bills and if they say they want something a certain way… well I think we know what will have to happen.
What really is the point? Are the Christian films coming from the Weinstein brothers going to have budgets in the tens of millions with today’s popular actors? Are we going to see one of those six films next year at the Academy Awards? No. The Weinstein brothers know the business very well. They know that you don’t put any more money in a film that what you can foresee it bringing back.
I’m naturally pessimistic, but I can’t see this partnership making much of an “Impact”.
As for Fox Faith. It’s a gimmick designed to get movies like “Flicka” in Christian bookstores. Let’s face it. Movies like “One Night With the King” and “Facing The Giants” made over 10 million in the theaters and I’m sure are doing pretty decent on DVD as well. A company like Fox knows that the only people that saw those films were Christians. They know that if they can get those same Christians to buy into “Flicka” and “Because of Winn Dixie” they can potentially tack on another few million in sales. Pretty simple sales pitch if you ask me.
Christians are like Mac users… even though it’s a small market share, you can’t ignore them.
You won’t find any Fox executives who would be willing to say: “Hey, what we’ve been doing until this point was all wrong, let’s turn around and bet the company on faith films”. People who manage big enterprises are almost always too conservative for that – and Hollywood residents tend to be believe the US to be more secular than it actually is.
What might happen is that they’ll dip their toes in the water with a few faith films and push them to the Christian market. If those films succeed, they might make a few more with higher budgets, and start pushing them in markets they’re less sure about (say, the mainstream market in places like Texas). If that works out, they might start pushing them all over the place.
Similarly, they won’t accept that secular films are a niche just because somebody says so. But if they’ll see that the faith films make them more money, they will marginalize the investments that perform badly.
Interesting article. To Fox Faith I would say this: Beware of the assumption that just because something has a “Christian” theme or label, it will automatically be successful. Besides being rooted in Biblical truth, a successful Christian film must also have a compelling, well-crafted story and high production values. People are hungry not just for Biblical content, but compelling stories told with artistic excellence. I worry that if Fox Faith’s “niche” mentality will lead to low-budget turkeys. A turkey with a halo is still a Turkey.
On the other hand, if the goal is to match the success of “Passion of the Christ”, the studios may be setting themselves up for disappointment. “Passion” was so successful partly because it is the central story, the very core, of the Christian faith. No other story (true or fictional) even comes close in terms of emotional power and spiritual substance. Plus, “Passion” had extremely high production values. Artistically it is a masterpiece that will be hard to replicate.
Not that studios shouldn’t try. I’m thrilled with the new interest Hollywood is taking in Christian films. What an exciting time to be a Christian filmmaker! Movies that are grounded firmly in the Gospel and crafted with artistic excellence will always have impact. Let’s pray for that to happen.
I find this sudden interest in faith based films a way of film companies taking advantage to Christian audience. They think that cheaply made films about faith will draw crowds in theaters. Plus, the article made a very good point that I`ve been writting about in my blog for a while. I think that the deperating of Christian and non Christian media has done more bad than good. Most Christian music and films have isolated themselves to one crowd. As an artist I can say that I would want my art to be viewed by as many people as possible. My goal would be to present a different view of the world that might trigger something in my audience`s hearts. The fact that I`m a Christian will translate into my art, and that`s the point. Yet it doesn`t mean that I make my art for Christians only.
I meant seperating in my previous comment. Sorry!
Just wanted to add something. I often think of C.S. Lewis and his example when he wrote fiction. His stories are loved by Christians and non Christians alike. He wrote because that was his gift and what he loved to do, yet he didn`t label it “Christian.” I think the reason why we are given gifts and talent from God is to use them for His glory. To reach people with those gifts, whatever way it may turn out to be. How are we to do that if we limit our audiences to those who have already heard about God? There is a market there too, but the goal should be to use those talents to bring people to Christ. I think C.S. Lewis and how Veggie Tales were distributed was right. It`s sort of the best of both worlds.
the Christian music industry is a joke, it is 98.9% unoriginal, and mostly exists to capitalized on mainstream success or popular music genres like rap, r&b, hard rock and even grunge (remember grunge?) if these musical styles didn’t exist in mainstream culture they never would have been “created” in the Christian music industry. CS Lewis has said that Christians shouldn’t try and write christian books movies, or songs, but they should let their faith permeate their lives so that their art reflects their faith, Christians appear to be the the only group who seem less concerned with content as long as the medium (movies music, literature) is filled with all the right christian tenants, the story, and characters can be substandard. (this is one of the many reasons why Veggie Tales has been so successful, it was so “out of the box” creatively speaking, it was something we had never seen before, with a quality of writing that rivaled the best of Bugs Bunny, and teaching that was real and very biblically sound, there was and is nothing else like it)
I remember seeing Hollywood reporter Sam Rubin on Lee Stoble’s panel discussion show on Faith about a year ago, where the two of them talked about why there aren’t more Christian themed movies, and the consensus from Sam Rubin seemed to be that Christians were boring, one dimensional individuals, and no one would pay money to watch a film about a guy who goes too work pays his taxes and doesn’t cheat on his wife.
Christians are not cardboard cutouts, of white upper class republicans, who never have problems, or face serious issues. Christians are vibrant three dimensional, people who struggle with choices, make mistakes, and often seek to live out love and redemption in a graceless world of Karma and despair.
if we will only just open out eyes, we will see movies that abound with Christian imagery, and deal with themes of Grace, redemption and sacrificial love, just a few examples or some of my personal favorites are, Dead Man Walking, Schindler’s list, Cry the Beloved Country, The Green Mile, the Count of Monte Cristo, and Even Harry Potter (although that is a rant for another day)
as Christians we should demand quality and content over plattitudes and pious dogma, that rings with smugness and judgment. Christianity and the arts should be about so much more than bathrobe drama, and the latest harlequin style Christian novel of the hour. we deserve more
I agree Jason!
A couple posts ago you said you would talk about the next veggietales script your working on, and my question is when are you going to talk about it?
I am glad for the additional financing this interest in faith films will bring, I am somewhat disturbed by the expectations of great financial gains. It needs to be recognized that the Christian population can only be mobilized for so many films each year – the “Passions of the Christ” are limited not only by quality, but also by quantity. It is the same with any market – inundate the market with products and they all do poorly. This past year has seen an unprecedented list of decent Christian films – but when they are explicitly targeted to Christians and only Chrisitians – there just isn’t enough buying power.
I think one of the big mistakes right now is making faith movies solely for the faith-based audience. Rather, these faith based movies should be targeted at a generl audience. Thr3e was heavily marred by FoxFaith’s prominent advertising at the beginning of the film, and the totally unrelated film previews (e.g. Love’s Long Journey). This said, “We aren’t serious about being a thriller.” Amazing Grace was marred by its lack of previews – it said, “We aren’t a good enough movie to play previews before.” Both of these were good/great movies, but still will fail in the theaters.
I also think it is worth noting that I expect many Christian films to be theatrical failures but dvd successes. Many of these films are too slow moving to feel the need to go to a theatre to see them – but so moving that they must be added to our shelves (e.g. Michael Landon’s many flicks and Amazing Grace).
scotteashmedia.comMr. Vischer (and other Christian filmmakers),
I have appreciated your openess to share your success and failure stories with us all. I’m one of many to have benefited from your candid honesty.
Please allow me to speak just as openly. I seriously question the premise that says Christian filmmakers must work in or with Hollywood in order to “make it” in the industry. The truth is that Hollywood no longer has a monopoly on the film industry! Why is it that Christians are expected to join Hollywood to make “faith-based” films? Why are we choosing to eat scraps from the pagans’ table?
I have written an article on this subject. I welcome your feedback.
Sincerely,
Scott Eash
The article says this:
“Secular Americans deserve to
have inspirational stories in their local theaters…”
That’s a bonehead statement. Or am I misunderstanding it?
Who says they “deserve” to? By what standard?
God created the world and all things therein, and they were created for HIS good pleasure. So, in what way do Seculars “deserve” to have inspiring secular films? Why are Christian writers now concerned with inspiring a secular audience with secular fare? Man, there’s been enough of that already if ya ask me…
I just don’t get that statement at all.
Chad L, that’s sarcasm. He was taking the rhetoric that Fox uses to justfiy Fox Faith and turning it on its head.
Phil:
I 100% disagree with the notion that Hollywood owes it to Christians to make Christian films. Hollywood is the world, and the world is going to make things that the world wants for the world’s reasons. And even if Hollywood DID make Christian films, would it be true Christianity? I could not help noticing when the Fox Faith deal was signed that they fell over themselves to declare that they wouldn’t be proselytizing. So, while you have Hollywood heavily proselytizing all manner of sin and evil on one hand, on the other the “Christian” films would be limited to things that are merely inspiring, “build character and values”, or are of a historical nature. Even if it is a high quality effort with name talent and a strong effective mainstream marketing campaign, at most it will only confirm the beliefs of people who are already Christians and give non – Christians a better idea of how Christians tick. And what is the gain in that? I can see the desire to have an alternative to all the filth that is in the movies or on TV. But then again, we do not HAVE to go to the movies or watch TV in the first place, do we? And if an alternative is all you are seeking, then the niche market does a good job of that.
But if you are talking about spreading the GOSPEL to the mainstream, then it is CHRISTIANS who have to do that. And we have to ask the question: why aren’t they? Everyone talks about “The Passion Of The Christ”, well what people never get around to speaking of is that Mel Gibson financed it with his own $25 million, and it would have never gotten done any other way. Meanwhile, TBN wastes $20 million to make an atrocious movie out of a novel “One Night With The King” tha doesn’t even mention Jesus or salvation at all.
We all know that there is a lot of money out there. You have the denominations, the televangelists, the megachurches, the Christian TV networks and magazines, the Christian publishing houses and record labels, etc. Do not be naive; these guys have tons of money; into the hundreds of millions of dollars and even some who are billionaires. Not only are there more than a few of these guys who could easily write a $50 million check to make a movie, but they could form consortiums to produce and make them. And as for the talent, they aren’t going to turn down working on a Christian project if they pay the same as anyone else. Besides, there are more than a few professing Christians even in liberal Hollywood, even among the A – list talent. The fact that this is not being done should make people wonder if the church community – especially the members of it with money and power – love God as much as they claim they do. If they did, there would be a major motion picture preaching the gospel coming out every year, instead of a bunch of cheaply made and promoted niche films that not only don’t make any money, but most of whom don’t even mention what Christianity is really about: heaven or hell.
Hmmm. I see. Guess I read it too fast.
I would hate to be a Christian filmmaker. If your film is too evangelistic no one will go see it, including the christians. Lets face it extremely few are willing to go to the theatre to hear a sermon, even among christians. But if your movie doesn’t sermonize then you get bombarded with criticism from the christian community. It is strange that people will criticise you for not making the kind of movie they don’t want to see.
If christians want heavily evangelistic movies then they need to go see them (which they don’t) because non-christians are not going to watch them. Of course what is the point of “preaching to the choir”.
Movies can have a message, and of all people christians should have something to say. The problem is that so often christians have only one message (an important message, yes). If you want people to be open to an occasional evangelistic movie, show them you can tell a great story that is worth seeing first, show them that you have relevant messages that don’t include walking down the aisle and repeating this prayer. Theatres are not churches and cannot be treated the same way. If you want someone other than churchites to see your movie you have to approach the medium differently than you do a Sunday service.
Yes, learn from the Christian music industry. In many ways Christian Music was far more effective evangelistically when it was rediculed by the church as being Satanic. It drew a higher percentage of non-Christians and in many cases had more to say. Today, Christian music provides great entertainment for christians, but has little appeal to non-christians, and, quite frankly, little to say to christians. In the 80’s I longed for a Christian radio station, today I don’t listen to any of the ones I have nearby. The music has gained popularity but lost its relevance.
Mark, you said “what is the point of preaching to the choir?” On the one hand, I understand your logic, but on the other hand – do you realize that not everyone in “the choir” is saved? Shouldn’t we preach to the churched people who aren’t really saved?
Granted, not all movies need to be evangelistic, but even those that aren’t evangelistic should have a biblical message – they should reflect a biblical worldview.
Yes, our movies need to have a message. As I pointed out before, “movies can have a message, and of all people Christians should have something to say.” Also, I agree with you that “they should reflect a biblical worldview”.
The morality, values and even theology of our faith certainly should influence all we do.
However, if our film making is aimed at “preaching to the choic” (yes, I have talked with choir members, deacons and church board members who were not interested in becoming a Christian — seems strange and they need some preaching) then our films will not succeed at any of their goals, partly because these very choir members will choose to see other movies.
Movies are primarily entertainment. When we figure out how to make a highly entertaining movie that presents an evangelistic message in a way that even non-Christians find entertaining then I’m onboard. But this has not happened. In fact, my point is that by trying to “preach to the choir” we are giving up on the goal of making great movies with a message that non-christians would want to see.
I think this is more an issue of the “church” is so worldy that it doesn’t bother them to see R rated or even NC-17 movies. IF 98% of the US are Christians, then how did Borat or 300 make over $100 million domestically?
Why cater to the “church” when they already see the garbage that you produce? That’s a waste of money.
And the “church” doesn’t see Christian movies because they would rather see the latest Hollywood slime. Plus to them, Christianity is only for Sunday mornings, not for Friday night.
Good points, Ted. Unfortunately, you are correct.
This needs to change. The Church needs to return to the Scriptures for guidance in life choices – even our entertainment choices.
P.S. Am I the only one who notices that VeggieTales gets sucked up in promoting this “Hollywood slime?” They spend more time imitating secular pop culture than imitating God’s Word. (i.e. VT has parodied the following: the evolution saturated Star Trek series, the fornicating James Bond, Batman, Spiderman, and Indiana Jones, among others)
In far too many cases, VT does not reflect a biblical worldview. Rather, they often promote a secular humanist worldview…with a couple of Bible verses thrown in to make it “Christian.”
I COMPLETELY agree with Scott Eash above.
MOST “christian” entertainment is worldly culture with a scripture reference.
Note the article this comment is for. The author cites POD as a good example of “christians” making music. POD is no more “christian” than U2. They USED to be a Christian band, but they haven’t even since they achieved mass market appeal. As MOST Christian media does.
They start out as Christian, but become more “values” as they achieve mass market appeal and the money starts rolling in.
As I said before, “I would hate to be a christian film maker”. They truly cannot win. If you are going to bash veggietales, claiming they promote Hollywood slime, what hope does anyone have of satisfying the christian community. Quite frankly if I were a christian in the movie industry, I would not make a “christian movie”, It’s not worth all the attacks from the church. Just make family friendly movies without claiming it as a christian film. I guess that’s what Walden Media is doing, and who can blame them. I expect more will follow their path. Those that dont’ will be shreaded by their brothers and sisters in Christ for trying to make a Christian movie, but doing it incorrectly. It is a real shame. Such lost potential.
No Christian filmmaker can please everyone. No matter what type of film is made, there will always be SOME Christians that criticize it.
So what’s the solution? Should we avoid making Christian films (as Mark suggests above)? Or, rather, should we change the goal of filmmaking? Let me explain…
For most Christian filmmakers, the goal is to please as many people as possible (you make more $$$ that way). They try to please Christians AND the world. However, my goal as a filmmaker is to please God with my films. If people will pay to watch my films, great. If not, that’s ok too — as long as the Lord is pleased with my films, I am successful.
I disagree with Scot re VT. I think it is perfectly fine to parody a popular culture icon such as Star Trek. I think VT, especially Jonah, is exactly the opposite of a secular content with a Bible verse slapped on. The key elements of the biblical story are there, with lots of of the smaller themes/issues incorporated.
All in a very entertaining way. All Christian entertainment does not have a be a sermon. We can have fun and be silly, even in telling a serious story. That is the special appeal of VT for me – it has the campy silliness, yet the focus is always on the message.
When they do something wrong and are about to get in trouble, my kids ask “don’t I get a second chance like Jonah?”.
Way to go Phil V, Mike N, and the entire Big Idea crew!
Mr. McCormick [above] may be correct when he says that the Bible story was the central element in Jonah. If you’ll re-read my comments, I think you’ll find that I did not claim that every VT video merely has a Bible verse slapped on to the end. Jonah is one of those exceptions to the general rule. However, I disagree with Mr. McCormick on two key points:
He said, “I think it is perfectly fine to parody a popular culture icon such as Star Trek.” What’s wrong with that statement? First of all, in order to parody popular culture, the producers of VT must first watch that degrading filth from Hollywood. Second, in order for the pop culture jokes to make sense, VT fans have to watch that Hollywood trash too. A parody of Star Trek won’t be nearly as funny for a person who has never seen Star Trek. Why can’t they parody Christian entertainment or Christian personalities? They’re welcome to make fun of me.
My second point of disagreement has to do with the issue of silliness. Mr. McCormick said, “We can have fun and be silly, even in telling a serious story. That is the special appeal of VT for me – it has the campy silliness, yet the focus is always on the message.”
That’s fine. You can embrace silliness if you want. I used to…until I looked up the word in the dictionary. I think if you would look up “silly” in the dictionary, you might think twice before embracing it and sharing it with your kids.
Webster’s defines “silly” as – stupid; weak in intellect; foolish; witless… The list goes on, but I’ll spare you.
Here you go. The truth is that Jesus didn’t sit at home or just talk to the so called “good” people. He went out and talked to the sinners. His biggest ministry was to the people like, the woman at the well. We cannot reach Hollywood unless we are IN Hollywood. To change Hollywood we need to get in there and that is what is happening, VeggieTales is getting in there amongest those in Hollywood, to make a difference in thier lives. We’re not to be ministering to ourselves, the Chirstians, that isn’t the point. We have to be in the midst. VeggieTales biggest market isn’t to young children it is amongst College aged students and it is these college students that have seen the Star Trek and the like. Hello there making fun little movies for the audience that watches them and understands where they are comming from that audience understands it. Yes, they might throw a Bible verse in there at the end, but it’s entertaining to this group of people. I know so many people who love these little films that aren’t Christians and they might not get that little Bibical truth unless it was from this very source. These little movies make you think if nothing else. That’s the point we’re to minister to the lost and how can we do that if we’re sitting on the outside looking in and saying look at those sinners they need to know Christ. Then when we have a chance to minister to them we just say your a sinner and need to repent. I don’t think so. They get that enough. We are to Love them, get to know them. We don’t have to love what they produce or do, but we are called to love on them. To do that we need to be where they are. We have to find out what makes them tick, what drives them to put filth in their movie, lyrics, pictures, etc. I can tell you that most of these people are hurting and Christians, as a whole don’t show them love but hate. See we have to get in to the studios and Live for Christ- see our actions speak louder then words will ever. They want to see a Christian who can actually talk the talk and walk the walk. They want to see a person that Lives for Jesus in everything that they do. That is why I’m a missionary in Hollywood, in this Entertainment industry because God loves these people. It’s our time to show Hollywood that making good family-friendly/ faith-based films will bring them a profit and is desired. If were 85% of the population then if we show them that we would rather not see filth then they will change. We will never get rid of the filth but we can show them that filth isn’t needed for us to enjoy a film. We need to support these films, because maybe not today but maybe for the next generation there will be great films made that are ALWAYS worth seeing.! That is why I’m going to now support these Christian Films because I believe that if we make the effort now, we will see a great change in the future!
Maybe we should just realize that not every source of entertainment is going to please everyone. Some of us love silly humor. (Yeah, bring on the definition, that’s ok with me!) I know, personally, that every fulfilling relationship I have ever had, had a strong tie in humor, fun, and just plain silliness. Infact when we can laugh with each other, as brothers and sisters in Christ, there is an intimate bond shared. If that doesn’t work for you, and you find your relationship with the Lord is better edified with seriousness, and prayerfulness, then that’s great, too. That’s what makes our relationships personal.
There are a lot of so-called Christian movies or series that I find boring. But somebody is buying them! It just proves that not everyone has the same taste in entertainment.
Let’s not be silly, instead we should all become monks and join a monestary. Then we could be serious and solemn all the time. Of course Pa Grape was a monk in “Lyle the Kindly Viking”. Of course Pa Grape as a monk, that’s just SILLY. Oh yeah, the bible has humor in it. The humor just gets lost when translated to a different language. Of course a couple thousand years and a completely different culture makes it hard to see as well. Silliness, as we are talking about has more to do with humor than being stupid or foolish. God is the creator of humor. God created and pronounced his creation “GOOD”. Thank God for humor. Pa Grape, go tell the other monks, and take Larry with for a visual aid.
One more thought. Talking vegetables, now that’s silly. Almost as silly as a talking donkey. Just ask Balaam. (numbers 22) If God can use a donkey, he can certainly use a silly cucumber. In fact, Larry would make a great Balaam. This is a story begging to be a veggietale. Are you out there Phil? If so, start writing. Silliness straight from the Bible. You gotta love it. What an entertaining way to drive a point home. God had a great idea about this humor thing.
Balaam (i.e. Larry the cucumber) is riding along, bouncing on his donkey (donkey has a sign on it’s side that says “Balak’s Rent a Donkey”). The donkey stops abruptly, with Larry, in mid bounce, being sent head over heels (or whatever a cucumber has) into the sand. Larry procedes to pull, push , giddy up, and even yoddle to get the donkey to budge. No success. Finally he lifts the donkey on his back to carry it, but colapses under the weight. In a tangle of cucumber and donkey legs Larry says, “This donkey’s defective, I want a refund.”
I can see it. It has potential. Phil, you guys have my permission, use my ideas.
Mark, what gave you the impression that I’m against humor? God created humor. Humor is a good thing. Laughter is good medicine.
However, not all humor is created equal. For example, some people like to tell dirty jokes. They may be humorous…but they’re also dirty. Likewise, talking vegetables might be humorous…but they’re also silly. (Note: I am not saying that silly=dirty. I’m merely pointing out that not all humor is good.)
P.S. I hardly think Balaam was laughing when the donkey spoke. It might be funny on TV, but funny in real life? Not likely.
No, I don’t think Balaam thought it was funny. However, I don’t know how anyone can read that story and not see the enormous amount of humor in it. And later in life, I would not be surprised if even Balaam looked back on it and chuckled a bit.
Scott, what you stated you were against was “silliness”. You said, “You can embrace silliness if you want. I used to…until I looked up the word in the dictionary. I think if you would look up “silly” in the dictionary”. Then you quoted definitions. Yes you are right, all humor is not created equal. But you still criticize talking vegetables as being “silly”, suggesting that silly humor is bad humor.
My point is simply to disagree with your suggestion. In fact, I don’t see webster’s definition, that you quote, as really addressing “silly” as humor.
Silly as any other form of humor can be good or bad. Silly humor is not bad just because it is silly. The Balaam story is simply an example of silly humor found in the Bible, even directly sponsored by God. I’m sorry if you fail to see the humor in God using a talking donkey. I find it very obvious.
Dear brother Mark, we seem to be hitting a brick wall, not understanding each other.
I do agree with you that Balaam’s story is humorous. That’s right. I said I agree with you on that. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not that is “silly” humor. There are different kinds of humor. (Dry humor, dirty humor, silly humor, etc.) I think the story of Balaam is humorous for us who read it, but I don’t see anything silly about it.
I don’t seem to be understanding where you’re coming from. Are you saying that there are different kinds of silly? Please explain what you mean.
“Silly Songs with Larry” is funny. There is nothing dirty or bad about it. However, comedians and movies today try to be silly while being unfit to watch. I would not call it different kinds of silly, just people choosing to dress up their silly humor differently. It’s like comparing an Abbott and Costello movie to “Animal House”.
All I’m saying is silly does not equal bad or inappropriate, though it may be depending on how it is dressed.
Scott, how do you feel about the word ‘undignified’ then? If we changed it to ‘Undignified Songs with Larry’ would that be OK?
The argument against the ‘secular references’ in the ‘silly humor’ found in VT wouldn’t be an issue if Christians would have maintained their role as thought leaders 50 or 60 years ago. Ever since the sexual revolution of the 60’s, and ‘us Christians’ failure to seriously engage the culture around us, we have been rightly relegated by the world to the dustbins of insignificance and ‘niche-marketing.’ We’ve been playing catch up and ‘me too’ ever since.
I don’t mean to harp on you and what you say, Scott, because I have no doubt that you want to serve God with your filmmaking, and that commendable. But, if as you say, your purpose is to please God with your filmmaking, then you had better be prepared to have only an audience of one – don’t drag the rest of the world, or even Christians in. If, on the other hand, you want to tack on ‘to spread the gospel to the uttermost ends of the earth’, then you will need to engage the culture that is the uttermost ends of the earth, and meet them where they are. Some of them will be computer geeks in their 40’s with kids running around them as they watch ‘Star Trek’ reruns. God made them special, and He loves them very much. So much so, that he identified with them while he was here all those years ago – tax collectors and sinners, not the religious system of the time. He hung out with prostitutes and adulterers, and their lives were never the same. Was that being unequally yoked, too? I apologize for my sarcasm.
Maybe you don’t want to reach this group, and that’s OK. Pick somebody in the world and reach them with your God-given talents. You don’t even have to do that – if you are called to make movies solely for the Christians in the world, then do that wholeheartedly. But, don’t disparage those fighting the battle on a different front than you for not doing it the way you do.
It’s no wonder bands like POD, MuteMath or Kings X want nothing to do with the ‘Christian market’ – there’s no enemy to engage on that battlefield, and the air is full of bullets from friendly fire.
Scott,
If God has called you to make films in this way then get on with it and let other people do what he has called them to do. I’m looking forward to seeing something from you other than your holier than thou judgements on those that are actually doing something. The religious world is full of people like you throwing out their expert advice on others that are risking much more than sancitmonuous words on blog pages, while in the same breath acting concerned about the souls of the broken. Humility is Golden. Carpe Diem
I completely and utterly disagree with the statement that Christian music and media is unorginal and boring. I listen to what’s been called Christian music all the time!!! The only difference I notice is lack of profanity, drugs, violence, and sex. What is wrong with that? That’s really close minded to clump all the artists that are Christian into one group – unsuccessful. Groups like TobyMac and Relient K don’t dilute their message, but they don’t keep it the same old, same old either. Just because they have some better themes doesn’t make it boring! Relient K’s Matt Thiesssen – the lead singer -says, “It’s time for Christian music to bleed into everything.”
I agree with Matt. Many people have called it Christian rock, which I suppose it could be grouped as that. But it’s got the same quality as any other rock I’ve listened to. They sing about what moves them, which just so happens to be their faith, part of the time. They aren’t backing down from their message. They are very similar to C.S. Lewis in the way that they use the talent God gave them, yet not keeping it, oh, too sermonish. “We helped an old lady and felt good about it” is not the message of Relient K and other bands. Rather, they detail some of the real struggles and feelings of people.
Also, I don’t agree with Scott Eash’s VT comments. Like Bob said, Christian media can be silly and not have to be preaching a sermon and still get the message across. Phil did a very good job combining humor with strong values.
Way to go Phil! God Bless you all.
April,
Thank you. You said what I was thinking so much more eloquently and succinctly than I could have.
Steve,
You are exactly right in your points. Particularly poignant to me was your comment, “The argument against the ’secular references’ in the ’silly humor’ found in VT wouldn’t be an issue if Christians would have maintained their role as thought leaders 50 or 60 years ago. Ever since the sexual revolution of the 60’s, and ‘us Christians’ failure to seriously engage the culture around us, we have been rightly relegated by the world to the dustbins of insignificance and ‘niche-marketing.’ We’ve been playing catch up and ‘me too’ ever since.” As a Catholic born in the ’60’s I grew up in a traditional home that ran counter to secular society and, sadly, a church turning more to the latter than supporting the former. The biggest mistake my parents made was having a TV in the home. The mixed messages from it and too many in my church caused more than a little confusion. It wasn’t until well after college and I started paying attention to what JP2 had been saying and writing all those years (after a many year sojourn through the world and its philosophies) that I finally came home. Interestingly, it was a Freeview of “The Toy That Saved Christmas” on DirecTV that kicked it into overdrive. I had grown weary of living in the world and wanted a way to explain things to my young children. The opportunity presented by VT was a way for me to introduce my children to God and, maybe more importantly, it reminded me that God was ready to forgive me whenever I was ready to ask. I can honestly say that VT, with its gentle silliness, was the catalyst that brought me home. I can’t thank Phil and Mike and Bob and Larry enough for that. I only became aware today, during a trip to the Christian bookstore, of Phil’s full story. I am sure that reading it will show me even more lessons about learning what God is trying to teach me.
Mark, Steve, April, Alexandra, and Richard;
I would love to continue this ‘silly’ conversation, but I’m rather busy at the moment. I’m preparing to release my first feature film this month.
Richard – all I can say about Phil’s book is fasten your seat belt for the last three chapters – it has changed my life.
“God loves you because He made you.” What a revolutionary thought. I’m going to spend the rest of my life figuring that out.
Scott,
Congratulations! I pray that you accomplish all God wants with your movie.
Hey Scott,
It’s August – is your movie out yet? What’s the name of it? Can we see it yet? I am very curious.
As the original article that sparked all this debate was
written last February, my comments come a little late, but,
I believe there’s some things to be said.
First, no matter what you opinion about Veggie Tales
may be, all the stories are done with a professional polish
that makes them timeless, amusing, and very effective.
This trumps all of the objections I’ve read here and has
enabled God to use them mightily, over the years, in spite
of any flaws there may be in them real or imagined.
Second, the people in Hollywood, that actually have
control over the money and the creating of films HATE!
ALL Christians with a great passion. They’ve HATED them
from day one and will continue until the World ends.
The evidence for this is overwhelming and beyond
dispute. They take every oportunity to spit in the face
of the Christian community at large. They’ve KNOWN
from the first day that family(and Christian) friendly
films bring in the most money , but, they insist on
operating at a loss rather than make anything that
could be described as decent. You’ll, no doubt, dispute
this by pointng out all of the “GOOD” movies put out
over the years, but, you’ll find that the majority of these
films were either made during the time that Hollywood
had to answer to a Board which oversaw the ethical
quality of all films or they were produced OUTSIDE of
the Hollywood Money and Power structure. The ONLY
time your going to get any kind of a truly decent film is
when you Fund and Produce your product OUTSIDE of
what we deem as Hollywood.
Lastly, any group or studio firmly connected to
Hollywood, are only going to give Christans or even
decent, normal people; small, cheap, token service.
Don’t look for any cascade of morally acceptable
entertainment any time soon. The only effective and
amusing or entertaining films that possess any kind
of a Christian moral MUST originate in an independent
studio that’s able to write and fund such projects
OUTSIDE of Hollywood. They MUST be done in a very
professional and polished manner to even hope for
broad distribution or to be the slightest bit effective.
All of this may seem to be pessimistic, but, it’s not,
I’m not saying the Christian message can’t or won’t
get out I’m merely pointing out that Hollywood, at it’s
core will ALWAYS be a force of opposition to be
overcome, never a willing ally.
Phil, I have the movie that crosses the holy line into alot of Hollywood junk that people love and hits home with a power pack punch to people who are not saved! No one, I mean no one will talk to me about because it starts out as a Boiler room meets The Story of Us turns into a Christ centered movie! It’s not advertised as a church movie, and it has a killer sound track, rock and new country. Do you have one person out there that you know is open minded to an idea like this! I’m a Christian, but every Christian movie person I talk to thinks I’m the devil! I am just trying to cross a line that no one has! I would have never gone and saw a movie that was a Christian movie when I was not a Christian, yuk- boring! Chris Longacre
what drives me crazy is when people say “a moral movie flopped, so there must not be an audience,” but the same thing happens with a nasty movie & it’s “just poor marketing!”
Perhaps, the reason “Christian” movies flop is because they are low budget crap that you wouldn’t want to see even if it cost you nothing to watch. We’re too preachy & that will NEVER be enjoyed by ANY audience. Christians don’t want to be preached to. They want to enjoy a movie that embodies their worldview without the guilt of watching it.
I enjoy movies like The Passion, Lord of the Rings, The VeggieTales Movies, & Chronicles of Narnia. I think we need to provide entertainment similar to Enchanted & National Treasure.
And I am looking forward to HOUSE by the people who brought us thr3e, mainly because of the anticipated R rating. (scary, disturbing images, but NO SEX OR LANGUAGE!)
iamthemovie.comiamthemovie.comI AM is a new feature film that, while being marketed to a predominantly Christian audience, makes no mention of scripture in its dialogue. It does use the lessons of the Ten Commandments in the storyline, but that’s of a multi-denominational appeal as well. It’s very non-conventional in the sense that it’s far from an “on-the-nose” faith film, and in that, has had a tough time in the studio system, as it’s difficult to market. So the question is, do the studios want a good film for this audience, or do they just want something that is straight-down-the-line Christian that leaves no room for argument or discussion? When the studios choose to not take the chance on something a bit different, then it leaves films like this with the only option of marketing only to the faithful, and the rest of the population doesn’t get the chance to experience what otherwise might be embraced. Check out http://www.iamthemovie.com for more.