|
DLMurphy
Posts: 6
Joined: Sep 2004
|
November 12, 2005 2:17 PM
|
|
I think this argument contains an important insight that Christian artists in every field should attend to: i.e., that to twist one's art around a message, however well-intentioned, is to disfigure both art and message. That Christians have had so much trouble with this of late, especially in America, surely has something to do with a) the anti-intellectualism and mistrust of the arts we've inherited from Puritanism (the tendency mentioned in the article to think that to portray sin is to condone it), and b) the vicious Culture War. The latter has put Christians in the arts off-balance. It has limited their faith-perpective, which should be a universe-opening vision, to a pugilistic defense of parochial party politics and eccentric theology. Worse, it provokes an even narrower "if I ruled the World" revenge-play view of God's huge and merciful Providence. This large-scale failure would seem to give support to Flannery O'Connor's notion of the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of producing truly great Christian art outside the context of a Christian culture.
I recently came across this terrific quote of Frank Sheed's about novelist Gertrud von le Fort:
Quote
The secular novelist sees what's visible. The Catholic novelist sees what's there. He may or may not bring God and the angels as characters into his story, but they are always factors in his story (just as a painter cannot paint the wind and cannot paint the air but would produce a poor landscape without them). This is not to say that the Catholic is the better novelist. He may lack genius or art or even ordinary talent, so that he merely potters about on his universal stage while the secular novelist works magic with the little bit of universe which is all he has. But if by chance the Catholic has genius, then his novel cannot but be revelation.
No question where the preponderance of "magic" has been the last few decades.
Having said that, I would hate to see such an understanding, which should serve as a caveat and not a deterrent, discourage Christian artists from attempting overtly Christian themes, or from attempting to market them to Christians. I noticed that the article failed to mention, God knoweth how, Mel Gibson's watershed The Passion of the Christ. (I see that Barb Nicolosi does discuss it at some length in the interview.) Passion was an overtly Christian-themed movie by a Christian director, produced independently--no mainstream studio or distributor would initially touch it. And it was heavily marketed to Christians. That it was also a great work of art, I suspect even by Bl. Flannery's exacting standards, should give encouragement to Christian artists that the minefields of the Culture War, and a brutal marketing environment, can be navigated, though perhaps not without trial and even error.
|
|
|
|
Thrasymachus
Posts: 1
Joined: Dec 2005
|
|
December 26, 2005 4:09 PM
|
|
I think this article misses two essential points.
The first is that narrative as such is inherently Christian. That is, all narratives tend (more or less clearly) towards a kind of indirect revelation of Christ. Just look at the Joseph Campbell-derived story template so popular among writing instructors these days. Campbell thought he was inferring the existence of archetypal patterns common to all myths/stories, but in fact he was simply noticing the fact that all human stories find their fulfillment in Christ. Depending on your perspective, you might say these stories all either hint at some aspect of the gospel story to come, or derive (ontologically if not historically) from the 'seeds' of Christ present in all of creation. This being the case, it makes sense that someone devoted to telling good stories would occasionally produce a story that suggests connections to the gospel in a more or less explicit way.
Yet my second essential point provides an even stronger reason why we should expect non-Christians to produce good Christian stories. It is, I believe, a simple fact that the cultural history of the western world is a story of the ever-increasing penetration of the gospel into all aspects of human understanding and behavior. This cannot be understood simplistically, of course. Everyone knows we live in a mostly 'secular' world, after all. But even secularism is more Christian that much that goes by the name Christian. I am thinking in particular of the work of Rene Girard -- we are all today acutely aware of the innocence of victims in a way that would be impossible outside a culture that had never heard the story of the passion. It's not unusual for good filmmakers to notice these connections, even if they are not confessing Christians. Oddly, they are communicating Christian truth simply because they see it as truth, as a reflection of the mystery of things, not because it's 'Christian'.
Sadly Christians are too often less interested in reality than in something called 'Christianity'. That applies to Catholics too, of course. But the power of the gospel cannot be smothered by Christians, no matter how hard they try.
|
|
|
|
Witnessprotection
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb 2006
|
|
February 10, 2006 6:18 PM
|
|
Per Professor Partham's statement that Robert Duvall is not a Christian...
I pulled this from a post-"The Apostle" interview via Google.
'Duvall, 67, is the son of a Methodist father and a Christian Scientist mother.
"Because my parents were so religious, I attended church regularly. I've always been a believer."'
Among the various denominations, cults and sects that claim to be Believers ... the single Bible verse that writes a Believer's name in the Book of Life is Romans 10:9.
If Duvall has done this, and according to his film(s), he has, so he's a Christian, despite the doctrinal differences of the Christian Science system and the average KJ/NIV Bible.
As for "the best" Christian films, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" stands head and shoulder above the nearest competitor. And Mel's saved, not a "heathen".
Edited: February 10, 2006 at 6:45 PM by Godspy Moderator
|
|
|
|
alexspil
Posts: 1
Joined: Oct 2006
|
|
October 05, 2006 7:22 PM
|
|
We Christians tend to forget that although saved, we are still weak human beings, doing mistakes. One of these, very typical of us, is the constant try to put other people in two categories, "heathen" and "christian"... But who are we, to judge or classify our next one?
As the friend said in previous paragrpaphs, about "Apostle" Duval, I dont know if Duval it is or it is not a Christian, and to be honest it doesn't matter. What matters, is the message that he spreads arround. If he was chosen to play such an important role, that means something.. Or do we want to analyze/criticize God's thought of chosing Duval?! That would be funny indeed!
Today I watched Kieslowski's "Double life of Veronica" for the 4th time in my life... An absolute masterpiece in my opinion. So many things have been told about Kieslowski and his relationship with God..Some present him as atheist, some others as great Christian.. Decide guys, he can't be both!
(or he can?!that opens a big discussion...)
What I want to tell, is to [email protected] the wood and not @the tree. Important are the messages and pictures he spread arround the world, and not "what hat we 'll put on him, the one of the believer or the one of atheist?"... It is up to the Lord (and to Krysztof, when he met Him - I hope he bow to Him!), to put the label "Christian" or "non Christian".
We should better look ourselves and what we do in our everyday life and actions..
God in my opinion doesn't care for the definitions we give of a Christian and a non Christian...
So He judges a director and its film not from what the latter says that he believes, or worse, from the category the others classifyy him, but from what he really manages to put on the screen and how this will touch the lives of other people.
God bless you
Alexandros
|
|
|
|
|
