Gone and Left Behind

As an intriguing case study into two ways to do Christian film criticism, observe the flip flopped reactions to two movies from two sources.

First up, the Nicolas Cage reboot of Left Behind.

Jackson Cuidon at Christianity Today is scathing:

If the Left Behind books were just pulp novels injected with Christianity, then the Left Behind movie is just a disaster flick injected with the slightest, most infinitesimal amount of Christianity possible. This is, in one way, good—no one needs to be upset, or get angry, or be offended, or question their beliefs, or the beliefs of those around them, or anything, because the film takes no stance on anything. The film is so inept, confused, and involuted that there’s no danger of even accidentally cobbling together something that could necessitate a defense of Christianity.

Bob Hoose at Plugged In says, “Hey now!”

This sometimes choppy cinematic reboot (Kirk Cameron starred in a previous series of films that launched in 2000) features Nicolas Cage, Cassi Thomson, Chad Michael Murray and Lea Thompson, giving it a bit more Hollywood shine. It struggles sometimes with plot holes and special effects but tries to make up for that by working hard to raise questions that both the faithful and the faith-seeker can examine and discuss..

What’s most interesting about these two reviews is that they arrive at completely opposite conclusions about the film’s intentions. Cuidon says Left Behind “is not a Christian movie, whatever “Christian movie” could possibly mean.” Hoose, on the other hand, recommends the movie based on what he perceives is its potential usefulness in evangelistic conversation.

Next movie: David Fincher’s Oscar-baiting Gone Girl.

Plugged In’s Adam R. Holz says no way:

Marriage, as Amy Dunne narrates, can be hard. Gone Girl takes that observation and multiplies it to infinity in a story that spins ever more wildly—and sexually and gruesomely—out of the realm of normalcy and into something more like The Twilight Zone had it been created by the makers of Saw.

But Alissa Wilkinson at CT is riveted:

Okay. If you are brave and a little hardened and don’t mind the blood—if you still want to see the movie now—go do so, because this is some great movie-making, and will land high on the list of Fincher’s movies.

Holz’s reference to Saw is important to understand what he thinks of the movie–nihilistic, ugly, sinful. The movie’s graphic content undermines its acceptability to Christian conscience. Wilkinson also spends space discussing the film’s content, but says the quality of the story-telling should inspire audiences to stomach it.

Critics disagree every day, about virtually every movie. That’s not the interesting point here. What I find worthy of contemplation are the hugely divergent methods employed by two different publications to asses a film’s worth. Judging which method is the correct one takes careful consideration of several factors: What is the purpose of film for the Christian? What makes a film beneficial to an audience? What are the boundary lines and when, if ever, can they be crossed?

Plugged In’s metric for reviewing movies is mostly centered on “family-friendliness.” In other words, the violence, sexuality, profanity, and worldview of a film are the categories that create a discerning value judgment. Take those categories and plug in (no pun intended) the correct values, and out pops your responsible Christian decision. The reviewers at Christianity Today, however, see the movie first and foremost as an effort at art, narrative, and entertainment. Content is not unimportant (see Cuidon’s concluding paragraph on Left Behind) but should not be seen as determinative of a movie’s worth.

If nothing else, this all means that the discussion about evangelical use of art has significant pastoral implications.