Why I love films: The Preamble

I am a cinephile. I enjoy greatly watching movies/films. I am also a Christian, a quasi-neo-Fundamentalist (I haven't yet determined exactly what that means). Are those consistent positions? Are you able to legitimately be both? According to a series of articles (Parts One, Two, and Three, so far) by a Fundamentalist named Kevin Bauder, you cannot. His notes that prominent theologians "from Tertullian to Tozer" have been adamantly opposed to the theater/cinema. Having not read all of those writers, I will have to take his word for it. He posits the idea that theater/film is unable to carry the message of Christ. He challenges his readers to "convince [him] that theater as a medium is legitimate for Christians." Apparently, his contention is that theater/cinema is not legitimate for Christians. He gives, though, very specific parameters for this debate.

If you are going to convince me, however, here is the first thing that you are going to have to do. You must show me that you have understood how theater communicates. You must know and respond to the aesthetic conversation. Once you have done that, then we will be in a position to get down to the really important considerations.

I will not attempt to completely answer his queries just yet. As I peruse some articles on Wikipedia dealing with aesthetics and art, I see that I am undeniably unqualified to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. However, I would like to make some preliminary "gut" observations.
I was not able to find in his article substantial support for his thesis. He does state that theater/cinema is primarily Dionysian as opposed to Apollonian. "Dionysian" is a term that comes from the Greek god Dionysus, or Bacchus, who is "the god of wine and of an orgiastic religion celebrating the power and fertility of nature." The terms means "of an ecstatic, orgiastic, or irrational nature; frenzied or undisciplined." Thus, theater primarily stimulates our carnal, visceral passions. "Apollonian" comes from the Greek god Apollo, "the god of prophecy, music, medicine, and poetry." The term means "characterized by clarity, harmony, and restraint." Literature, music, and poetry speak primarily to the intellect and reason. Bauder's premise seems to be that the message of Christ is primarily an intellectual one, and, thusly, one that must be carried by an intellectual medium. I would agree with this. I do not, however, agree with his position that film is an entirely unintellectual medium. He states in Part Three, "A competent director does not want his audience to think. He wants his audience to feel, and to feel at some primeval and instinctual level." This is not entirely true. Most serious directors want their audiences to think. Most serious directors want to get convey a specific message. Many directors will use emotions to get this message across, as do many preachers. Some directors will avoid these emotional/visceral tactics and aim straight at the mind. Directors such as Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, and Allen are more interested in philosophical ideas. Though some of their films are enjoyable at face value, they contain some intense philosophical depth.
Another issue I have with Bauder is his premise that some mediums, namely theater/film, can be inherently flawed. I understand that any medium can be used for carnal purposes. Music, painting, sculpture, photography, and literature can all be used in non-God-honoring ways. Yet I cannot accept that a medium can be non-God-honoring in itself. A medium is a means of communication. It is amoral. There are not good mediums and evil mediums. The morality of a medium depends on the message. It seems very constrictive to say that only certain mediums are appropriate conveyors of God's truth.
Allow me to now lay out my views on cinema, and why I love it. I see film as having two main aspects, the cinematic and the thematic. The cinematic includes the plot, the dialog, the cinematography, the sound, the acting--all the technical/production aspects of the film. These are the things most people see when they see a film. This is the primary reason why most people watch films, for these are the things that easily entertain us. The thematic includes the main theme and philosophy of the film. In most films, the cinematic conveys the thematic. For me, both of these are important. I do not like films that lack in cinematic value. I enjoy a good plot, witty dialog, beautiful cinematography, and good acting as much as any one else. Films that lack these values are not worth my time. However, films that contain only these values are also not worth my time. Popcorn or escapists films may look neat and may provide simple entertainment, but ultimately waste my time, as I walk away with nothing. The thematic is the more important aspect. I want to see a film that has something to say, whether or not I agree with it. I like films that deal with significant and universal themes. I like films that challenge my aesthetic sense, and cause me to think intently about what they are saying. I like films that take a while to digest. Most people, and many times myself, are interested in film because most films think for us. Television is as popular as it is because it does everything for us. This is why TV and film can be so dangerous. We let our intellectual guard down and simply ingest what we are fed. We can probably get something meaningful out of any film if we are willing to bring along our intellect. Some films will challenge us in that their is nothing in it to challenge us. It takes all our intellectual power to squeeze some significant point from the film. For me, film can be endlessly entertaining, and I have yet to see how to be entertained is unhealthy, spiritually speaking. Yet, film can also be endlessly intellectually invigorating. That is why I love films.