Better than I

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post on capital punishment. I recently read this old essay by C.S. Lewis that says all I wanted to say, only much better than I could have said it. There are many ways to win an argument. One way is to be right, and to effectively deliver your argument. C.S. Lewis does this as well as anyone. Another way is to frame the debate around an unessential and unrelated point. If you can do this, then you don't have to be right about the main point. You can distract from this and confound the issue. The only way opponents of capital punishment, and many other issues for that matter, can argue is by framing the debate around some ancillary point.

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.

The Hero and the Anti-Hero

The other day I saw the film Cool Hand Luke. For those who do not know, it is about Lucas Jackson. He is a criminal that spends most of the film attempting to get off a chain-gang. I enjoyed this film. It had a well written screenplay. The dialog was witty. The actors all did a fine a job. Paul Newman was tremendous as the titular character. This was as good of a performance as in The Sting and The Hustler. This film is noted as one of the first films to introduce the "anti-hero." An anti-hero is a person who is not a good person, usually a criminal, but a person who people admire and support. Normally, this anti-hero's antagonist is the "system" or the "establishment." We cheer for him because he fights against the establishment. Another famous example of the anti-hero can be found in One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest. In this film, Jack Nicholson plays Randle McMurphy. He gets sent to a mental hospital from a chain-gang. Some of the doctors think he purposely acted crazy so he could get out of working. He dedicates his time in the hospital to liberating the "patients" from the unyielding clutches of the Draconian Nurse Ratchet. This is another great film. Nicholson's performance is one of the best ever. This film received 5 Oscar's, and probably could have received more. It is well-written, well-directed, and well-acted. It ,like CHL, is a highly subversive film. Both of these films are about a man in jail (and deservedly sol) who refuses to be beaten by the system. In both of these films, the establishment is depicted as cruel and unsympathetic, so that the anti-hero, the quintessential individual, must constantly fight against it so that others can have the freedom they so desparately deserve. There are many more modern films that attempt to define what a hero is. Is he a man, like the ones above, that fights for individual freedom? Is he man, like John Wayne, who is clearly on the side of truth and justice? What does it mean to be a hero? Recent war movies like Saving Private Ryan and Flags of Our Fathers debunk many of the notions we have of war heroes. These are not men that went out to accomplish some grandiose noble task. These were boys, in most cases, that did what they could to keep themselves and their buddies alive. They weren't fighting for America or democracy. They were fighting so that they so see another day. Is a hero inherently a hero, or is a hero a hero because others consider him a hero?
Joe Carter from The Evangelical Outpost has an interesting article entitled, "The Fountainhead of Bedford Falls: Comparing George Bailey and Howard Roark." Many people have not heard of Ayn Rand or The Fountainhead. That is fine--Joe does a good job of explaining them both. He also does fine work in comparing two types of heroes--the George Bailey paradigm, who fights for others in spite of himself, and the Howard Roark paradigm, who fights for himself in spite of others. I think that "Luke" and "Randle" fit into the second category. They fight for the individual. Ironically, though, they destroy the individual in the process. In our modern thought, one of the greatest virtues is individualism, and, consequently, one of the greatest vices is the establishment, which we all know seeks to destroy the individual. In nearly 99% of modern film and TV and books (though I don't read modern books), the hero is almost always the rebel. He is the cop that has to turn in his badge and do things "his way" in order to save the world. He is the astronaut that shirks his superior's commands and saves the green planet himself. I find it difficult to find a modern example of a man that puts himself and his thoughts aside for the good of others. It is so rare to find a Rick Blaine in modern culture. It would do us well to think about heroism, and what defines a true hero. It would do us well to model our lives after true heroes.

powered by performancing firefox