Fireproof under fire
I just had the opportunity to see the new Church-produced movie Fireproof.
Some reviews are in, but it seems that most critics simply want to stay away from it altogether, and the movie only scored a 44% on the Rotten-meter. The movie came out over a week ago, yet RottenTomatoes.com only lists 12 reviews of the film. Compare this with the new box office release "Religulous". Apparently, this is Bill Maher's "comic look at organized belief systems around the world" and which has so far grossed less in its opening weekend, has opened in less theaters, yet scored a 65%, and a solid 79 reviews.
Here are a few "fresh" review snippets from Maher's movie:
"A facetious yet sincere documentary that makes the case for why all of the world's organized religions are not only, well, ridiculous, but also detrimental and downright dangerous."
Dustin Putman
TheMovieBoy.com
What I find interesting is the nature of such reviews. Is it just me, or does it seem more and more that movie critics no longer judge on the basis of quality but on content? It doesn't matter if a movie is funny or well-made and well-acted. If the underlying message doesn't appeal to the critic, it's a bad movie. If the underlying message is appealing, the movie is a success. Even if the movie is admittedly poorly made, it's the content that is often to blame. The blame is on both sides: those who support a philosophy and those who don't.
Let me give you a good example. Back in 2003, Jim Carey starred in the move Bruce Almighty, a well-made, well-acted, and downright funny movie (at the very least there were some very funny moments) in which Bruce is given God's powers to solve the problem of evil. When I first saw the movie, I loved it. I could understand how someone might not think it wasn't that funny, but despite $249 million in box office sales, the consensus was a 49% rating, certified "rotten". Why? Consider the following "rotten" reviews:
"A woefully underwritten motion picture that starts out as a dumb comedy before taking an ill-advised detour into mawkish sentimentality."
ReelViews
"I was really rooting for Bruce to ignore the responsibilities and give God the holy middle finger."
"I was really rooting for Bruce to ignore the responsibilities and give God the holy middle finger."
"It starts in darkness, moves into safe Liar Liar-type territory, and ends with boring Significance."
Combustible Celluloid
Not all the reviews are along these lines, and it would be difficult to pin down the true m
otives for dislike of the movie. Honestly, I can remember few times I was in tears laughing as hard as when I saw Steve Carrell shouting gibberish as that news reporter, though.
But, "boring significance"? Is this what society thinks of even the mention of profound philosophical and religious ideas in movie making? It's not like they are actually arguing forcefully for them. Apparently so when the philosophical-religious conclusions aren't in line with the critic's ideology. I need to be careful and not say that only religious skeptics and liberals are guilty of this kind of thing. Christians and other conservatives often are, as well. People today haven't just lost the motive to evaluate objectively, but they've lost the ability, I think. It's a valuable skill to be able to put one's personal convictions temporarily to the side in order to deal with a subject objectively. For example, my favorite movie of all time climaxes, in a sense, with the shaking fist of a man against God, and seems to conclude that since God is not good, and there is no justice in the world, that vengeance against God is better than submission to him: Amadeus. I disagree, but I love the movie.
I have a point in here somewhere, so stay with me as we consider some of the reviews for Fireproof:
"Fireproof stops becoming relatable to us all and only to the already, or easily, indoctrinated."
Not all the reviews are along these lines, and it would be difficult to pin down the true m
otives for dislike of the movie. Honestly, I can remember few times I was in tears laughing as hard as when I saw Steve Carrell shouting gibberish as that news reporter, though.But, "boring significance"? Is this what society thinks of even the mention of profound philosophical and religious ideas in movie making? It's not like they are actually arguing forcefully for them. Apparently so when the philosophical-religious conclusions aren't in line with the critic's ideology. I need to be careful and not say that only religious skeptics and liberals are guilty of this kind of thing. Christians and other conservatives often are, as well. People today haven't just lost the motive to evaluate objectively, but they've lost the ability, I think. It's a valuable skill to be able to put one's personal convictions temporarily to the side in order to deal with a subject objectively. For example, my favorite movie of all time climaxes, in a sense, with the shaking fist of a man against God, and seems to conclude that since God is not good, and there is no justice in the world, that vengeance against God is better than submission to him: Amadeus. I disagree, but I love the movie.
I have a point in here somewhere, so stay with me as we consider some of the reviews for Fireproof:
"Fireproof stops becoming relatable to us all and only to the already, or easily, indoctrinated."
L.A. Weekly
"Fireproof isn't merely preaching to the already converted; it's helping to further alienate the unconverted and the skeptical."
"Fireproof isn't merely preaching to the already converted; it's helping to further alienate the unconverted and the skeptical."
Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)
"Unfortunately, the emphasis on what God wants has a way of overwhelming who Caleb and Catherine are as characters."
"Unfortunately, the emphasis on what God wants has a way of overwhelming who Caleb and Catherine are as characters."
Los Angeles Times
What did I think of the movie? I liked it. I actually liked it a lot. If you don't agree with Christian values, you'll either be drawn to it, or else you'll hate it. I completely understand if someone didn't like it for these reasons. I think it's hard to be completely unmoved by it. Do I think it could have been done better? Yes, I do, without having to change the story. But, even their previous production Facing the Giants, scored only a 9%, and although I found Fireproof a stronger message and more appealing, I thought Facing the Giants was a little bit better in terms of production quality.
But, instead of a movie review, I just want to make a final point to all this rambling. My point is that in discrediting movies like Bruce Almighty and Fireproof for their religious sentimentality, preachiness, and "boring significance", aren't these critics undermining their own position? Aren't they preaching their own opinions? If they are against preaching or championing one's personal philosophical or religious views, are they not doing the same, except by demeriting philosophical and religious thought?
In other words, it's hard to discredit a movie for trumpeting philosophical and/or religious opinions when the critic's own review is the trumpeting of his own philosophical and/or religious opinion, namely, that movies that trumpet philosophical/religious opinions are undeserving. It's called being hoist by one's own petard.
What did I think of the movie? I liked it. I actually liked it a lot. If you don't agree with Christian values, you'll either be drawn to it, or else you'll hate it. I completely understand if someone didn't like it for these reasons. I think it's hard to be completely unmoved by it. Do I think it could have been done better? Yes, I do, without having to change the story. But, even their previous production Facing the Giants, scored only a 9%, and although I found Fireproof a stronger message and more appealing, I thought Facing the Giants was a little bit better in terms of production quality.
But, instead of a movie review, I just want to make a final point to all this rambling. My point is that in discrediting movies like Bruce Almighty and Fireproof for their religious sentimentality, preachiness, and "boring significance", aren't these critics undermining their own position? Aren't they preaching their own opinions? If they are against preaching or championing one's personal philosophical or religious views, are they not doing the same, except by demeriting philosophical and religious thought?
In other words, it's hard to discredit a movie for trumpeting philosophical and/or religious opinions when the critic's own review is the trumpeting of his own philosophical and/or religious opinion, namely, that movies that trumpet philosophical/religious opinions are undeserving. It's called being hoist by one's own petard.
0 comments:
Post a Comment