MERGED--> Jesus Camp + Michael Moore and ...
- Thread starter MrsSpringsteen
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
http://jesuscampthemovie.com/theatreList.html
Nowhere near me. It played at the Boston Film Festival but I wasn't able to go.
Nowhere near me. It played at the Boston Film Festival but I wasn't able to go.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
yeah, hi, i've seen the film, and i've met the directors, and it's one of the best documentaries i've ever seen in my entire life and each and every person who is in the film stands by it 100% as they think that it is fully and fairly representative of their specific kind of christianity, which is Pentacostal, and by no means do they associate themselves with mainstream Christianity -- they see themselves as fully distinct from, say, Main Line Protestanism, or Catholicism.
perhaps you should try to see the film before you render such judgements, though ignorance hasn't stopped you in the past.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
MrsSpringsteen said:
i bet in early 2007 it might get a wider release, as i'm sure it will be a Best Documentary contender at the Oscars.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I know enough about it to know it has an agenda that doesn't appeal to me. But if you can honestly say that it doesn't associate the wackos portrayed in the film with mainstream Christianity, I'll take your word for it.Irvine511 said:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
see the film.
it has no agenda. it's one of the most straightfoward pieces of documentary filmmaking i can recall. there's no narration. there's very little music. all of the characters in the film -- the teachers, the students, the parents -- are fully behind the film and feel it is an accurate representation of their faith.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I heard about this movie on a dutch muslim website this morning and now i want to see it myself. 
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine, are you joking?
Have also seen the film. Have also read interviews with the filmmakers. To say that the film has no agenda is completely naive. What do you think of the Air America radio host whose comments bookend the film? (In one of the interviews I read, one of the filmmakers said that he was a late add, should anyone in the film think the filmmakers sided with the subjects.) What do you think of the fact that the filmmakers shamelessly (and erroneously) equated mainstream evangelicalism with this extreme, isolated strain by using the shorthand "evangelical" in nearly every statistic they showed on-screen to depict this camp, as though the one were the other? What do you think of the fact that in a 90 minute documentary the film spends about 35 minutes in the actual camp itself, and the rest of the time underlining the political element of evangelicalism? As though one woman leading a relatively small camp in the backwoods and hooting "this means war" represented all, most, or even some of mainstream evangelicalism?
"No agenda"? Give me a break.
Have also seen the film. Have also read interviews with the filmmakers. To say that the film has no agenda is completely naive. What do you think of the Air America radio host whose comments bookend the film? (In one of the interviews I read, one of the filmmakers said that he was a late add, should anyone in the film think the filmmakers sided with the subjects.) What do you think of the fact that the filmmakers shamelessly (and erroneously) equated mainstream evangelicalism with this extreme, isolated strain by using the shorthand "evangelical" in nearly every statistic they showed on-screen to depict this camp, as though the one were the other? What do you think of the fact that in a 90 minute documentary the film spends about 35 minutes in the actual camp itself, and the rest of the time underlining the political element of evangelicalism? As though one woman leading a relatively small camp in the backwoods and hooting "this means war" represented all, most, or even some of mainstream evangelicalism?
"No agenda"? Give me a break.
Last edited:
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
EVERY movie, documentary, commercial, song, play...etc has an agenda.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
nathan, are you joking? did we see the same film? when did you see it?
the bookending was asked about, and they said they included him because there was no sense of balance in the film whatsoever, so they felt as if they had to include something to give it context and didn't want to resort to narration. the host is also from this exact area in Missouri, and i don't believe he's on Air America at all.
they used the word "evangelical" because that was what the subjects, themselves, called themselves. it would be tedious, and pointless, to qualify (to your liking, i imagine) endlessly throughout the film. there was way, way more than 35 minutes spent in the camp itself, and many of the activities that were outside the camp were camp-related activities, political or otherwise.
i think the fact that it has gotten a rise out of you is evidence to just how point blank the film is: you get out of it what you want to see. how would you not expect two female documentary filmmakers from NYC to be anything other than "biased" or have an "agenda"? i would fully expect that reaction from those who would self-identify as evangelical -- one woman in the audience brought up the same point, and said she was evangelical, and homeschooled her kids because she thought the public schools were way, way too conservative and indoctrinated her children to be mindless, warlike patriots. i know we'd like everything to fit our definitions of what we want the adjectives we use to describe ourselves, but life doesn't always work that way. might you have made a different film? probably. but you'd just have an agenda all by yourself.
and how do you explain the fact that ALL the subjects are thrilled wtih the film and stand behind it and have gone with the filmmakers to festivals?
Last edited:
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Sounds interesting.
Michael Moore is a moron BTW. The fact that he's endorsing it automatically makes me less interested.
I'll still give it a chance though.
Michael Moore is a moron BTW. The fact that he's endorsing it automatically makes me less interested.
I'll still give it a chance though.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
A clip on the news was enough for me. I'm not going to put myself in a straightjacket over it.Justin24 said:
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
A buddy of mine was asked to review it and was sent a screener. We saw it about 3 weeks ago.
The DJ's name is Mike Papantonio; his talk show is broadcast on Air America. Podcasts are readily available on-line.
The film sums up evangelicalism in about three sentences. The filmmakers could have chosen to sum up extreme Pentecostalism the same way. Heck, they could have chosen to add one clause saying, "Fundamentalist Pentecostalism is a sect of evangelicalism, which..." The filmmakers however chose not to, instead tarring 45 million Americans with the same brush.
My buddy and I went back and specifically timed the amount of time the filmmakers spent at Jesus Camp. Thirty-five minutes.
You were the one who insisted that it had no agenda, Irvine. (You seem to be backing off that statement.) I have no problem with agenda-driven filmmaking -- reflecting the worldview of the artist is a by-product of creativity. But let's not say that it's something it isn't.
Becky Fischer, the subject of the film, does seem content with the film, though she did mention in indieWIRE that she had a number of reactions to the film more nuanced than your blanket "thrilled" would indicate.
I think the film is important to see; it's certainly well-made, it's very engaging, and it focuses on something we haven't really seen on film before. But to say "it has no agenda" is misleading at best.
By the way, the film's score (yes, there is one) is by Force Theory.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
well, if the film had any narration, you might have a point. it's amazing how we get to the point that if we feel as if a film doesn't specifically reflect our own experiences. i'm sorry you feel as if you've been tarred, but that speaks much more to your own paranoia since i think the film goes to great lengths to not be about evangelicals, but about these evangelicals.
it sounds like a reaction i had to a film called "Gay Sex in the 70's." i wrote a journal entry about it. i was taken aback by many of the things i saw in it, firstly because i felt as i the bathhouse culture of 1970s new york had nothing to do with me, nor was it even representative of the average gay experience in the 1970s, let alone today. however, it was a very accurate portrayal of the social and sexual lives of a very specific group of gay male new yorkers in a very specific time period. as much as i might not feel as if my experience, or the experience of all gay men, everywhere, was accurately represented, that doesn't mean that it wasn't an accurate representation of these gay men, however distinction from my experience -- and the experience of some 30m gay people across the US -- might be.
it was my own reaction that i might somehow be indicted, or grouped in with these men, or that, say, an evangelical might see this film and it might confirm all their prejudices, or an Ohio soccer mom might think that this is what typical mainstream gay life was like, that was the "bias" or the "agenda" -- and that wasn't the fault of the film, it was my own prejudices, insecurities, and hang-ups that we all bring with us whenever we approach any work of art.
the main point is that this film doesn't resort to any sort of easy cinematic manipulation to tell it's story or present it's characters.
it's documentary filmmaking of the highest quality.
[q]My buddy and I went back and specifically timed the amount of time the filmmakers spent at Jesus Camp. Thirty-five minutes. [/q]
and leading up to camp? and after camp? and the time spent getting to know the kids so they were fully fleshed out, three dimensional, complex, intelligent, articulate, fully sympthetic characters?
perhaps they shouldn't have bothered and just presented us with little hateful christian children of the corn?
as for the DJ, the filmmakers said that this is a political film, and having someone who's concerned about the politicization of Christianity open and close the film isn't meant to shade meaning or understanding, rather to place the film in the political context in which it stands.
[q]You were the one who insisted that it had no agenda, Irvine. (You seem to be backing off that statement.) I have no problem with agenda-driven filmmaking -- reflecting the worldview of the artist is a by-product of creativity. But let's not say that it's something it isn't.[/q]
no, i was saying that we're all capable of reading agendas when we want to, and i think the film does have an "agenda," or more accurately a goal, which is to depict such a directly political religious camp and how they target youth.
[q]Becky Fischer, the subject of the film, does seem content with the film, though she did mention in indieWIRE that she had a number of reactions to the film more nuanced than your blanket "thrilled" would indicate.[/q]
it must be that agenda.
everyone in the film is on board with the film. we'd all have more "nuanced" reactions to any sort of film or television project we were involved in -- ever watch "project runway"? -- but the universal approval of the film by the subjects belie any claims to the chicanery of the filmmakers or that they're seeking to defame 45m people.
[q]I think the film is important to see; it's certainly well-made, it's very engaging, and it focuses on something we haven't really seen on film before. But to say "it has no agenda" is misleading at best.[/q]
then we'd have to define what we mean by agenda -- it has a goal, a purpose, a context, but to say it's out to defame a group of people, to slander someone, to indict anyone, is totally false.
it's as far from a piece of political hackery as anyone could possibly get.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Sorry Irvine. Having watched the film -- twice, in fact -- there's no parsing of these evangelicals vs evangelicals nationwide. The combination of the DJ's rabid "they've taken over everywhere! they're coming! what are we going to do?" voice-overs, with the images the filmmakers chose to select to open the film (the first five minutes depict a bizarre church dance these kids have put on), combined with Becky Fischer's extremist POV, make the direct implication (if not downright assertion) that these evangelicals are the ones running our government. It's filmmaking 101, Irvine, and it's remarkably effective. Completely in service of a particular objective and perspective of evangelicalism, but effective.
The score, the editing, the collision of images -- the entire thing is manipulative, right down to its subject matter. Why choose this woman's camp, out of the hundreds of thousands of Christian camps that are run every summer? Because instead of choosing camps that run health clinics in Mexico, or camps that run educational programs in the inner-city, they chose this particular camp to hold up as the sign that the Evil Evangelicals are coming. (A point repeatedly underlined by the DJ.)
There's no question it's a political film. The DJ gets the first and last words in, which clearly shade the entire thing not only from an outside POV but from a very specific one.
Filmmaking with a POV is what it is. I think you presume I'm smelling some kind of Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Not at all. I do however think that it is chicanery to insist your film has no agenda, when it actually does, borne out by the film itself.
This is very much in the eye of the beholder, and I'll stand by my comments on the film as a whole.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
On second thought, i better not watch this movie, i just saw the trailer and i already know who has a agenda in this movie.
Long live the white taliban
Long live the white taliban
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
shart1780 said:
I gave up counting how many ways this is funny after 3.
OP
OP
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
shart1780 said:
He's not endorsing it in any way, shape, or form
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
and i will by mine.
every point i made in my last post stands, and i'm well versed in the world of documentary filmmaking, thank you very much, and it's sad that you think that elements like the score, the editing, the collision of images are somehow indicative of manipulation when this, in fact, actually is Filmmaking 101. there is drama in the film, and tension, and emotion, but to view these very basic cinematic devices as evidence of willfull, deliberate manipulation on the part of the filmmakers as they go about furthering their agendas doesn't hold much water.
i'm sorry you feel unnecessarily implicated and aggreived by the film, but you've also yet to state what "the agenda" is -- that would go a long way towards furthering your points. and i also think you're wildly underestimating the audience and the ability of people to discern these evangelicals from those evangelicals and it is stated, explicitly, that these are Pentacoastal Evangelicals, and their political goals -- however much they might overestimate themselves, as they are obviously doing in your eyes -- are stated plainly. and, ultimately, that's not the filmmaker's responsibility -- they are depicting a particular group of individuals, and there's no burden upon them to give a dissertation on the history of evangelicals in the United States. the characters in the film are far, far more human and fleshed out and nuanced than we ever get of, say, Muslims.
i won't reiterate it, but i think my analogy in regards to my reaction to "Gay Sex in the 70's" applies perfectly. i'd love to see documentaries about gay parents, or gay teachers, or gay CEO's, or gay families, and if i look i can find them, but i saw one documentary about wildly promiscuous gay sex in the 1970s in New York and it would be foolish of me, as well as self-centered and myopic, to demand that all documentaries about gay people presented me in the most flattering light possible. i think it's important to understand that not all gay people are saints, and things like drugs and promiscuity (and the lack of self-worth that underscores it all) are a major part of gay culture, however incomplete that picture might be.
the same applies to evangelicals. simply because it's not your specific experience on the screen is not indication of an agenda to personally malign you.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
for reference, here's the interview with Becky Frischer nathan has mentioned:
[q]"I've only seen [the film] one time, and I was still processing what was left out and left in. [But from] what I've seen, I think [Grady and Ewing] did a great job," said Fischer. "I think they captured the beautiful concepts of what we represent."
While generally pleased with how the film turned out, she told indieWIRE that she initially felt a bit uncomfortable with the inclusion of some of the overtly political segments in the film, which culminate in a debate between Fischer and Air America radio commentator Mike Papantonio (whose on-air comments are used to frame the documentary). Papantonio, described as an active Methodist, is a frequent critic of the Evangelical movement.
A particularly inflammatory scene that heightens the political overtones for viewers takes place at a revival meeting lead by Fischer and her associates, in front of well over 100 children. In the scene, Fischer takes a life-size standup photo of President George W. Bush to the stage, and with a large American flag in the background, asks the crowd to raise their hands towards him in prayer.
"I didn't realize how the secular world viewed what we were doing," Fischer said, adding that Grady and Ewing spent about a year filming her -- including a visit to the Kids On Fire summer camp in Devil's Lake, ND -- explaining that political side of the equation had only come up toward the end of shooting.
"When we took out [an] image of Bush, it turned political, but to us, it's not political - it's Biblical," she said.
"All you have to do is mention words like abortion, homosexuality and President Bush to [garner] strong feelings from people," said Fischer who maintained that using images of the U.S. President and the flags of the U.S. and Israel were not meant to be overtly political. "We are commanded to pray for our leaders and we're commanded [by the Bible] to pray for Israel. So it was a surprise to me because we don't think of this as political. But from a secular point-of-view, I can see how it's viewed politically."
Becky Fischer and her fellow Evangelicals view Bush as a primary hope in pursuing their agenda regarding abortion rights, prayer in school, and gay rights, and the film captures the emotional devotion instilled within a new young generation of Evangelicals. At the film's world premiere on the first weekend of the festival, many in the mostly liberal New York audience could be overheard saying that the film should be a call to arms for people on the left side of the cultural/political divide.
As for the filmmakers themselves, Fischer said she felt a duty to shield Grady and Ewing from her fellow Evangelicals who might have been tempted to witness to them during the making of the movie. She said that fellow believers had come to her privately to inquire about the filmmaker's own religious beliefs, but while Fischer and the filmmakers discussed religion, she added, "There wasn't a conscious effort to make them feel uncomfortable. It wasn't why they were here. I know that Evangelicals can do that, but I didn't [want them to feel uncomfortable]."
After shooting wrapped, Fischer said that Grady and Ewing shared their beliefs with her, and any disagreements that might exist have not compromised the film. "Rachel and Heidi have said their personal beliefs have nothing to do with the film. I think they did an extremely good job in not letting their personal beliefs interfere with the making of this film."
[/q]
[q]"I've only seen [the film] one time, and I was still processing what was left out and left in. [But from] what I've seen, I think [Grady and Ewing] did a great job," said Fischer. "I think they captured the beautiful concepts of what we represent."
While generally pleased with how the film turned out, she told indieWIRE that she initially felt a bit uncomfortable with the inclusion of some of the overtly political segments in the film, which culminate in a debate between Fischer and Air America radio commentator Mike Papantonio (whose on-air comments are used to frame the documentary). Papantonio, described as an active Methodist, is a frequent critic of the Evangelical movement.
A particularly inflammatory scene that heightens the political overtones for viewers takes place at a revival meeting lead by Fischer and her associates, in front of well over 100 children. In the scene, Fischer takes a life-size standup photo of President George W. Bush to the stage, and with a large American flag in the background, asks the crowd to raise their hands towards him in prayer.
"I didn't realize how the secular world viewed what we were doing," Fischer said, adding that Grady and Ewing spent about a year filming her -- including a visit to the Kids On Fire summer camp in Devil's Lake, ND -- explaining that political side of the equation had only come up toward the end of shooting.
"When we took out [an] image of Bush, it turned political, but to us, it's not political - it's Biblical," she said.
"All you have to do is mention words like abortion, homosexuality and President Bush to [garner] strong feelings from people," said Fischer who maintained that using images of the U.S. President and the flags of the U.S. and Israel were not meant to be overtly political. "We are commanded to pray for our leaders and we're commanded [by the Bible] to pray for Israel. So it was a surprise to me because we don't think of this as political. But from a secular point-of-view, I can see how it's viewed politically."
Becky Fischer and her fellow Evangelicals view Bush as a primary hope in pursuing their agenda regarding abortion rights, prayer in school, and gay rights, and the film captures the emotional devotion instilled within a new young generation of Evangelicals. At the film's world premiere on the first weekend of the festival, many in the mostly liberal New York audience could be overheard saying that the film should be a call to arms for people on the left side of the cultural/political divide.
As for the filmmakers themselves, Fischer said she felt a duty to shield Grady and Ewing from her fellow Evangelicals who might have been tempted to witness to them during the making of the movie. She said that fellow believers had come to her privately to inquire about the filmmaker's own religious beliefs, but while Fischer and the filmmakers discussed religion, she added, "There wasn't a conscious effort to make them feel uncomfortable. It wasn't why they were here. I know that Evangelicals can do that, but I didn't [want them to feel uncomfortable]."
After shooting wrapped, Fischer said that Grady and Ewing shared their beliefs with her, and any disagreements that might exist have not compromised the film. "Rachel and Heidi have said their personal beliefs have nothing to do with the film. I think they did an extremely good job in not letting their personal beliefs interfere with the making of this film."
[/q]
Irvine511 said:
Sounds a lot like idolatry to me...
Reminds me of a blog entry I read a few months back by a guy who was a youth minister, and a conservative Republican. He had attended a Memorial Day church service where a patriotic film was shown( images of jet planes, American flags, fireworks, politics,etc.). It upset him because he felt it amounted to idolatry, which confused me at first
, but then I got to thinking about it...
I think his problem with the service was that it seemed to be putting God and country on the same level of veneration, worship, whatever.
There *is* a difference between asking your congregation to say a prayer for the president and sticking a life size image of him on stage...
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
WTFRono said:
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Oh come on Irvine. If you know anything about filmmaking, you know that film is an entirely manipulative medium. With every choice the directors make, from angles to shot composition to scoring to editing, etc., they are trying to evoke a specific response. Set the whole film to REM's "Shiny Happy People" and you have a very different film experience than you would if it's scored in a low, throbbing, bass drone as it is by Force Theory. Open the film with normal families putting normal kids on normal buses, or of them playing, and you'd have a very different film than when you lead off with the bizarre dance the church has put together. (Combined with Mike Papantonio's passionate assertions that evangelicals are taking over, which run over the opening images, and what point do you think the filmmakers are trying to get us to understand?) Every decision a director makes is intentional and in service of a larger goal.
But these devices -- scoring, editing, montage, etc -- are manipulative. Inherently, clearly, obviously manipulative. Every filmmaker will tell you that. Those devices are used by the filmmaker to get a specific response.
No, Irvine, it isn't. Nowhere are these identified as Pentecostal Evangelicals. Nowhere are their beliefs described. The only reason I know which branch of the denominational tree these guys hang from is because I'm well-versed in denominational affiliations, and know that this particular church is treated as a red-headed stepchild by the Pentecostal denomination itself. Nowhere is that stated, implied, or otherwise in the film. Over and over again we're given statistics about evangelicals, cut to statements by Mike Papantonio about the great threat of evangelicalism, and then cut to shots of this particular church, without any context as to who is what.
The example you cite about the film you saw is very different. Did the film specifically identify you as a threat?
If you're going to call the beliefs of 45 million people a threat (and imply, if not outright state -- and I'd argue the film hugs a very poor line in that regard -- that the evangelicals in the film are representative of mainstream evangelicals), you'd better be damn clear who you're talking about. Otherwise, you border on agenda-driven slander in its most odious form.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
you're right, filmmaking involves manipulation -- the manipulation of light, sound, image, etc., in order to weave together a watchable story. it's no great revelation that filmmaking involves manipulation, but to say that the story itself is manipulative is a very different and distinct charge.
if i'm a filmmaker and i want to rev up some drama, it's manipulative to, say, shoot a puppy out of the blue. it is not manipulative to, say, present a situation where a puppy is endangered by a gun. it's totally, totally distinct, and you're criticisms seem to be that, 1) it's a film, and 2) the filmmakers are using the techniques of cinema to weave together a story.
charges of "manipulation" are meaningless to the point of parody. it's like claiming the media is "biased." there is no intellectual argument behind these charges.
and if it were so manipulative as you claim, you'd be hearing voices of dissent crying foul at the film -- and no one, not least of which is Becky Fischer is accusing the film of being a "Farenheit 911" of Evangelical Pentacostals.
[q]No, Irvine, it isn't. Nowhere are these identified as Pentecostal Evangelicals. Nowhere are their beliefs described. The only reason I know which branch of the denominational tree these guys hang from is because I'm well-versed in denominational affiliations, and know that this particular church is treated as a red-headed stepchild by the Pentecostal denomination itself. Nowhere is that stated, implied, or otherwise in the film. Over and over again we're given statistics about evangelicals, cut to statements by Mike Papantonio about the great threat of evangelicalism, and then cut to shots of this particular church, without any context as to who is what.[/q]
did you see the sign outside of the church? it said, clearly, Pentacostal. i wasn't lost, i knew exactly what was going on. perhaps it hasn't been specified to your liking, but that doesn't mean that this is evidence of sinister "manipulation" on the part of the filmmakers.
and you've yet to address the lengths the filmmakers went to in order to provide such human, fully-formed characters, and how there's no narration. the characters speak for themselves, and quite frankly, they view themselves and their mission and their political power in vastly different ways than you do.
it seems as if you've got a different viewpoint on the entire issue, and since the filmmakers see things in different ways than you do, they're "manipulative" and have an "agenda."
[q]The example you cite about the film you saw is very different. Did the film specifically identify you as a threat?[/q]
firstly, the phrase "threat" as applied to gay people is common parlance amongst the Republicans -- the threat to traditional marriage -- and i have it leveled against me, and not just on this board (and not just by you in regards to our differing stance on adoption), on such a daily basis, that the "threat" posed by gay people hardly needs to be explicity drawn out in a film. it's an understood part of culture.
but, that aside, i think you misunderstand -- again, i think the example works differently -- and i think it's evidence of your own oversensitivity to understand the film as pointing out "a threat" to anyone. of course, Papantonio might see it this way, but you're way, way overstating his importance to the film. he's simply a counterpoint, a balance, and, at the end, he's edited so that it's a debate between him and Frischer, and one that she seems quite happy about, and besides, does Frischer not level charges of who is and who isn't a threat to her and her followers? to the church? to Christians? to the USA? wouldn't it have been "manipulative" to simply have Frischer speak and have no counterpoint?
i can only see this as defensiveness.
ETA:
how many other "groups" get this same level of attention that you're asking for evangelicals?
i can understand the defensiveness, i can understand wanting others to see the nuances you see, but simply because others don't, or it's not to your liking, does not prove intent of an "agenda" on the part of the filmmakers. might it be incomplete? could the film be better? of course. it's possible. but the reception this film has received from the secularists (to use Becky's language) and the believers speaks to the quality of filmmaking on display.
Last edited:
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511 said:
Not at all. My criticism is that to ostensibly make a film about evangelicalism, but to focus exclusively on this church and this denomination, but using "evangelicals" all the way through, and frame them in the light of Mr. Papantonio's comments which bookend the film and are dropped throughout, is both misleading and plays into a particular perspective of what evangelicalism is. My specific criticism is your comment (which mirrors what the filmmakers say) that there is no agenda. One does not need narration in a film to have an agenda, and as I've pointed out, from the subject matter to the treatment thereof to who has the last word, the film is entirely agenda-driven. (Papantonio has the first and last words, by the way.)
The equivalent would be someone saying, "I'm going to make a film about the modern-day gay movement in America," then shooting an entire film about a NAMBLA event but sprinkling it with statistics about how many gay teachers are in schools and how many gay Americans there are.
All respect to Ms. Fischer, but she doesn't exactly strike me as the most tuned-in television on the block. It's sort of like punching a retarded kid who doesn't know how to do anything but smile.
Filmmaking 101 -- narration is the crutch of bad storytelling. Your film's story is told through images and sound. If you can't understand a film with the sound turned down, you've made a bad film. Watch the opening scenes with the sound turned down. What do you think of the kids dancing? What are you compelled to think about this world and the people we're about to see?
One can usually evaluate a film's point by the last images and/or spoken words in the film, and they belong to Mike Papantonio. Long after the fight with Fischer on the phone, he is given the film's final words.
I would love to see the post where I called you a threat, Irvine. I think we've always had the utmost respect for each other when we've disagreed.
And whenever anyone posts anything on here about the (real or perceived) "threat" posed by gays to the nuclear family, an array of posters rise up in objection. So this seems to be a bit of tit for tat.
I'm not demanding attention. What I am saying is, if you're going to label 45 million people under one banner (yet insist that you're not ideologically-driven in doing so), you ought to at least make sure it's the right one.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977 said:
but you miss the point entirely -- it's not a film about evangelicalism, it is a film about a specific kind of evangelical Christianity that is hugely political in nature and how they go about passing their beliefs on to their next generation of believers. and this church is depicted with virtually no interference by the filmmakers. yes, there's drama, and tension, and a score, but these are elements of storytelling. it makes for a watchable film.
i think Becky Frischer wouldn't feel much of an affiliation with you; why do you feel such an affiliation with her?
actually, i am somewhat in agreement with bookending the film with Papantoni, as i think that's a weakness in the film (but i tend to hate bookends, they nearly ruined "Saving Private Ryan" for example), but i think it's a stretch to think that they can contain the entire "agenda" of the film.
[q]The equivalent would be someone saying, "I'm going to make a film about the modern-day gay movement in America," then shooting an entire film about a NAMBLA event but sprinkling it with statistics about how many gay teachers are in schools and how many gay Americans there are.[/q]
i can't agree with this. at all. NAMBLA is a fringe-of-the-fringe group who advocate illegal relationships between adults and children and who have been very loudly and publically repudiated by every major gay group (HRC, GLAAD) in existence. i believe GLAAD even said that they "abhor" NAMBLA. do we hear the same distancing from Ms. Frischer and her Kids of Fire camp from these 45m people you reference?
you're "NAMBLA is to gay people as ..." analogy is more like saying that those in Operation Rescue who bomb clinics and shoot doctors are representative of the pro-life/anti-choice movement.
[q]All respect to Ms. Fischer, but she doesn't exactly strike me as the most tuned-in television on the block. It's sort of like punching a retarded kid who doesn't know how to do anything but smile.[/q]
nathan, you can do better than this ... so Ms. Fischer knows not what she does?
[q]Filmmaking 101 -- narration is the crutch of bad storytelling. Your film's story is told through images and sound. If you can't understand a film with the sound turned down, you've made a bad film. Watch the opening scenes with the sound turned down. What do you think of the kids dancing? What are you compelled to think about this world and the people we're about to see?[/q]
to answer your questions, i'd have to see it again, though i remember my initial reaction was somewhere along the lines of, "look! christianist jihadists in training!" but, of course, i'm going to view the scene in that way because of who i am and where i come from and of my worldview. Becky Frischer would see that scene in a very different way.
further, i was almost taken aback at the lengths to which the filmmakers spent on their subjects and how intelligent and articulate and well-voiced their subjects were (you've said nothing about this, the true heart of the film, instead focusing on the 5 minutes or so of a DJ and a few music cues). it would have been so easy to make a horror film of Christian Children of the Corn. but they didn't do that. it's a much smarter film than that, and Heidi is a much better filmmaker than that.
[q]One can usually evaluate a film's point by the last images and/or spoken words in the film, and they belong to Mike Papantonio. Long after the fight with Fischer on the phone, he is given the film's final words.[/q]
so the inclusion of a dissenting viewpoint is evidence of the "point" or "agenda" of the whole film?
[q]I would love to see the post where I called you a threat, Irvine. I think we've always had the utmost respect for each other when we've disagreed.[/q]
while it has been respectful, you've said gay parenting is a threat to time tested notions of the nuclear family and it would deprive children of a mother and a father.
[q]And whenever anyone posts anything on here about the (real or perceived) "threat" posed by gays to the nuclear family, an array of posters rise up in objection. So this seems to be a bit of tit for tat.[/q]
more exists than what goes on in FYM -- how would you feel if you heard the head of the Texas legislature on CNN talking about how he wants to ban gay foster parents in TX because he doesn't think "those people" should be raising "our" children?
so it seems that your objection to the film is that the definition of "evangelical" isn't fully fleshed out.
this is miles from a "manipulative" film that is pushing an "agenda."i don't think it's a pefect film, but i think it's an outstanding one, and i think it's a million miles from any sort of agenda-driven filmmaking.
it's a great film. and everyone in FYM should see it for themselves.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
also, at this point, this has become a two person discussion. so i think it's time to drop it. please feel free to respond, nathan, but i think i'm going to step out for now, and perhaps this discussion can resume when more people have seen the film.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I just did se this movie and it made me a little depressed,...i see a lot of youngsters who not will believe in freedom of religion in the future,...
Catman
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I watched it a few weeks ago with my roommate - she actually started crying at a particular scene (noting how she felt very bad for the kids).
