Why Christian Movies Are So Terrible

As an aside, it seems like World Magazine doesn’t give good reviews about a movie unless there are some objectionable elements in it. Too many Christians “endure” bad stuff in a movie as long as they feel like the movie is artistically superior and/or has a positive overall theme.

A mediocre movie with a great message is ALWAY superior to a worldly movie with objectionable elements — Philippians 4:8

Confession: I thought “Mission Impossible: Fallout” was better than “Courageous” or “Fireproof” …

My favorite Christian movie is Sargent York with Gary Cooper.

Seems to me that the Bible has a lot of rape, murders, idolatry, fornication, words then considered objectionable (many from Christ’s mouth; “whitewashed tombs” and “that fox” come to mind). Are we going to revise it for that reason? I was told once that Thomas Bowdler tried and got well-earned derision for his efforts.

Now granted, there is some room for maneuvering due to the differences between the impact of the written word and graphic art—though perhaps that gap would narrow more if we read good literature—but at the same point, I think we’ve got to deal with the reality that Christian movies and fiction are in general contrived and saccharine in exactly the ways that real people are not.

And we also ought to think of what is lost when we “Bowdlerize” life; we lose, to a degree, the ability to deal with life, and human sin, as it actually is. It is not for no reason that bad Christian movies are strongly linked with bad theology like prosperity theology!

[Bert Perry]

Seems to me that the Bible has a lot of rape, murders, idolatry, fornication, words then considered objectionable (many from Christ’s mouth; “whitewashed tombs” and “that fox” come to mind). Are we going to revise it for that reason? I was told once that Thomas Bowdler tried and got well-earned derision for his efforts.

Now granted, there is some room for maneuvering due to the differences between the impact of the written word and graphic art—though perhaps that gap would narrow more if we read good literature—but at the same point, I think we’ve got to deal with the reality that Christian movies and fiction are in general contrived and saccharine in exactly the ways that real people are not.

And we also ought to think of what is lost when we “Bowdlerize” life; we lose, to a degree, the ability to deal with life, and human sin, as it actually is. It is not for no reason that bad Christian movies are strongly linked with bad theology like prosperity theology!

Very successful art can present the realities of human existence with good taste. It was done for generations. Abusing and degrading human beings for “art” or, more accurately, entertainment, is evil.

Bert wrote:

I think we’ve got to deal with the reality that Christian movies and fiction are in general contrived and saccharine in exactly the ways that real people are not.

No disagreement from me on that point. However, we can find plenty of examples of movies/TV shows that include objectionable elements that also have contrived characters dripping with saccharine. A good artist can tell/show truth using a multitude of instruments. Objectionable elements are not necessary in order to craft compelling characters set within nuanced stories and truthful plot devices.

Don’t forget the secular TV shows and movies also often preach a message. Both sides do so.

And, there are some real life Christian and human issues that will probably never be seen in a secular movie, because it does not fit their beliefs.

David R. Brumbelow

I think it’s interesting that when some new “Christian” movie comes out, people say how this will be a great evangelistic tool. Where is the objective evidence that 1)people trusted Christ as Savior, 2)became part of a Bible-believing church where they were discipled and taught? For all the money & time spent on producing movies, could that money have been better used in other, more effective evangelistic & discipleship efforts? These movies seem to have an effect for a brief period, then fade away. Movies are basically a passive tool. The medium of film can be used effectively, but those are rare.

Wally Morris wrote:

“Movies are basically a passive tool.”

The passivity of the medium, that the audience sits back and receives, is, in large part, what gives the medium its power and is also what makes it so potentially dangerous. Movies and TV are not only didactic in that they tell us what we should think/believe/respond; they also shape how we think. Film/TV is an epistemic-shaping medium.

This is why I’m so very much opposed to “Christian” movies that steer into the prosperity gospel (if not flat-out promote it) or any other number of heresies and/or errors. Well-meaning Christians believe that because the movie contains no cussing, sex, or gratuitous violence, it’s okay. They can sit back and “receive” the medium without feeling guilty. Except, unless they’re intentionally engaging the movie with discernment, they are receiving bad teaching that will subtly change them. And, bluntly, if you think about your friends and family movies who like movies like War Room, do you really believe that they’re engaging “Christian” movies with careful discernment rooted in the authority of God’s Word?

I used to believe that the medium of movies/television was passive, but I’ve changed my mind. It usually takes hundreds of people and many thousands of dollars to craft a commercially successful film. The use of camera angles, lighting, musical score, sound design, etc are purposeful, and the goal is to elicit an emotional reaction in the viewer. There’s nothing passive about that. We just accept that it’s passive because viewers don’t necessarily need to engage their brain to enjoy the story.

Christian movies could be much more compelling if they realized that storytelling must come first, and “let that be a lesson to you” happens as a natural result of authentic character progression.

Susan, that’s exactly what I mean by passive. Obviously, the filmmakers are not passive. It’s the viewer response that the medium encourages to be passive.

Regarding the notion that secular movies fall into the same trap, certainly. I’ve seen a number of them. The key issue is that the argument proves nothing—it’s the “Tu quoque” (you too) fallacy.

Regarding the notion of old movies managing things without objectionable content, we probably need to define what we see as objectionable. Most of us would answer profanity (like the last line in Gone With The Wind, 1940), violence (like The 10 Commandments, 1956), nudity and sexuality (I’ll pass on naming Hays Code era examples—they exist). Reality is, though, that the Hays Code was not absolute, and really it was pretty much broken down by the early 1960s. It lasted about 25 years, really.

Even within “our” framework, there is a fair amount of objectionable content that may be going under our noses without our ever catching on. For example, a common theme in movies, including those of the Hays era, is that of the love of a good woman redeeming the lovable rogue—e.g. The Music Man, Robin Hood, Sea Wolf, etc. Let’s be honest here; how many of us do not know a few women who come to church alone because they fell for that? Sex may not be shown (technically it still is just simulated), but the train goes into the tunnel. We may not get it, but our grandparents did.

Now process that little bit. The thing that made a lot of those movies work was not that they were as pure as the driven snow, but rather that the objectionable references were subtle instead of blatant. We might infer as well that if we learned this art of poetic subtlety, we might be able to get people to buy tickets without resorting to gigantic special effects budgets and “nudity clauses” in actor contracts.

Or, put differently, if the movie-goer is never surprised, you’re probably not doing it right.

When I use the word “passive”, I am not referring to the production of the movie. I am referring to how people (including myself) usually just sit and watch, with their brain in semi-sleep mode, a passive activity.