Stepping on Toes

I confess, I watched the recent film God's Not Dead. I am not exaggerating when I say I predicted in advance every major plot point - except the last one, which made their personification of God much like that of a jackass. The ideas presented arguing the existence or nonexistence of God were elementary. There was much more theology posited than philosophy, even though the question of  God's existence was raised in a philosophy class.

Maybe I was insulted by the creators' lack of creativity in making a movie about the reality of God. Perhaps that is why I found the whole thing dull and as fluffy as a Hallmark Channel movie. The acting was subpar and largely artificial. A movie such as God's Not Dead is almost entirely dependent on its actors to sell the plot, which I feel they failed to do, but I don't believe the editors did them any favors. The pacing was consistently slow through the entire movie, which is probably why I guessed what was about to happen before it happened, rather than due to any particular brilliance on my part. I've seen a few movies in my time. I've studied story arcs. This one was nothing to write home about... so why am I writing a blog about it? Why did I even watch the film if I was just going to be so critical of it anyway? Perhaps I was expecting it to let me down, or maybe it simply met my expectations. I was kind of hoping it would surprise me. In order for that to happen, however, "Christian film makers" are going to have to get up a lot earlier in the morning than I do.

Why am I writing about it? Because it received so much press in the Christian circles. I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about, and I think I saw a movie that did less challenging of an opposing viewpoint and more confirming of another. The viewpoint that Christians will do whatever they can to prove a point, even if it makes someone die to drive that point home. I'm not talking about Jesus, who voluntarily showed up to go that route, but rather a character in a movie that is saved at the last minute by saying the sinner's prayer. It infuriates me for them to imply that it was somehow "God's plan" for unfortunate things to happen just so He or She can make a score. This is why Christians can't have nice things, because they trash them and say that it was "God's will" for that to happen. I'm calling bullshit.

At the beginning of the movie the antagonistic professor had a list of Atheists on his chalk board. One of the names listed was Ayn Rand. Now, I am aware that she was a self-proclaimed Atheist, but I've also read her books. This morning I was reading in my economics book, and it listed some definitions, one of which was of economics. It said that economics is the study of how people make choices. Economists pay much less attention to what people say, and much more attention to what people do. Ayn Rand wrote books about people who believed in something that they couldn't see with their eyes, but witnessed the evidence of that thing. Her characters acted in faith, trusting that what they did had meaning because they existed. No, she did not list Jesus Christ as her personal savior, or whatever, but she exercised her will to believe in something greater than the limited victimized viewpoint for which so many people settle. That act inspires me to believe much more than the movie that was supposed to point out the flaws in a philosopher like Ayn Rand's thinking, the error in her belief system. Was she a Christian? No, I doubt it; but her life exemplified what I imagine a Christian actually is - someone who decides what they believe and walks it out.

In God's Not Dead there were people who pretended to be people who did that, but it all seemed very inauthentic to me. As someone who has studied in the field of acting and related aspects of entertainment, God's Not Dead fell short of the glory of God in too many ways to count. I find this ironic because it is this type of movie that perpetuates the stereotype of Christian movies that it tries so hard to surpass. The sadder thing still is that I know and am friends with many people who would consider it a "good movie" simply because it parrots back to them what they claim to believe. Perhaps that is all good entertainment is - something that agrees with our belief system. I look for more than that in professional work, however. I expect professionals to produce work that is compelling, artistic, dynamic, creative, inventive, surprising, or at least some combination of these things even if - especially if - it doesn't agree with me.

One last thing, I've been studying speech, and one of the aspects of communication is ethics. It is important to participate in ethical communication both on the delivering and receiving end. Where I was the most disappointed with this film is where it chose to portray a story about people,  then manipulates events, and points to God as if God did it. They created circumstances that were of their own invention then put the responsibility on God, saying it was his will that these things should play out like this. I know this is not the first time such a thing has happened, or the last. I'm sure there are many instances where things like this can take place, but movies are entertainment. That means they open up ones mind in a new way and then the ideas from that entertainment can come in. It bugs me when a movie that is promoting the Christian God executes it with the lack of tack that this movie did. I feel it is unethical for them to portray the will of God as if they know and then to back it up with emotionally manipulative rhetoric. If they are going to make a philosophical argument, then make the damn philosophical argument, but let people make up their own minds about it without introducing guilt and shame into the picture that may or may not be God's will for their life. That is why I don't engage in theological discussion much anymore because rants like this one happen, and someone always ends up feeling mad and/or hurt. I'm just really glad I didn't receive one of those texts.