Let me be clear. I hardly qualify as a movie critic. The last time I saw a non-Pixar film at the movies? I have no idea. But, since it's been awfully quiet around here from the Fools and I recently had the rare opportunity to get out and see a movie with friends, I thought it might be blog worthy. Yes, my standards are low, as was my expectations for 'Courageous' (how's that for a lead in?). My wife says I have a bad attitude. She's probably right. She says I'm too critical. She's definitely right. I'm a Christian. I belong to the Church. Why am I so critical of Christianity and the church? For some reason, the expectation of another 'Christian Film' doesn't excite me. I don't expect to see excellence. Rather, I hear descriptors like cheesy and hoaky in my mind, I feel my shoulder cringe, and my eyes roll. Maybe it's because Christians have been nothing more than poor imitators in the arts for so long. Slap 'Christian' on anything and it sells right? But I guess that's for another post at another time. Back to the topic on hand: 'Courageous'.
'Courageous' is the fourth film made by Sherwood Pictures, the movie making ministry of Sherwood Church in Albany, Ga. Its last film, “Fireproof,” received some attention and did fairly well at the box office. Whereas 'Fireproof' spoke to integrity in marriage, 'Courageous' trumpets the importance of integrity in fatherhood and challenges fathers to re-examine their level of commitment to raising their children. The film tells the story of 4 policemen, invoked by tragedy and their friendship to each other, to commit themselves against the sin of passivity and to press toward being the father God has called them to be.
To be honest, I'm not sure how to judge a film like 'Courageous'. By Hollywood standards, I can't imagine it will impress too many. Film critiques will have a heyday with the thin plot, forced dialogue, and general emptiness of the characters. The presentation was oddly familiar. Growing up in churches prone to bring in the occasional revival meeting evangelist, attending a Christian university with daily chapel services, and working my college summers at a Christian youth camp all have made me quite familiar with the traveling evangelist and the style in presentation they bring. If an evangelist could preach a movie, it would look a lot like 'Courageous'. Like so many of the messages I've heard, it was longer than it needed to be, sprinkled with humor offset with a lot emotion, and had points drawn in from here and there with disregard for their fit in the narrative. And, of course, the most important part of any evangelist's message, the invitation. Without thinking, at the conclusion of the movie I stood up to sing 'I Have Decided' before realizing those were just the credits rolling. With that said though, evangelists exist because they tend to be effective, at least in the short term. And in that sense, 'Courageous' is effective. Despite its shortcomings as a mainstream film and debatable worthiness of the ridiculous $10 movie ticket price, 'Courageous' is not a failure. This movie is not about the characters, the plot, or even the'Snake Kings'. It's about the message. It's about the need for fathers to step up and be fathers. It's a sermon wrapped in a hollywoodish setting and as far as sermons go, it was pretty good. One that every daddy should listen to. Fatherhood is challenging and should be handled aggressively. I need that reminder.
So while the film does not exceed my low-bar expectations, it has value. The movie goer should probably consider that this film was not created for the sole purpose of entertainment (though it does have some entertainment value). The viewer's enjoyment is not it's main driver. It was made by a church, often sounded like something you'd hear in a church, and because of that, will likely have it's greatest effect on the church. To it's credit, 'Courageous' doesn't embarrassingly masquerade itself as a Hollywood film with Jesus undertones. It's blatantly Christian. And for that, you have to applaud the church that puts these films together and promotes them for the world to see. I'd say that's pretty courageous.
In response to Siskel...or is it Ebert. Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteDon't hold these comments as my actual stance on the subject. I am thinking out loud based purely reactionary response.
Krook, I would agree to your likening of the movie presentation to the presentation of an evangelist. I do wonder though if it has less to do with the presentation and more to do with viewer or in the case of an evangelist, the pew sitter. As human beings we tend to be driven by emotion and things that stir us to react. Once the emotion subsides we tend to loose that drive. My question, "is it wrong to be stirred into doing something by an emotional appeal?" Or better asked, "is being stirred emotionally sustainable for the long haul?" I would argue that emotionally stirred responses are not sustainable in and of themselves, but coupled with a resolve and commitment it becomes sustainable. So then, I believe there is some validity to appealing to people's emotions in order to produce a response. It then becomes the responsibility of the viewer or pew sitter to make the commitment. Again, I think it is less about the presentation and more about the response of the viewer.
As far as the movie, I enjoyed it and thought that Sherwood did a great job. I think each movie gets better. Maybe they started taking acting classes...lol. One thing I did appreciate about the movie is there promotion of "ceremony" for special events(i.e. the resolution ceremony and the promise ring). This has been a theme that I have been confronted with for a couple of weeks. Somehow it just keeps popping up in different conversations. I think the idea of ceremony has been lost in our culture. Yes we have ceremonies for graduations and weddings, but I think we have lost the aspect of ceremony within the family. Celebrating key events in marriages and in the family. I should probably go into more detail on this subject, but I am getting tired, and since this is my first post in like a year I wouldn't want to raise expectation to high. Later,
Mech