The last sermon I heard at Providence was the one Chris preached the evening of July 30th. It was about how not necessarily everything from secular culture will be missing from the New Heavens and the New Earth, and that it may be transformed and glorified and brought into the new Jerusalem to glorify God. One point Chris made is that even though humanity, and through it, human culture, is fallen, it still carries the image of God, and therefore still reflects his glory in some way; flashes of that glory are sometimes still visible even in secular culture. I’m not phrasing it exactly the way he did, but I think we’re on the same page. The sermon really hit a few nerves with me, because this is precisely my approach to culture and criticism.
I call it “leftover beauty.” Understanding this is vital to understanding the way I write about culture, and the way I react to film, music, literature, television. I know I take it too far at times, and that’s one of the reasons I was so desirous to go to a Christian university that values popular culture…I need that grounding. But if I sometimes tend to value too much the output of a fallen culture, it’s at least partially in reaction against a Christianity that denounces it without even recognizing what value it does have.
My concept of leftover beauty is why I think American Beauty is one of the greatest films in recent years, because, quite simply, leftover beauty is precisely what American Beauty is about. It doesn’t know where beauty comes from or why, but it knows it’s there–it knows that somehow, in the midst of broken families, perverted sexuality, and isolationist despair, there is still beauty around, if we “look closer”. And that’s exactly how I feel about modern culture. There’s ugliness, sure. But there’s beauty, too…beautiful characters, beautiful scenes, beautiful technical skill, beautiful and skillful writing, beautiful acting.
I understand that others don’t feel this way, and don’t feel the need to expose themselves to certain parts of modern culture. But for me, it’s worth it to look through piles of dren to find one beautiful rose–and when I write reactions and reviews, I may forget about the dren, because I’m focused on the rose. I once read a review of Saving Private Ryan in World Magazine that basically stated “don’t see this film, it’s horrible because there’s a lot of swearing.” Granted, there is. And I know people who would avoid seeing it for that reason, and that’s fine. But to categorically say that no-one should see a beautifully made film because of one offense is heavy-handed and inappropriate for any reviewer, even a Christian one. And it’s something I refuse to do. I will meet films on their own ground, not lambast them for not living up to a standard they were never trying to meet. That’s unfair and underhanded criticism.
Consider this my disclaimer for the times when I praise a film that includes scenes you think are offensive, or times when I don’t call attention to such scenes. Sometimes I may be ignoring them purposefully because I feel the rest of the movie makes up for them. Often, I may have simply forgotten them, because I tend to do that. Seriously, I convinced my cousin and his wife to watch Garden State because it’s one of my all-time favorite films, and had to mention like four times that I had totally forgotten about such-and-such a sex-and-drug scene…they ended up ageeing with me, though, that the overall film was worth putting up with those couple of scenes. If such a scene seriously undermines the film, I probably will mention it. (And yes, despite how difficult it is to offend me, I have seen films that offended me so deeply that I refuse to review them, because I cannot judge them on their own merits–Quills is probably the best example.) Bottom line, I am not ScreenIt, though I do recommend ScreenIt if you want to know about every single “damn” and “hell” before you start a film. I am not a parent’s guide. If a reaction or review I write intrigues you and you want to know more specifics about content, ask me and I will tell you. And don’t think that just because I like a film or praise a book that I necessarily agree with its viewpoint or its message. Last month I loved The Unbearable Lightness of Being while simultaneously disagreeing vehemently with most of its philosophy.
I’ve been planning a post like this for a while, just to make clear my position and viewpoint when discussing film, literature, and television. But the immediate impetus is the July Watching Recap, which I’m about to post, and in which I praise a film called Transamerica, whose main character is transgendered (a man who wishes to become a woman). Everything about the film, on a filmic level, is so extraordinary that I couldn’t in good critical conscience give it a negative review, no matter how much I may disagree with the content. I’ve known for a while that I give greater weight to style than content (to the eternal annoyance of my mom, I think, who gives utmost weight to content and would most likely hate Transamerica), and that’s a bias that I’m trying to balance a bit. On the other hand, I really do think that it’s possible to disagree with a message while still respecting and enjoying the way in which the message is transmitted. Besides that, in the case of Transamerica, the message really isn’t “it’s cool to be transgendered” or anything like that…it’s almost a side plot, in fact…and that’s true of a lot of films that get denounced by Christians who get so caught up in all the ugliness that they can’t see the leftover beauty.
jennifer
Jandy,
I like to think that I got this about your view on films, but that’s just patting myself on the back for being as smart as you. Seriously, I appreciate your articulating the way you approach the culture. It is helpful. I wanted to see Transamerica because Felicity Huffman is the star, but I was hesitating because of the content. Perhaps I’ll give it a look while Mark’s away.
P.S. I often recommend films completely forgetting the “questionable” scenes. I’ve started adding this disclaimor every time I comment on a movie, “It was a really good movie, but that doesn’t mean I am forgetting something objectionable.”
jennifer
Jandy,
I like to think that I got this about your view on films, but that’s just patting myself on the back for being as smart as you. Seriously, I appreciate your articulating the way you approach the culture. It is helpful. I wanted to see Transamerica because Felicity Huffman is the star, but I was hesitating because of the content. Perhaps I’ll give it a look while Mark’s away.
P.S. I often recommend films completely forgetting the “questionable” scenes. I’ve started adding this disclaimor every time I comment on a movie, “It was a really good movie, but that doesn’t mean I am forgetting something objectionable.”
Jandy
Jennifer,
I’m glad I’m not the only one! I disclaimer myself all the time (music, too…I don’t know how often I had to scramble for the volume control at work because I had forgotten that the song had an explicit lyric or two).
re: Transameria. I still recommend it heartily as a film, and because Felicity Huffman is truly incredible. Since you’re a fan of hers anyway, I think you’d appreciate it. There are a couple of scenes I would’ve left out, but more for suggestion than actual content. Just don’t let the kids near it. ;)
Jandy
Jennifer,
I’m glad I’m not the only one! I disclaimer myself all the time (music, too…I don’t know how often I had to scramble for the volume control at work because I had forgotten that the song had an explicit lyric or two).
re: Transameria. I still recommend it heartily as a film, and because Felicity Huffman is truly incredible. Since you’re a fan of hers anyway, I think you’d appreciate it. There are a couple of scenes I would’ve left out, but more for suggestion than actual content. Just don’t let the kids near it. ;)
Holly
Jandy,
Frankly, the views that you expressed here are exactly why I chose an arts major. One of the reasons it is so rare to find an objection-free work of art (be it film, sculpture, music, whatever) is that we as Christians have become so afraid of being polluted by art that we leave it to the “secular world.” We can never hope to produce profound and beautiful art of any kind if we refuse to study or create it simply by virtue of the worldviews which create do.
I believe that we need to redeem culture. I believe that our job as Christian artists is to study art, even sometimes the objectionable works, with a critical eye while remaining immersed in the Word of God. Then we need to go on to analize that work in light of it’s Ultimate Inspiration–since all beauty is from God and about God. A film doesn’t have to be either “bad” or “good.” It can be a film that I would never create myself while still having elements that I should imitate in my work.
I guess I’m referring to Common Grace. God gives the job of bearing His image to all humans, whether we choose to acknowlege Him or not; and that means that all of us can communicate His Truth, even though we do it in flawed ways.
I needed to know what makes “Christian Art.” It can’t be just a matter of whether the piece mentions God’s name. There has to be something deeper the defines whether a work communicates God’s Truth. I’m not going to define my views on Christian Art in this short space, but they are expressed generally in C.S. Lewis’ sermon “The Weight of Glory,”. It’s a relatively short read, and I strongly recommend it. There are points where you feel fireworks going off in your head because his explainations are so poignant.
Holly
Jandy,
Frankly, the views that you expressed here are exactly why I chose an arts major. One of the reasons it is so rare to find an objection-free work of art (be it film, sculpture, music, whatever) is that we as Christians have become so afraid of being polluted by art that we leave it to the “secular world.” We can never hope to produce profound and beautiful art of any kind if we refuse to study or create it simply by virtue of the worldviews which create do.
I believe that we need to redeem culture. I believe that our job as Christian artists is to study art, even sometimes the objectionable works, with a critical eye while remaining immersed in the Word of God. Then we need to go on to analize that work in light of it’s Ultimate Inspiration–since all beauty is from God and about God. A film doesn’t have to be either “bad” or “good.” It can be a film that I would never create myself while still having elements that I should imitate in my work.
I guess I’m referring to Common Grace. God gives the job of bearing His image to all humans, whether we choose to acknowlege Him or not; and that means that all of us can communicate His Truth, even though we do it in flawed ways.
I needed to know what makes “Christian Art.” It can’t be just a matter of whether the piece mentions God’s name. There has to be something deeper the defines whether a work communicates God’s Truth. I’m not going to define my views on Christian Art in this short space, but they are expressed generally in C.S. Lewis’ sermon “The Weight of Glory,”. It’s a relatively short read, and I strongly recommend it. There are points where you feel fireworks going off in your head because his explainations are so poignant.