How Should We Then Review (MHP Column, 1.07)

(A Follow-Up to: “What on Earth is Christian Film Criticism?”)


1. His dilemma is that he professes a belief which he holds saves himself and the world and nourishes his art besides, it is also true that Christendom seems in some sense to have failed. Its vocabulary is worn out. This twin failure raises problems for a man who is a Christian and whose trade is with words. The old words of grace are worn smooth as poker chips and a certain devaluation has occurred, like a poker chip after it is cashed in.
- Walker Percy


2. Words have two meanings, the definition and the connotation. The connotation goes on no matter what you do with the definition. Modern man destroys the definition of religious words, but nevertheless likes to cash in on their connotation/motivation force.
- Francis Schaeffer


3. There is a great difference between disagreements as to whether there is a Last Judgment and whether there is a German airplane overhead.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein


I recently ended a column titled “What on Earth is Christian Film Criticism?” with a plea for response from practicing Christian film critics. I did receive a few responses that have helped me better locate my understanding of “Christian” film criticism on the ceaselessly evolving map of contemporary Christian faith, practice, and theology (which is starting eerily to resemble Lewis’ depiction of purgatory in The Great Divorce). It was suggested that a definition of Christian film criticism, which in the original column was limited to something along the lines of “what happens when a Christian watches a film and then writes about it,” could be expanded several directions. It must include the pastoral angle, enabling criticism to embody the multiplicity of roles we find embedded in the metaphor of “the body” of Christ. It must also become more sociologically and philosophically aware, which is not to say that only grad students can write decent criticism but that decent critics take the task of ideological self-awareness seriously.


Doug Cummings justifiably took me to task for conflating “Christian film criticism” and the evangelical publishing market in which I was implicitly identifying a film-criticism renaissance. In reality, “Christian film criticism” is something with roots far beyond the confines of the evangelical movement both historically and ideologically, and defining “Christian film criticism” must take this rich back-story into consideration. Evangelicalism tends towards solipsism when it “does culture,” disconnected from the history of Christian cultural theory in late Catholic personalism, Dutch Reformed thought, Eliot-era Anglicanism, and the classic filmmakers that have long been thought of as pioneering Christian artists. To say that the current interest in Christian cultural criticism evidenced by Evangelical publishing houses and media outlets is a “renaissance” is a mistake, as there have been important links between Christianity and film ever since the first magic lanterns flickered their way through Victorian boudoirs.


Though this oversight generally characterizes Evangelical cultural criticism, it applies in varying degrees to other areas of Christianity as well. The ratio of good to bad film criticism is remarkably similar across the board from fundamentalism to Catholicism. Taking all this on board, I think I can offer a more definitive definition of “Christian film criticism.” It will be a working definition, subject to future revision, and will hopefully prove as flexible as the medium for which it seeks to mediate. But before we get to that, a few points of consideration along the way:


1. Mere Criticism


Perhaps one of the most notable and public side-effects of the tendency in Christian cultural criticism to neglect its own heritage is the confusion as to what film criticism really is. As it has been uprooted from the rich discussion about culture that took place in Christianity’s recent memory, it tends to be formless, shapeless, unmarked by the intentionality that characterizes more technical film criticism. What we need is a taxonomy, a set of categories that would define the intention of different criticisms for different audiences. Christian film critics need a set of focal points that will sharpen their ability to think through films, or identity markers that will cut through so many of the mixed messages they often unwittingly send to the public square.


Such a taxonomy may look like T.S. Eliot’s four-fold classification of the Professional Critic (which he also called the “Super Reviewer”), the Critic with Gusto, the Academic and Theoretical Critic, and the Critic who is a Poet. The Professional Critic (think: Ebert) frequently appears in places like Christianity Today Movies or Hollywood Jesus. What they review is dictated by markets and readerships, and thus is as general as possible. The Critic with Gusto is a fan of what they choose to review, and unfortunately often disguises themselves as a Professional Critic (it would be mean to name names here). The fervency with which some associate spiritual messages with particular films like The Matrix neatly characterizes this critic. The Academic and Theoretical Critic, certainly the most unpopular in Christian readerships, can be hard to find as they tend to publish in more specialized environments. And the Critic who is a Poet is rare indeed, Tarkovsky and Dorsky coming quickly to mind as exceptional poets of spirituality and cinema.


Eliot’s cast of characters has withstood the test of time, but one still runs into problems when faced with the fine nuances involved with writing on Christianity and film. Can a Christian really be a Professional Critic, which is often characterized by commercial sponsorship? Or how do we distinguish between the Critic with Gusto and the Critic who is a Poet when it comes to theological readings of films? The competing commercial and theological concerns of published Christian cultural criticism leave it uniquely open to such paradoxes. As a majority of Christian film criticism is disconnected from its own heritage, an estimation of these nuances becomes even more important, perhaps providing a way back to the pre-Evangelical success of Christians involved with film. What this taxonomy would actually look like needs more space than this column provides, I am simply interested here demonstrating how crucial this descriptive question really is.


2. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Christian Film Reviewing


The lack of clarity regarding the different nuances at work in various Christian film criticisms can be easily demonstrated. Since I have just argued that no one has really defined what Christian film criticism is, I am going out on a limb here, but I’ll list several features common to a Christian film review. That these features are common does not mean that they serve as a sine qua non of a Christian film review. They are simply common enough to serve as an adequate point of departure for this conversation:


1. The List: A Christian film review often feels obligated on the basis of the ethical boundaries of Christian faith and practice to inform readers of morally problematic scenes or dialogue. At times, this takes place in the form of an actual list, breaking down the reasoning behind the rating of the film. At others, it takes place in the course of the review. But either way, this watchdog component of Christian film criticism is one of its most historic characteristics.


2. The Questions: A Christian film review will often consider itself to be a conversation starter, so much so that many Christian film review sites will offer discussion guides or sets of questions that are designed to turn the film review into a catalyst for individual or group reflection.


3. The Context: The context of Christian film reviewing has been evolving ever since the advent of blogs and individual websites. But the most widely read Christian film reviews are published in intentionally Christian print or online publications, typically being one component of a wide range of articles including theological, social, and political editorial, as well as straightforward devotional material.


4. The Content: The content of a typical Christian film review is hard to pin down, and I hesitate to make any generalizations here. This is partly because the content of any criticism is shaped by the ideological and social location of the critic. In other words, there are as many types of criticism as there are critics. But it is fair to say that the typical Christian critic finds themselves caught between the desire to do justice to their brand of Christian thinking and the desire to take part in popular culture. This is the tension between being faithful and being relevant, which not only dictates how one writes on a film, but what films tend to be reviewed.


Juxtaposing any of these four features leads to a set of mixed messages that for all intents and purposes may just as well be called the common characteristics of Christian film reviews. What Christian ethic makes it okay to watch and review a film that necessitates the critic making a list that warns readers of the film’s moral failures? If the function of a review is to inform, clarify, interpret, and respond, then why conclude it with a set of questions? Who are these questions really for? Why would a Christian magazine review so many Hollywood films? Does theology dictate the content of a review, or is it the other way around? These questions and more are often raised by a typical Christian film review. While good answers may exist for some of them, the mere fact that they persist is evidence that the practice of contemporary Christian film criticism is theoretically shaky, lacking the critical bedrock it deserves. (Or more pointedly, the critical acumen it possessed long ago.)


Carl F.H. Henry explained in his visionary Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism:

the ‘uneasy conscience’ of which I write is not one troubled about the great Biblical verities, which I consider the only outlook capable of resolving our problems, but rather one distressed by the frequent failure to apply them effectively to crucial problems confronting the modern mind.

Though he has been recently villainized by the emergent church, Henry’s uneasy conscience remains among the most prescient criticisms of the way Evangelicals do church and culture. We are not faced here with a problem of motivation, but of method. Transporting Henry to our context, we could say that if the effectiveness of a film review is directly related to its critical self-awareness, then the effectiveness of a Christian film review is directly related to its critical and theological self-awareness. In this way the Christian film reviewer is faced with the task of working constantly on two fronts, neither substituting one for the other or capitulating one to the other. It simply is the case that many Christian film reviews are neither “Christian” nor “critical,” and we will only recover these fine particularities by forging ahead in a discussion of method and embracing the “easy conscience” it will eventually afford.


3. The Scandal of Christian Film Criticism


One could easily say to all this: Big deal! Most people read film reviews to either make sure they aren’t wasting their money or that their kids won’t hear too many swear words on family movie night. But here the solipsism of Evangelical cultural criticism rears its ugly head yet again. I have suggested that there is a theoretical vacuum in which Christian film criticism operates, and this vacuum must be addressed with a conversation of method, of defining what Christian film criticism actually is. But the point of all this is as practical as it is important: If we fail to respond to this vacuum with a set of focal points, identity markers, and theologically-based critical strategies, someone else will.


And of course, by “someone,” I mean “Hollywood.” Take for example the recent purchase of Hollywood Jesus by Grace Hill Media, the sort of merger between a publicity agent and a media outlet that would typically be deemed “unethical” if it were higher profile. Here the vacuum left by an unfortunate shuffle in the Hollywood Jesus organization has been filled by someone who has a better handle on the marketplace than Hollywood Jesus has on its own critical moorings (this is all post-David Bruce, of course).


Likewise, Relevant Magazine often confuses “criticism” with “advertising,” and this happens in a less virulent form in other Christian media outlets. Typically, this is simply a pragmatic problem. From the perspective of an editor, there is only so much space and cash to go towards a set number of reviews. The outcome is a magazine or online site that is unfortunately marked by faithfulness to a constituency (who tend to see nothing other than multiplex fare) rather than faithfulness to a definition of criticism steeped in the expressiveness of Christian theology.


This scandal of Evangelical film criticism partakes in Knoll’s very Henrian assertion that:

What is true throughout the Christian world is true for American Christians: we who are in pietistic, generically evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, Restorationist, holiness, "Bible church," megachurch, or Pentecostal traditions face special difficulties when putting the mind to use. Taken together, American evangelicals display many virtues and do many things well, but built-in barriers to careful and constructive thinking remain substantial.

For Knoll, we are faced here with a theoretical issue, a problem with thinking critically and self-reflectively about our cultural engagement. But in the case of film criticism, I fear that the result of this theoretical breakdown will be commercial in scope. If we fail to establish a critical identity for Christian film discussion, then the marketplace will assuredly provide one for it. What will ultimately be traded away in this exchange is a heritage of ideas, a way of appreciating and responding to film, and the ability for authentic Christian film criticism and production to occur on anything other than a very isolated scale.


4. How Should We Then Review?


In the process of studying foreign languages, one quickly learns that the study of grammar is far more descriptive than it is prescriptive. A textbook on French, for example, does not set out to define rules for the French language but to describe systematically the way it is currently used. In the same way, any discussion of Christian film criticism should be far more descriptive than it is prescriptive, lest we turn the rich vocabulary of Christian cultural engagement into yet another handful of Walker Percy’s poker chips. The discussion that needs to be had, by necessity, will seek to preserve the ecumenical and interactive spirit of its heritage rather than legislate against it.


So rather than making a list of features that should be part of a Christian film review I would rather generalize about the potential future of this conversation. It should take place in the context of specific films, genres, and directors rather than in the form of theological abstractions. It should be collaborative, self-critical, and open to revision. It should result in better criticism and demonstrable gains in the profile of various Christian criticisms in the public square. It should not be limited to critics, but should enable the casual listener or layperson to watch and appreciate better films. It should help people to better negotiate the theological backgrounds of Christian cultural criticism, increasing their awareness of the importance of thinking theologically at the same time that they are thinking culturally. And perhaps most importantly, it should align Christian film critics against the commercial influences that threaten the integrity of public Christian thought. Somewhere in the midst of all this is the definition of Christian film criticism, a way of intentioned response and critique that both references Christian thought and contributes to it, unmediated by the commercial influences that dull our aptitude for discovery.