Christian Filmmakers

But things that would be an evil means in one context would not be evil when applied to the right end.

I think Mr. Reneau is right on this point… is murder evil?  Yes!  Is shooting the man that broke into your house in the middle of the night wrong?  No!  Is applying capital punishment where God applies it wrong?  No!  Is denting the head of the man who is assaulting your daughter wrong?  No!

Do we not agree here, Caleb?  Mr. Munger?

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

...and I’m not saying that I agree with where he takes it- I haven’t read everything…

Gabriel Hudelson wrote:

...and I’m not saying that I agree with where he takes it

Heh - the sign of a man who’s been paying attention!

I’m not taking it anywhere much further than that, other than pointing out that Scripture is full of examples, front to back, where actions which are clearly defined as evil in one place are then ignored and remain uncondemned in another Scriptural context - and occasionally - though rarely - commanded by God in a third!

See the short list I’ve already posted for an example.

Does this mean I accuse God of commanding or even ignoring evil?  Don’t be silly!

Does this mean I believe that the legitimacy (good or evil) of the means does indeed sometimes (even often) depend on the end result - or even simply intent?  I think that’s inarguable.

Does this mean I’m saying that there are no absolutes?  Don’t be ridiculous!

Does this mean that I think there are a lot more variables at play than the average doctrinal legalist might want to make allowance for, and thus I examine doctrinare legalism and its presumed authority over my life and my work with an extremely wary eye?  You bet your sweet bippy!

Cheers,
Calix

(...I also believe God is the Author of all things, and nothing is outside of His explicit control or intent, so I therefore believe that evil itself is a part of His design - a thought which I realize troubles many here, but doesn’t trouble me, because ultimately I believe in God more than my own understanding, and I trust that all the things that don’t make sense to me make sense to Him, so I don’t have to figure it all out, but simply be about my Father’s business…)

Gabriel, I do understand what he’s saying, I really do, but I think there’s just something not quite right there.  It comes down to this for me:

An evil thing is not an evil thing in obtaining good and righteous ends. Hitting the guy over the head with the pipe to save your daughter is a good thing, so that action is good and justified too.  You see what I’m saying, hitting with the pipe was not an evil thing.
But I’m not talking about that, I’m simply talking about the guide to apply to film that I cannot show in an approving manner a character doing an evil thing in order to gain a good goal.  Perhaps that still doesn’t make sense.  let me try it this way:

    Evil action            Good action      Good end
Man attacks daughter   Dad uses pipe to repel attacker   Daughter is saved

    Evil action            Evil action               
Son 1 is killed by Man   Dad robs and then kills Man, his gang and all associated with him       Good end Son 2 is saved from a life of crime

That latter example shows how using evil ends do not justify good ends. Do you see the difference?  By the way, that second example is from the Road to Perdition, the first film mentioned in the first thread in this post!  See, this is exactly what Hollywood does, they paint what Michael Sullivan, Sr. did as the Right Thing.  Alex Beard admits this much in post numero uno and says specifically that he bought into that!  That’s the kind of dangerous subtext that I’m talking about in Hollywood films! It’s so subtle but it is there.

Quote from the end of the first post by Alex:

But my point is, we understand these characters reasons for doing what they do (except Anakin, but whatever ...), and they all think they’re doing the Right Thing, even when we know they’re not.

I’m reminded of an interview I read with Eric Bana on playing Nero in the new Star Trek. He was saying that even when playing the worst of villains, he always tries to give them some dimensionality by portraying them as people that really believe in what they’re doing.

Shoot, even Hitler and Saddam Hussein themselves probably believed they were doing the Right Thing!

So in movies, I think that rather than always having the characters always do the Right Thing, the Right Thing should be made clear to the audience in the message and/or subtext (and it probably will, anyway).

I see this directly relating to “Christian movies” in 2 ways:

  1.) The characters don’t always have to be, or become Christians so that we understand what the Right Thing to do is. (Christians don’t always do the Right Thing, anyway, and to portray them as people who do instead of the flawed humans we are is, frankly, a lie, not to mention an insult to the audience ...)

  2.) The Right Thing can be something that is implied, subtextually crafted and presented subtly but strongly, and/or present in the nature and message of the story, not just hashed out in the dialogue.

While I didn’t particularly enjoy Road to Perdition, Tom Hanks’ Michael Sullivan, Sr. was a truly compelling character that did the Right Thing to what he felt was the best of his ability, with clearly stated and very human motivations, and for that, I completely bought his character.

Movies need more characters like that.

  Emphasis mine, because first Alex says he “knows it’s not the Right Thing to do”, but then near the end he says it was” a compelling character that did the Right Thing”!  I don’t fault Alex at all, I fault Hollywood!  This is the game they play.

They actually did present the Dad as doing the Right Thing by stealing and killing because the goal he aimed at was good (saving his son from a life of crime).  But (here it is again) using evil means can never justify attaining a good goal!  And just like in Avatar and countless other films they hid this awful message in skillful beautiful filmmaking, in the subtext, in the dialogue, in the character’s internal makeup, but the message is there nonetheless!

So the First thing we have to determine:  did Michael Sullivan, Sr. do the Right Thing by stealing and killing in order to save his son?  Yes or no.

Second thing and a different question altogether:  should we
A. Sometimes
B. Always
C. Depends
D. Never
show the hero character doing an evil thing in order to achieve a good goal?

In Christ,
Paul

OK, I agree with you there. 

But killing the crook and his gang could also be a good action in a different context, right?

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Gabriel Hudelson wrote:

OK, I agree with you there. 

But killing the crook and his gang could also be a good action in a different context, right?

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Potentially, yes.

Set it up for me.

Paul Munger wrote:

Potentially, yes.

Set it up for me.

The crook and his gang are raiding the village.  The men of the village dash out of their homes, grab their shotguns, and slaughter the villains in the streets.  Three men escape.

Knowing that this band has sworn to destroy this town or die in the attempt, the men, leaving a small guard, pursue and kill the survivors.

The town is saved.

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Paul, you decontextualizer!

Actually, I guess that might not have been so clear. :oops:

You should have bolded the rest of that phrase:

“He did the Right Thing to what he felt was the best of his ability.” Also note the paragraphs I wrote about how he did all that he knew how to do.

So, in essence:
  * Loving your son = Right
  * Protecting your son = Right
  * Trying to leave behind a better world for your son = Right
  * Killing = sometimes necessary, depends on motivation
  * Stealing = sometimes necessary, depends on motivation (eh, I say nearly always WRONG for stealing, but we’ll leave that alone!)
  * Murder = Wrong
 
Throw all this in a mix, and you have a guy with all the Right motivations doing all the Wrong things for all the Right reasons! So it’s complicated, which is what Calix was saying.

There are tons of other examples, both fictional and real. Think about those that bomb abortion clinics. They’re doing the “wrong” thing for the “right” reasons, and it’s tragic. The same goes for Christians who might passionately love God but stand on the street corner and foams at the mouth while shouting at everyone that they’re wretched sinners who are going to hell. You could also make the case that many government programs and such are rooted in “right” reasons (compassion, charity, general well-being, and such) but have Very Bad Results and are thus the “wrong” thing to do!

Again, things (and laws!) may be absolute, it’s possible that there’s no gray area, but there are many, many more factors that go into it all than the simple 1-dimensional view of most Christians.

That’s why I found Sullivan so compelling. He was doing all these horrible things, but he was doing them out of love, and he was doing all that he knew how to do. 

Alex Beard, composer
Original music for movies and TV!
http://www.alexbeardmusic.com

IIRC, Sullivan wasn’t doing the nasty in order to just keep his son from temptation, but to keep his son from the thugs who had already killed his wife and other son and wouldn’t rest until the surviving son was dead… don’t recall the co-opted part, might have been part of the driving force, but I do know there was a “keep my son alive” part and also a “keep my son from thinking what I’m doing to protect him is a good thing under any other circumstances” part.

But I dunno, because it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film.

Cheers,
Calix

(...of course, I have no problems with creating or consuming a story in which a wrong man does all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons and through all of that God gets glorified… but then, I also occasionally indulge in listening to asses…)

I think, at some points in this conversation, ends is confused with intent .

I still hold that the end does not justify the means.
Whereas intent can sometimes justify the means.

From what I have heard, “24” is great at setting up moral dilemmas for the hero (in this case Jack Bauer.) For instance, terrorist demand that one innocent man must die in order to save thousands of innocent men. If our hero kills the one innocent man on the order of the terrorists in order to save the thousands, does this make the murder any better? That is why I say intent can sometimes justify the means. (In this case, it doesn’t.)

Defending yourself (or someone else) from danger is a good intent and can sometimes justify the means by which you defend yourself or the other person.

I have yet to see an example presented where the end, rather than intent, justifies the means.

Caleb Allen - Director
Straightway Pictures

Caleb, there’s hope for you yet! 8)

You’re realizing that “means” and “end” aren’t the only factors when it comes to actions!!!

In fact, as usual, this part of a larger issue: context vs. elements. You know, the one that we always end up “talking” about.

Keep in mind that it’s not the “what” that matters, but everything: who, what, where, when, why, and how. 8)

Alex Beard, composer
Original music for movies and TV!
http://www.alexbeardmusic.com