Christian Filmmakers

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

Violence is much, much, much more acceptable among MACEC (modern American conservative evangelical Christian) filmgoers than sexuality, sensuality, nudity (three different things) and profanity.

The leading proponent of MACEC filmmaking being separated from mainstream filmmaking invented a “Ten Commandments of Christian Filmmaking” and included a permission that “Christ-honoring violence” was possible and acceptable.

From what I can tell, violence to most MACEC is acceptable if it sates our bloodlust without being too bloody and provided that the violence is to really, really, really bad people - you know, the kinds of characters Christ didn’t die for.

Favorite examples include Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and The Passion of the Christ.

There are some who eschew film violence at that level, of course, but keep in mind that the leading MACEC filmmakers’ breakout film centered around one of the most violent and dangerous activities in America.

For me, however, I have no problem using any element when creating a film - even violence - should I find it contextually appropriate.

I admit I get a great deal of enjoyment (and possibly edification) out of watching violence in film, even as I enjoy other elements.

I really enjoyed watching the bad guys get theirs in Taken, for example.  I went to the film as a father looking to indulge in a revenge fantasy, and that’s what I got.  I’m fine with that.

YMMV, of course!

Cheers,
Calix

(football players, on average, die at age 54 - one of the shortest lifespans of any activity.  And studies of late regarding neck and head injuries… well, it’s a concern…)

Quick thought- I saw a BUNCH of straw men in thar.

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture
AND
Whose Favorite Film is Braveheart (with the nudity and fornication edited out.)  :D

Jeffrey Griffith wrote:

To answer the question Alex lets say I use my martial arts in a movie or film where it represents the things like stealing and killing are acceptable, such as Disney’s pirates of the caribbean films. In this way the talents are not being use in a God honoring way and on top of that its even helping to spread a secular world view. I might not nessasaraly do anything myself on set ungodly but I would then be helping spread those ideas.

EXCELLENT point.

If we then take this to its logical conclusion (as in trying to become more Christ like) should we not abstain from all violence and fighting? and if this is so then we also have to have this mindset when making films, since we are to glory God in all things we do, wether building a house or painting a piece of art. And the conclusion on this would be that my skills as a Martial Artists should not be used in film or in real life and thuse making what I have worked for not useful to God.

I majorly disagree.

Violence in a fallen world can be necessary and there are many, many Biblical and historical examples of that- David, Joshua, Scottish Covenanters, American Revolutionaries.

My logic being thus-

The glorification of meaningless/free violence promotes sin
We should not promote sin
Therefore we should not glorify meaningless violence-

NOT

Violence is sin
We should not promote sin
Therefore we should not promote violence.

Does that help any?

Or…is there a way these talents can be used in a God honoring way?

I say “absolutely.”

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Gabriel Hudelson wrote:

I saw a BUNCH of straw men in thar.

Fair enough - let’s boil it down.  What is incorrect about these two statements:

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

Violence is much, much, much more acceptable among MACEC filmgoers than sexuality, sensuality, nudity and profanity.

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

violence to most MACEC is acceptable if it sates our bloodlust without being too bloody and provided that the violence is to really, really, really bad people

Curiously,
Calix

(...we know Vision Forum has already pronounced that some violence can be Christ-honoring in The Ten Commandments of Christian Filmmaking, so I’m confident you’re not disputing my claim in that…)

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

Violence is much, much, much more acceptable among MACEC filmgoers than sexuality, sensuality, nudity and profanity.

I might take out a “much” or two.  :D Other than that- amen.

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

violence to most MACEC is acceptable if it sates our bloodlust without being too bloody and provided that the violence is to really, really, really bad people

That to this constituent of the MACEC- if such I am- violence is not justified by my bloodlust or by being to really really really bad people.

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Gabriel Hudelson wrote:

violence is not justified by my bloodlust

So you would enjoy Braveheart more if all of the violence and fighting were excised as well - perhaps to be replaced by quiet resolution under Robert’s Rules of Order?

Curiously,
Calix

(...if not, what is that but bloodlust - watching violence for the sake of entertainment?)

Calix Lewis Reneau wrote:

So you would enjoy Braveheart more if all of the violence and fighting were excised as well - perhaps to be replaced by quiet resolution under Robert’s Rules of Order?

Curiously,
Calix

(...if not, what is that but bloodlust - watching violence for the sake of entertainment?)

I don’t watch violence for the sake of entertainment.  And no, as far as the combat goes, I think it was excellent.  A little bit overexposed in one of the shots, but excellent.

I watch violence for edification and encouragement, as with most things LORD willing.

Why do you watch violence?

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture

Gabriel Hudelson wrote:

I watch violence for edification and encouragement

Fascinating.

Please to explain!

Curiously,
Calix

If I watch a war film that’s violent, it does not bother me. War is violent, and to not have people being shot, bleeding, and dying makes war sound like it’s all about bravery and machismo. However, in a horror film (and other types of movies) the violence is in there to titillate the audience and fulfill their lust for blood.

Something that I consider to be a good example of this (albeit not a horror film) would be that Spartacus TV series, but the trailer could be blowing it out of proportions. 300 has a lot of excessive violence.

I will say that blood itself does not bother me, it’s when parts are being chopped off, mutilated, ripped apart, torn out, sliced, and so on.

Jeremiah Warren wrote:

If I watch a war film that’s violent, it does not bother me. War is violent, and to not have people being shot, bleeding, and dying makes war sound like it’s all about bravery and machismo. However, in a horror film (and other types of movies) the violence is in there to titillate the audience and fulfill their lust for blood.

Agreed. 

Further, I’m less worried about what “bothers me” even- why are we zooming the camera in on the guy screaming in agony with (goes- or doesn’t- go into description of intricate horrors on/being done to his body) (see how pregnant and suggestive that was even without actually typing out said horrors)?

ANSWERING MR. RENEAU:

But when it comes to war… I watch violence and see- courage, love of freedom, family, God, country.  Take Braveheart, for instance.  I’m not engrossed in the film saying “COOL!  THAT GUY GOT HIS HEAD LOPPED OFF!  WOW!!!”

No, but rather admiring strategy, watching courage, as well as getting a dose of vision for the Spiritual warfare- and any physical warfare that may ever be mine to take part in, God forbid.

So… why do you watch violence?

- Gabriel Hudelson -
Music and Sound
for Motion Picture