The film Fireproof (2008), released by Sherwood Baptist Church, has grossed over $33,000,000; which is comparable with movies like Fight Club (1999) and First Knight (1995) which brought in around $37,000,000 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com). Fireproof received a 40% rating out of twenty mainstream critic’s reviews; not fantastic, but not horrible either (http://www.rottentomatoes.com). That being said, this movie—with a strong Christian themed message, poorly written script, C-list actors, and a budget of $500,000, pulling in profits over $32,000,000—was intended for a mainstream audience to spread the gospel of how to fix your marriage. I will save my personal views on this film and others like it for the conclusion, but in the meantime I will look at the movie through the eyes of three prominent scholars: I will show how Todd E. Johnson would feel about this film, comparing it to his book Performing the Sacred. I will also critique it from the perspective of Kevin J. Wetmore, Jr. who wrote Intelligent Design (after Julie Taymor): Opposing Darwinism in The Crystal Cathedral's Creation: Once Upon All Time. Finally I will show elements of missional and reason based thinking in Fireproof that is equivalent to information provided by Mark A. Noll in Turning Points.
Given that Fireproof is a film and Performing the Sacred by Todd E. Johnson has everything to do with the dialogue between theatre and theology, Johnson does not have a lot to defend, in regards to content and themes of the film. His three elements of theatrical performance that show theatre as a prime example of the triune image of God—incarnation, community and presence—are not all three present in the medium of film (75). The actors are incarnate vessels of character, and the finished product—though seen from specific angles, edits, and retakes—is indeed present in all its Christian thematic glory. But film as a medium lacks the community aspect of theatre; the dialogue that is had between performer and audience, since they are separated from each other by the silver screen (56-71).
Johnson does however make valid points that relate to some of the themes in Fireproof. His summary of what Paul Tillich tells us about the relationship between culture and religion ties directly to the circumstances of the film. Tillich tells us that in culture, our mind offers three kinds of reason: autonomous, heteronomous and theonomos. If we live in autonomy, we create our own “norms, values and laws, unrelated to the laws of the world.” Religion thus becomes a “self-expression and is disconnected from the culture at large.” If we live in heteronomy, we are in a world that is defined by laws separate from ourselves making religion a sort of counterculture, a world to escape to, in essence. Finally, we can also live in theonomy, where the “laws of the universe are the same as the laws discovered within oneself” and “religion is congruent with the laws of the universe, creating a synergy of religion and culture.” (73)
Kirk Cameron’s character goes from living an autonomous life to a theonomous life; he starts living independently from the covenant of marriage, and in the end becomes one with it. If we look at the circumstances of the movie—an overworked firefighter and his decaying relationship with his estranged wife—we see a situation where faith can be found and God can move. Johnson says, “Whenever issues of ultimate concern are raised, the possibility of faith exists…suggest[ing] an openness to God, providing an opportunity for the Christian gospel to be introduced through the questions raised in art (74).” Fireproof is the story of a man finding God in the midst of his marital crisis. Johnson goes on to say, “Using Tillich’s theonomous understanding of religion and culture, one can see how theatre conveys Christian themes by virtue of its performative nature, even beyond the religious quality of theatre’s potential to communicate issues of ultimate concern (74).” If we view Fireproof from a theonomous perspective, its message essentially becomes clearer.
Despite the narrow connections made between Fireproof and Johnson, a critique made through Kevin J. Wetmore’s views on today’s popular Christian entertainment could be expansive. Fireproof falls neatly into the same category as the topic of Wetmore’s article, only instead of Crystal Cathedral’s melodramatic stage production of Creation: Once Upon All Time, we see a melodramatic film that also uses the entertainment medium to further its agenda.
The use of modern day melodrama in contemporary Christian entertainment seems to be a growing trend. Melodrama of the 19th century was defined by its inclusion of music (like the film score), episodic plot lines, characters that embody one desire (like our fireman’s desire to save his marriage), stories of virtue winning over vice, relationships over the individual, and special effects (much like the burning buildings). Melodrama often supported specific social movements, much like Fireproof and its pro-marriage agenda.
Creation also has elements of melodrama, especially in regards to special effects. Wetmore says, “A spectacular version of creation is played out combining computer-generated imagery on the screen, recorded music, live dancers and performers on stage and aerialists and wire performers above the heads of the audience. (In fact, more than one reviewer compared the production not only to Lion King but also to Cirque du Soleil. The OC Weekly titled its review ‘Church du Soleil.’) (131).” He also states that the same summer that Creation was being produced, legislation across the United States
Wetmore would put Fireproof into the same realm as many other grandiose Christian evangelical dramas such as the The Great Passion Play of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and the Crystal Cathedral’s other two annual productions The Glory of Christmas and The Glory of Easter. Wetmore would describe a production like Fireproof as “an opportunity to evangelize through [film], celebrating belief while trying to convert non-believers.” He describes these kinds of productions as being “over-earnest recreations” of “modern morality plays, cautioning against the dangers of non-belief (127).”
Though Wetmore would have the more pessimistic view on Fireproof, considering it an expensive political statement, Mark A. Noll would have still another view. I have shown how the movie reflects the major attributes of melodrama in the 19th century. Noll would take this perspective a bit further and say that it not only has theatrical elements of the 19th century but missional and reason based elements that reflect where the church and society was at large during a time of great enlightenment.
Noll explains that one of the major “turning points” in Christianity was the local indigenization of missional work. Missionaries from the west had their own success through most of the 19th century, but as the 20th century began, the local churches planted by western missionaries had begun their own work to reach the lost around them (285).
This image of the man being taught to fish and that man sharing his skill with others is present in Fireproof. We find out early on in the movie that the fireman’s father has just recently gone through his own marital problems and conversion experience. The plot centers around the father giving his son a forty day journal entitled the “Love Dare.” The son goes through the forty day process, and in the end saves his marriage. As the son is thanking his father towards the end, the father reveals that it was not he who did the “Love Dare” but his wife. So the fireman’s mother learns the skill of the “Love Dare” and saves her marriage. The father then takes the knowledge of the “Love Dare,” writes the journal in his own handwriting and gives it to his son, who uses it to save his marriage. In this situation the mother would be the western missionaries, the father would be the converted native and the son would be the result of the indigenization.
During the time of the French Revolution, Europe was going through an incredible dechristianization. No longer was the church the central purpose behind everything. Reason took precedence over an undoubted trust in God. As Noll says, “it was the end of Christendom, or the end of that lengthy period of European history when the interests of church and society were thought to be the same and where it was almost universally assumed that Christian spiritual realities were more fundamental than realities of the temporal world (253).”
We are still living in that reason based world and Fireproof shows elements of it. The forty day “Love Dare” is a good example. Reason says that in this day and age, if we are having a problem, all we need to do is buy the self-help book with easy instructions on how to fix it. This movie is one big promotional video for the actual “Love Dare” book written by Alex and Stephen Kendrick, the makers of Fireproof.
In conclusion, it should be known that I in no way discredit the heart and work of Alex and Stephen Kendrick. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution of marriage and God’s original intention for it. Divorce is indeed a horrible epidemic sweeping the country. This movie has excellent intentions and is on the better end of quality when it comes to Christian entertainment. I support the cause, though I am disappointed with the result. Though I do not share the pessimism of Kevin J. Wetmore toward all Christian political pursuits, I cannot help but share his perspective on Christian entertainment as a whole. I do not believe the amount of money that was spent on such a production is reaching as wide a range of audiences as it was intended. Despite its success, the only people who will see Fireproof are narrow-minded Christians who will watch it and say, “Look what a great job we did making this film.” The film will not be received outside of this audience because, despite its attempt to go mainstream, the makers are forgetting that we live in a postmodern society where the thrust of absolute truth falls on deaf ears because they cannot accept it. Todd E. Johnson may admire its attempt to combine theatrics and theology, Kevin J. Wetmore would file it away as just another poorly executed extravagant Christian production, and Mark A. Noll might find missional elements and concepts of reason. And I see a film that really needs eight more re-writes, a new director, and actors whose previous work has been more than Sunday morning video announcements.
Works Cited
Johnson, Todd E., and Dale Savidge. Performing the Sacred: Theology and Theatre in Dialogue. Grand Rapids , Michigan
Noll, Mark A.. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids , Michigan
Wetmore, Kevin J. "Intelligent Design (after Julie Taymor): Opposing Darwinism in The Crystal Cathedral's Creation: Once Upon All Time." Journal of Religion and Theatre 6.2 (2007): 124-139. Web. 08 Nov 2009. .
No comments:
Post a Comment