TMS Discussion: What's the Deal with Christian Movies?

(Kingdom Story / Lionsgate)

In my whole experience as a movie fan, I think the one question that has remained completely unanswered is why Christian movies are not as objectively well received as general major releases. If you’re a cynic, the answer is usually, “Duh, Christian movies are propaganda that endorse an outdated myth.” Or you might assume liberal Hollywood studios aren’t interested in producing a story promoting religion. I’ve never really bought either of these excuses, personally. Respected filmmakers Martin Scorsese and Terrence Malick have always been transparent about their Christian backgrounds [Catholic for Scorsese, Episcopalian for Malick], and have both made successful films where religion and spirituality are themes, i.e. Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) and Silence (2016) and Malick’s The Tree of Life (2011). Lionsgate Films in more recent years have been collaborating on modest hits with Christian messages, such as Jon Erwin & Brent McCorkle’s Jesus Revolution (2023) and Jon Gunn’s Ordinary Angels (2024), despite historically producing general indie and mid-budget projects. Sony and Columbia Pictures produced and distributed Rosalind Ross’ Father Stu (2022), though you could argue that was because two big names—Mark Wahlberg and Mel Gibson—were attached to the feature. But the point remains, even with all this considered, Christian themed movies are still not seen by the public as ‘real movies.’

(Walt Disney Video / Fox Searchlight Pictures)

For years I’ve tried to wrack my brain and pinpoint what exactly is ‘off’ about Christian films. You can’t say it’s because of limited production values, because a lot of independently created films do well with critics and audiences; and money is obviously not an issue because most of these features are backed by affluent Christians and Christian based companies. Yet, something still isn’t clicking. Even some of the Christians I know agree these movies generally aren’t well executed. For a while in my 20s, I thought a big part of this was because the makers were more interested in pushing their beliefs than writing and directing a good story. I think there is a little of that too, but then you have something like Father Stu which does fit the traditional Hollywood movie structure, and still misses the mark. It wasn’t until this past Easter season, when I decided to revisit a movie from my childhood I hadn’t seen in years: Mitch Davis’ The Other Side of Heaven (2001). After watching the movie, I went to its Wiki page and found a 2007 quote by Professor Terryl Givens where he mentions that the film doesn’t actually explain why Other Side protagonist John Groberg is so dedicated to his church and spreading the word of God, and really doesn’t even mention his personal faith. Then it hit me…This, THIS is the big problem with Christian movies. Most of them are made as if everyone is raised with Christianity and don’t need any insight into the spirituality and religious practices. Maybe it’s because I’m from a Catholic family that I never considered this a screenwriting issue before. But it might explain a lot of my frustration.

The Other Side of Heaven is actually a good example of Christianity and Hollywood making a rare collaboration together. The film looks and feels like a legitimate studio production, shot on location in Auckland, NZ and the island of Rarotonga, with some beautiful cinematography. The stars, Christopher Gorham and Anne Hathaway, are attractive and charismatic enough to keep viewers’ attention. What’s funny is this is very much a movie for the Mormon audience, yet I’ve seen people—including younger me—from other Christian sectors also enjoy the film. But watching Other Side as an adult, I can see problems with the story that I didn’t when I was a tween and teenager. The casual portrayal of colonialism is a little awkward and Gorham’s John borders between romantic and creepy toward Hathaway’s Jean. The comic relief is kind of hokey and like mentioned before, there’s no proper comprehension of the characters’ beliefs and calling. There were similar notes about Alejandro Monteverde’s Cabrini out this past month, pointing out how we don’t ever see Mother Cabrini attend Mass. I don’t necessarily think audiences need to be spoon fed the backstories of these characters, especially since that might not be the only problem with the movie either. It might help to reach a wider crowd though. Take The Tree of Life, which is inspired by Terry Malick’s upbringing in Waco, TX and had a divisive reception upon release—but not toward the transparent spiritual tone. The picture has a wide variety of philosophical and theological themes explored in a non-linear, expressionist way that the average viewer would accuse of being ‘artsy-fartsy.’ But if you’re on board with this type of experimental filmmaking, the result can be fulfilling on top of some stunning camerawork. Both Other Side and Tree take place in the 1950s, and while the former accepts the conservative values of the time, the latter challenges them and shows you the pros and cons. In Malick’s film, we have Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain as two parents who represent the opposite ends of the spectrum. Pitt’s Mr. O’Brien as the practical and no-nonsense side and Chastain’s Mrs. O’Brien as the loving and graceful. You’re effectively given all these ponderings on the meaning of life, love, family, death, etc. and not banged over the head with lecturing or preaching.

(Universal Pictures / Newmarket Films)

Martin Scorsese and Mel Gibson might be the most famous Catholics in modern Hollywood, but with completely different reputations. Both are renowned for their visual interpretations of violence, and the most controversial films on their resumes are Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ and Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004). Two films that have gained equal fans and haters over the years for various reasons. Scorsese had already explored the life of a Roman Catholic raised Italian-American in mid-20th century NYC with his breakthrough film Mean Streets (1973), but Last Temptation was the first where he directly focused on Jesus Christ, the most important figure in Christianity. The film reunited Marty with screenwriter Paul Schrader following Taxi Driver (1976) and Raging Bull (1980) to adapt Nikos Kazantzakis’ 1955 novel; and Willem Dafoe was cast as the title character along with Harvey Keitel as Judas Iscariot, Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene, David Bowie as Pontius Pilate, Harry Dean Stanton as Saul/Paul of Tarsus and Verna Bloom as the Virgin Mary. Though technically a success at the box-office, the Last Temptation was also met with protests from avid Christians of all denominations, as well as general viewers who considered the final product off base. Some thought the characters were miscast, others said the pacing and continuity were sloppy. Some praised the dissection of the Gospels, while others found it deviated too much. Scorsese received a Best Director nomination at the Oscars, yet Keitel got hit with a Worst Supporting Actor nom from the Razzies. The choice to depict the human side of Christ over his divinity was met with mixed reactions; and the biggest outrage was over an extended fantasy sequence where the Devil tempts Jesus with a graphic vision of him married to Mary M. and consummating their union. Personally, this sequence never really bothered me because it’s not portrayed as reality, but as a sinful offer to distract Jesus. It’s not in the Bible, but it’s still believably something the Devil would do to Jesus. As a whole, I can see all sides of the initial feedback to Last Temptation. It does take a while to get used to the casting of Keitel and Bowie, and Scorsese and Schrader opting for modern sounding dialogue spoken with American and British accents is amusing at first. I think the creators were attempting to both expand on the story Christians are very familiar with as well as make it accessible to secular fans. Though accused of blasphemy, it’s obvious to me both men have history with Christianity and still respect the subject matter.

With The Passion of the Christ, Gibson stays mostly faithful to the source, words are delivered in Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, and he wisely doesn’t fill the cast with famous faces save for Jim Caviezel as the lead and Monica Bellucci as Mary M. Its agonizing, prolonged violence is deliberately excruciating as a viewing experience. I actually saw The Passion opening day as a field trip with my 9th grade class while attending Catholic school, and it was one of the eeriest theater visits of my life. There were no trailers, no theater ads and the audience was dead silent. I was watching the story of the crucifixion in such a brutally depicted way. I thought, this must really be what it was like in person at the time. For a while, The Passion held the record as the most financially successful R-rated film, but over the years, the hype has waned a little. Watching the film contemporarily, I realized that when you take away the gore, violence and Caleb Deschanel’s cinematography, the film isn’t really saying much that wasn’t already said in previous screen adaptations about Jesus’ later days and the crucifixion. Critic Roger Ebert championed both Last Temptation and Passion, but his TV co-host, Gene Siskel, mentioned this during his print review for the former: “This is anything but another boring, biblical costume epic. There is genuine challenge and hope in this movie.” I think this is why I prefer Marty’s film, as well as Franco Zeffirelli’s mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth” (1977), these days. While a visual triumph, The Passion is trying to guilt you into submission what Christ went through and is argued by some to be ‘torture porn.’ I think on a technical level the film has a unique spot in film history, but it’s one of those movies where once might be enough.

Throughout my life, I’ve watched a lot of movies centered on Christianity and/or the life of Jesus Christ. Some of them are ‘boring costume epics’ like Siskel commented, some are cheesy and cliché, and a few are legitimately fascinating and can be genuinely artistic. I don’t know if Christian produced films will ever be truly seen as legitimate general releases. There will probably always be tons of goofy Christian dramas and comedies preaching to the converted. All I know is Scorsese, Malick and Gibson currently have new movies related to Christ in production, and those have my interest piqued more than the likes of Harold Cronk’s God’s Not Dead (2014) and Darren Doane’s Saving Christmas (2014).