It notes that political posturing in films often spells box office disaster. The article cites examples like THE UNDEFEATED (a pro Sarah Palin documentary) and AN AMERICAN CAROL (a farce about Michael Moore being the Nation’s biggest threat) and ATLAS SHRUGGED PART 1 (an indie drama based on the Ayn Rand novel) to prove its point.

What is interesting is that Toth only cites examples of films with conservative view points. He shows his distaste for these themes when he writes about the target audience: “Personally, I suspect that they are much happier venting their spleen either online or by phone rather than sitting quietly in a theater for a couple of hours.”

Toth again shows his political leanings when writing: “The audience has a virtual Constitutional (and certainly God-given) right not to go to your movie. … This type of free and open selection by the audience is called capitalism. I don’t quite understand why I am having to explain this to right-wing filmmakers, but all I can add is, “Welcome to the pain of the marketplace, pal.”

Those are pretty strong words for filmmakers whose projects have failed. I wonder if he’d have stronger words for politically-biased films that lost much more money? The Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford drama, LIONS FOR LAMBS cost $35 Million to make and had a box office of $15 Million. Matt Damon‘s GREEN ZONE cost a whopping $100 Million to make and only made $35 Million at the box office. This despite having pretty much the same concept, producers and marketing muscle as Damon’s extremely popular BOURNE films. Or the recent Sean Penn, Naomi Watts film: FAIR GAME which only made $6.7 Million at the box office while costing $22 Million to produce.

It’s important to note that none of Toth’s examples had the cast, marketing dollars or production budgets of the left-wing themed films. So which ones had the bigger failure?

Good films need to have themes. Themes though can’t be a sermon – no matter how true or important they may be.

Toth rightly notes that “Most people go to movies for a form of emotional engagement, not politics. … most attempts at political statements in movies end up sounding as if the filmmaker is hectoring the audience. As a rule, people won’t pay to be hectored. They come to see a story, not a harangue. Heck, they might even want a little romance on the side.”

Similarly, I think film reviews and commentaries should also concentrate on the story (i.e. political films often fail) rather than making political speeches (i.e. conservative filmmakers don’t get it).

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

My father loves to tell me the story of how bank tellers used to be trained to spot fake currency. Common sense seems to dictate that the tellers would be given forgeries and told to study them so that they could recognize them when they see them again. However, that wasn’t the method. In fact it was the exact opposite. Tellers would be given thousands and thousands of REAL dollar bills. They were told to count them and sort them and study them and become as familiar with them as they could. This process went on for weeks. Then, when a fake bill was introduced they could spot it immediately because it was somehow “different” from the real ones. It stood out as ‘bad’.

This is a great way to illustrate (as my father always did with me) how important it is to surround yourself with good and Godly things. By reading good books and listening to good music and spending-time with good people you can then recognize when something is “wrong”. Conversely, if you surround yourself with bad-influences you become desensitized to it and your ability to properly judge what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ becomes more difficult.

A lot of you reading this are probably thinking: “Hold on, who is to say what is a good book? What is your definition of good music? It’s one thing to recognize a fake dollar bill, how do you recognize a fake person?” At least this is what I always defensively said to my father.

Being in the film business it’s part of my job is to study other films and see what works and what doesn’t and why and how to improve on our projects etcetera. This means that I watch a LOT of movies and some would certainly not fit my father’s definition of “good”. But can you still learn from them?
I recently watched a spate of movies that for various reasons I thought would be good but became very disappointed in. I would qualify these as “bad” movies and surprisingly their “badness” challenges some very commonly held ideas about what makes a movie “good”.

One such idea: good movies have big stars (good actors) in them. I would argue that movies like HOW DO YOU KNOW? and STONE disprove that. HOW DO YOU KNOW? is a romantic comedy with Reese Witherspoon (Oscar winner), Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd and Jack Nicholson (Oscar winner). It’s neither funny nor romantic and feels entirely pointless. STONE is a heavy drama, thriller starring Oscar winner Robert Deniro, Ed Norton and Mila Jovovich. It’s slow, crude and again doesn’t have any characters to root for or at least identify with.

The next idea: good movies are unique and different from ‘common’ movies and directed by good directors. I’d argue that GREENBERG starring Ben Stiller and directed by acclaimed director Noah Baumbach disproves this. It’s boring, pointless and frustrating.

The next common idea: Good movies have big budgets and lots of buzz. I think we all probably have a number of examples of where this doesn’t hold true but I’d argue that SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD is a good recent example. Made for $60 Million (which is a huge budget for a ‘independent type’ film) is an action romance that had lots of good buzz from critics and comic-book circles. Despite an interesting premise and some inventive sequences it ended-up feeling like a string of overdone flashy fights with lots of noise and colours and clever quips but no substance.

I’d like to also point out that with all of the movies above I obviously wasn’t the only one who didn’t like these films. Compared to how much they cost to produce, they all did very poorly at the box office. So have I been able to learn anything from the “bad”?

Yes. Good movies MUST have at least one character that you care about. Those characters must have a goal and a reason for that goal. The overall story must have a point so that at the end of the film you don’t feel like you’ve wasted the past two hours. Actors, directors and budgets can’t do anything if those elements aren’t there.

Here’s hoping that I can now recognize a GOOD movie since it will stand out from the bad!

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

It took me until the fourth movie to get into the HARRY POTTER series. After the point Voldemort rises, this series (in my opinion) becomes very involving, even making the films that came before it more interesting. This is the feeling I got when watching LEFT BEHIND: WORLD AT WAR. With a solid cast, solid direction, and a tight script, this film shows how good Christian filmmaking can be.

The film opens with a strong scene involving Chris, Ray’s friend from the first two films. He really steps up here and sets the tone for the film. You can see growth in many of the main characters. They have all become confident, yet humble leaders. There is one scene where Buck is captured by the U.S. Government and President Fitzhugh, with a cold stare, points a gun at Buck and asks him if he will renounce his faith in Jesus Christ. Wow, this is the single tensest moment in the whole series. President Fitzhugh’s whole story is great and kind of what I wanted to see with Buck or Ray in the first film: it’s a solid arc, brilliantly performed. You believe him when he is devoted to Nicolae and you believe him just as much when he changes. Another character that changes is Hattie. She is far more antagonistic here in the first half, which also makes things more interesting since she knows Ray is a Christian.

What really brings this film to another level is the addition of Louis Gossett, Jr. and Jessica Steen to the cast. These two have presence. Not saying the other actors don’t, but when these two are on screen, you are glued. Fortunately they get ample screen time. I must also mention the director Craig R. Baxley. This guy knows how to use the camera effectively to keep the audience in every scene. Baxley keeps the camera keeps moving, rotating around characters, ascending up to a person’s apartment, he finds ways to keep the scenes interesting. Not surprising from a former director of THE A-TEAM series. The atmosphere of the film is another strong point. You get the sense that nowhere is safe, something I should have felt more of in TRIBULATION FORCE, but didn’t.

It’s too bad the films had to end here. This series was really gaining momentum. Re-watching these films, I do feel strongly that this material would greatly benefit from a remake. The first film just isn’t the powerful introduction it needs to be. In the end, I am glad I revisited these films as I’ve grown closer to the material as a result. It’s been a rewarding experience. Moving on to the new film, what should this remake focus on to be the epic it needs to be?

- Blog by Travis Else

I’ve been waiting for a long time for the movie SOUL SURFER to come out.

When I heard that they were making the true-life story about young Bethany Hamilton who lost her arm to a shark and then returned to competitive surfing just a few weeks later I was very excited – especially since Bethany Hamilton is a born-again Christian. She writes: “Being able to turn to Jesus after the shark attack kept me alive”.

I thought and hoped that just like THE BLIND SIDE it would be a movie with a strong organic Christian theme. Because it’s based on an incredible true story and real-life people of faith, it wouldn’t need to be “preachy” (which usually comes from forcing a message where it doesn’t belong) and would be able to reach a wide audience.

It opened this past weekend with the second highest wide release per-screen average (highest among new films) and brought in $10.6M at the box office. It did better than the experts had predicted and received an incredibly rare A+ exit rating from CinemaScore‘s moviegoer poll.

What’s really interesting is the reaction from many critics. On rottentomatoes.com (where it weighs positive reactions vs negative reactions) it notes that only 51% of critics liked it. But like the CinemaScore’s exit poll, 87% of audiences liked it. So why the difference?

I think that can be found in the famous Francis Bacon quotation: “People prefer to believe what they prefer to be true.” (You can see more thoughts on truth here.)

The NY Times’ review was pretty good. It noted the strong performances of the lead actors and the thrilling surfing scenes but the reviewer just couldn’t buy it all. He closes the review by noting: “During the closing credits the real Ms. Hamilton appears on screen and thanks Jesus in voice-over. While this story is certainly about faith, SOUL SURFER is most inspiring when it exalts faith in one’s self.” And this is from someone who liked the film. Interesting how it’s okay to believe in one’s self or love or desire or the environment (you name the the theme) but believing in God isn’t as good.

Here’s what some said who didn’t like the film:

“…barefaced Christian pandering that pretends it isn’t…. Young Ms. Hamilton’s story is inspiring, but if you need it spoon-fed by ‘American Idol’ winner Carrie Underwood’s youth-group leader, you’re better off lost and godless.” (Village Voice/LA Weekly)

And:

“Appealingly photographed and shamelessly manipulative… a wholesome movie for wholesome people who really, really don’t want to think about what their entertainment means.” (Toronto Now)

Notice the attacks are not only on faith but on those who are faithful. It’s not enough to not like the movie because you don’t agree with the theme, you have to criticize those who do like it.

I have to give credit to one brave critic who tried to stay honest about where she was coming from (unlike many contemporaries). Wesley Morris writes:

“Faith for some is a combination of a belief in God and a belief in oneself. When Bethany goes from ‘How can this be God’s plan for me?’ to ‘I don’t need easy, I just need possible,’ I stopped rolling my eyes and just said, ‘Amen.’ ” (Boston Globe)

It’s wonderful to note that how many others are saying “Amen” to this remarkable story as well. JUNO actress Ellen Page and Seattle Seahawks Quarterback Matt Hasselback tweeted excitedly about it. Obviously many people ignore cynical film critics like many critics discount faith.

- Blog by André van Heerden, President of Film and TV Production at Cloud Ten Pictures

Spiritualism is in. Think about some of the most popular shows from the last ten years or so. Some that may come to mind are Charmed, The Ghost Whisperer, or Supernatural.

These shows don’t necessarily deal in real spirituality or religion, but rather make a mythology with basic religious ideas as the base. This can be entertaining, but these shows all lack a certain depth and boldness, which comes with the territory of trying to satisfy all worldviews. This is why I praised THE BOOK OF ELI, it actually picked something to be about and was unashamed about it. Normally, the only acceptable spiritual film or show is one that picks no spiritual views at all. In a land of tolerance, no other scenario is permissible. Last week, I came across an article in my local paper about the new film HEREAFTER and how it too is a film that is content to tread the surface of eternity and the existence of God, the Coke Zero of spiritual depth.

“It raises a lot of questions, but that’s where it ends,” director Clint Eastwood said about the film. This isn’t a bad thing by itself. A deep, thought-provoking film can often leave the door open for interpretation. INCEPTION, for example, was a brilliant film that was left open for the audience to fill in the pieces. Acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick didn’t like to explain everything to an audience, instead he allowed them to figure out what things mean.

However, when one is dealing in such heavy issues as an afterlife and God, one needs to at least have a good understanding and acknowledgement of these religions. Writer Peter Morgan said he wrote from an angle of “irreligious enlightenment, (as) I don’t have any religious belief in an afterlife.” Non-religion specific ideas are much more fascinating and freeing to people, even though there is no basis for this belief (e.g. The Holy Bible). Critic MaryAnn Johanson says the film is “devoid of any sort of perspective on its subject.” And finally, “There’s no story, there’s no philosophy, there’s just an endless void.” Exactly what I was afraid of.

I was once having a debate with a friend of mine about the existence of God as he kept trying to point out flaws in the Bible. Our debate ended with him saying he had more faith in the idea that we could all be in pods right now living false lives, like THE MATRIX. Why would he believe this over something that actually has documentation to attest its existence? Because it sounds cool. This is what people like to put their faith in these days.

We like to think about the deep things, but we can’t get too close to any real, established religion. This type of real is considered fake. However believing in something out of THE MATRIX or THE GHOST WHISPERER is deep and spiritual. So in short, we get our Spirituality from ideas. What is real (established) is considered fake and what is fake (not established) is considered real. Christianity is just too real to be acceptable (fake). In a land of Coke Zero, I’ll stick with my Classic.

-Travis Else

“I walk by faith, not by sight.” -Eli

A mentor of mine asked me once what the point of a movie is. I told him that a movie’s purpose is to tell a story or convey a message. Also, a movie can inspire.

As a film aficionado, I take pleasure in analyzing a good film. It’s an escape for me the same way a person gets lost in a book or video game. Is it a waste of time? Some consider it as such, but I think movies can be useful tools for illustrations (sermons or small-groups) or for quality fellowship. I ran a successful Kung Fu Theater group for nearly a year, and my friends all appreciate this art more because of it.

Sometimes when I watch a good flick that gives me goosebumps, I walk out wanting to do something important. Sometimes I want to go home and start writing my own film! Or rather, I want to start changing the world in some way.

A film can be particularly affecting when it has direct application to my Christian walk. I love being able to watch a film and find little nuggets that can apply to my faith. One such example was when I saw 2004’s SPIDERMAN 2 for the first time. The crisis of choice that Peter Parker faced was something I could relate to as a young man of God.

So imagine my curiosity when a friend of mine told me that he walked out of THE BOOK OF ELI inspired to be a better Christian. Naturally I checked out ELI as soon as I could. I now know exactly what my friend was talking about. Goosebumps, check.

- Blog by Travis Else. Stay tuned for Part II!

Treausure Blind, written and directed by Brian Shoop and released under Cloud Ten Pictures

I made a movie and now I’m trying to understand why.

After battling through the melee of fund-raising and filming and marketing and margins and critics and crowded retail shelves, I’ve reached an oasis that brings peace and clarity again. A thought into which I can retreat and find safety – though it is not without danger. Just this: movie making is an act of worship. It is an offering, a sacrifice, made to the god of the filmmaker’s soul. This conclusion brings clarity because it defines one discipline to master rather than the clamoring myriad of details that constitute the filmmaking process. It also means that making movies is much more than a hobby, or a career, or even art. For the Christian moviemaker, the craft has inescapable eternal dimensions – and consequences.

This thought occurred to me as I was examining worship in Scripture. The foundation begins early in Genesis; God creates man in His own image. And, in His image, each of us was created to worship. It’s what we do. Just as a camera was designed from the drawing board to take pictures, we were designed and built to worship the Creator. I would go so far as to say that man cannot NOT worship. The problem is, mankind fell, sin entered a perfect Creation, and man began to worship… well, anything and everything but God, and ultimately…himself. In fact, that was Satan’s temptation wasn’t it, “You will be as God”? Isaiah says it this way, “All we like sheep have gone astray and have turned every one to his own way.”

In our culture, we hear people refer to their “moral compass” as the basis for decisions. I am the final authority in my world. And that sentiment has always existed in the church. In the earliest recorded worship service, the bulletin included no singing, no responsive readings, no preacher and no sermon. Just the offering. Abel brought a lamb; Cain brought fruits and vegetables. God accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. Cain’s response highlights the reason: Abel worshiped God, Cain worshiped Cain. All of history has been an account of how many different ways man can twist and pervert a good thing until it’s a “god” for him (an idol) and he worships it.

Take food. Food is a good thing, a blessing from God. It’s necessary to life. But, food can become my god, my idol. I can worship food. Art is also a good thing, a blessing from the hand of God. But art can become the god of the artist. There is no end of examples. And the really frustrating bottom line is, as a fallen human being, my natural tendency, my default state, is to worship the creation rather than the Creator. It happens quietly, unnoticed, and constantly. But at least there are ways to recognize when it’s happened.

Worship means literally to assign “weight” or importance to someone or something. So, the object of my worship is the person or thing to which I attach the most importance. It’s my favorite thing to think about when I have a choice, the first thing in the morning, last thing at night, you get the idea. Two main responses define my worship activities: I want to be identified with the object of my worship, and I sacrifice for it. I’m a “fan” of my worship object. If it’s athletics, I want to dress and walk and act like an athlete or at least a fan.

If it’s being a moviemaker, I emulate that image. I want to be recognized that way, identified with the object of my worship. Then, I sacrifice for my worship object. I take time away from other activities or people because I have to give it to my worship object. I might invest money, sacrifice relationships, even good important things for the sake of the one thing I worship. I am built that way. I can’t help it. But what I can decide is whom I will worship. Paul said to the Christians at Corinth, “…do all to the glory of God.” And John said to his spiritual children, “…keep yourselves from idols.”

The regular adjustment I have to make as a Christian moviemaker – or a Christian anything – was summarized by Christ himself: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.” First, I deny myself the place of god in my life. Then I follow, or imitate Christ, who always submitted to the Father’s will. I immerse myself in the Truth, the Bible. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “…true worshipers will worship me in spirit and in truth.” Finally I choose, by an act of my will, to make Jesus the most important thing in my life and to do whatever I do – even make movies – to the glory of God. Even if I’m not making a “Christian movie”, I should make my movie for the glory (or weight, or preeminence) of God.

Movie making is an act of worship because as a man created by God, worship is what I do. What makes a Christian moviemaker unique is that he can select Jesus as the object of his worship, the one with whom he is identified, the one to whom his offering is made. After all, as a Christian I know that only Jesus is worthy of my worship.

May God find moviemakers who worship Him in spirit and in truth through these offerings: our movies.

- Blog written by Brian Shoop, Writer/Director of Treasure Blind