Sitting at the Feet of a Film Analyst (part 5)

In part four, Doug Welch and I talked through the appropriate times to notice figures/symbols of Christ in characters and the inappropriate evanglistic uses of film by Christians. We also showed two pictures connecting Wall-E and the Pieta, but that’s neither here nor there…

LS: Two quick ones. We just saw The Help, and it was so good.

DW: Oh yeah?

LS: Yeah. It was solid. I was… like a baby.

DW: Wow.

LS: That was one of the things Tara and I talked about: Can film change people?

DW: Mmmmm. That’s a good question. It’s such an isolated event. You. There. With the film.

LS: For two hours.

DW: Two hours. It’s not conducive to conversation. People have conversations leaving the film, then get in their cars and go.

LS: We don’t have like film clubs where we watch fifteen minutes and…

DW: Right. Right. Break down a scene or something like that. Films have been forces for positive good. Documentaries certainly fit that bill. I would say…

LS: In an exposing sense.

DW: Right. Recently Waiting for Superman or The Lottery have been helpful in understanding what the nature of the problem in the educational system has been. Even An Inconvenient Truth or the Michael Moore films. The Belgium film Rosetta, which is about a young teenage girl who’s put to work, led to perform in employment, rules and laws about employing other people and the standards there. Certainly in a negative sense film changes us. Makes us immune to certain things.

LS: Like desensitized?

DW: Oh sure. Oh yeah. Glorification of violence. I think it already has to be there, but it amplifies whatever started there. Certainly pornography.

LS: Glorification of violence, depreciation of sex.

DW: Yeah. Whatever dehumanizes people. Or whatever, on the positive side, makes us human. Whatever celebrates us. That might change. I think…

LS: That’s something that, in The Help, the constant black on white [clasps hands together.]

DW: Mmmm. Touching.

LS: Lotta touch in that movie.

DW: That’s interesting.

LS: And not touching. There’s a moment, antagonist-protagonist, white and black, and there was no touching. There’s this tense pulse that this bubble has been broken and then you have the little white kids being held all the time and just crying over their things that happen to their “real mothers.”

DW: I think it’s a cumulative effect. I don’t know if it’s like one film that changes everything.

LS: We could even say that about novels.

DW: Sure, I think it’s the same thing. I don’t know if I’ve ever walked out of a movie saying, “I need to make better choices in my life.” Maybe… Maybe once in awhile. You think about…

LS: Schindler’s list.

DW: Yeah. Maybe…

LS: For generousity’s sake.

DW: Maybe. I dunno. I think it’s a cumulative effect. I think it’s… Do you watch films that celebrate what makes us human rather or do you watch films that dehumanize?

LS: The Saw series.

DW: The Saw series yeah or other torture porn. Do we watch films that try to understand who we are or films that just go on with our explosions to delay it? Good question.

READ NEXT:  Sitting at the Feet of a First Time Jewish Novelist

LS: In light of what makes us human, what do you think the average person needs to think through next time they see a film that would be helpful for them not just to be a consumer, but to be an active participant, to, the word I’ve been using is “Literate”, to reflect on it. To really process through what was helpful and what wasn’t, which might be different for different people.

DW: I think that’s true. I think the more you can think about how a film is depicting the certain choices a character makes and why they choose certain things and how that relates to you in a way that you can put yourself some way in the movie. How does the director want us to see these characters, this choice, this story, this desire? How many times has a director just by the view of all the tricks at their disposal, been able to create in us a yearning for something we would not want in any other situation. For example, adultery. How often in a film do the circumstances show “oh her husband is a soulless jerk.”

LS: Literally “out of the picture.”

DW: Out of the picture, and he’s really inhumane in some ways. Then there’s the other guy who’s blah-blah-blah and they get together and blah-blah-blah and we celebrate it. I would not be for that in any way, in any means.

LS: Why am I now rooting for it?

DW: Right. Where the criticism comes: why did I become a different person when I watched this when that’s not who I am really? Would I be the kind of person who takes vengeance… Well the film is creating in me the desire to do that. This person needs to die, and I want this person to die. Violently. As violently as possible.

LS: Se7en.

DW: Sure. That’d be one. There’s lots of good examples of that. No chance for redemption. That’s not who I am. So what does that create in me. It’s creating this desire for self, this desire for pleasure above all things. That’s where the criticism helps. What are these choices? Then we critically look at them. How was it that I became this other person watching this film? I would rather they restore this marriage and… that’s not the choice that’s presented before me. This is not choose your own adventure.

LS: Which…[laughs.]

DW: Everybody? If you want her to leave him, then…

LS: [laughs.] Final Destination 3 is. On the DVD.

DW: Is it really? That makes sense that someone would do that on the DVD.

LS: [laughs.]

DW: That’s where you have to think critically and separate yourself from the film. Otherwise it just becomes this desire for sheer mindless consumption. That’s one reason I started my little film journal. It’s not anything important, it’s just making sure that I’m thinking critically through this. What is striking me? Whether it’s angles depicting, editing, imagery, color, score… sometimes score.

LS: Unless it’s Inception, and there’s trumpets in your face.

DW: Even then, it’s just background noise.

LS: [laughs.]

DW: Or the lack of score in some cases. It’s the quiet or the sounds of the city streets. I think that’s it. As a Christian, where is the Gospel here and how does what I have as a believer intersect with the story? How does it deconstruct? How does it change or give me an alternate way of living? I’m not a slave to my passions. I’m not a slave to other people’s expectations or social conventions. These other people trapped in this world and context. I saw a trailer for this new science fiction movie In Time. Did I tell you about this?

READ NEXT:  Jefferson Market Library

[youtube=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw”]

LS: You told me about this, yeah.

DW: It’s an interesting trailer. Good trailer. It’s the latest from Andrew Nicole who directed Gattaca.

LS: Oh right.

DW: And a couple of other things. Written some things. But Gattaca’s one of my favorite all-time films. But this film’s an interesting concept: everybody’s as old as you get. Image-wise, here’s this entire film of twenty-five-year-olds. Every actor needs to be able to play twenty-five.

LS: So like twenty-two to twenty-seven.

DW: Well probably… Justin Timberlake, I think, is thirty.

LS: [laughs.]

DW: Olivia Wilde is twenty-seven and plays his mother. Right? So you have this entire film of good-looking twnety-five-year-old people. That’s the context! Now what does that say about culture. What does that say about who we are and who we hope to be? For. Ever. Young. Life as a Calvin Klein commercial or an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog. That’s what this is! I’m hoping with the film it’s: what is the cost of that? Is there hope out of that? What kind of hope do we have out of that? This desire for youth above all things, vitality, life, this kind of life above all things. What am I willing to pay? What am I willing to do to maintain that? That’s an interesting question and I think that’s a great subject, so I have high hopes. I like the trailer. I hope it’s good. Hope Timberlake can act.

LS: If he can, he’s a renaissance man.

DW: He is.

LS: I mean, he already is.

DW: Surprised not to see James Franco in it. He’s the renaissance man.

LS: And he’s the one that’s always critiquing forever young.

DW: Yeah, right. Sort of the James Dean.

LS: Rebel Without a Cause.

DW: Right. So all of those things at play. In the end, it has to be an action film, so I’m sure it’ll be that. You’ve gotta have these themes and set pieces, but in the end those things don’t matter. What matters is motivation and choice and what options the director gives us as we view this film.

LS: And how far he limits that.

DW: Yeah. As Christians, there’s a third way.

LS: Mmm.

DW: A way to think more critically. A way to think more… I like what Bruggeman says: “We need to act more creatively, more fluidity in culture.”

LS: Being able to move in and out of social groups kinda thing?

DW: Yeah, exactly, which is not I take a step into one and say “this is my approach. Every single time.” Which is what American Family Association and Donald Woleman are saying.

LS: Dobson.

DW: Dobson, yeah. “Our approach to culture is monolithic. You say this word once, you get this many points. Minus this many points. Showed this much skin. You have this sort of political agenda.”

LS: [laughs.]

DW: In the end, they’re captive to their audience.

LS: Donors.

DW: They’re captive to their donors, yeah, captive to their audience. People expect this kind of thing. If they recommend a movie that their audience is offended by…

LS: It’s over.

READ NEXT:  Science Fiction Fantasy Alliance AMA

DW: It’s over, yeah, ministry-wise. Tail wagging the dog there. It’s a different kind of audience and consumer, but imagine if there was a film recommended on the Focus on the Family website and “Oh this is a good film.”

LS: [laughs. giggles.]

DW: It happens to me! That’s why I don’t recommend a lot of films or I’m cautious to who I recommend films to. THIS film! “Yeah, well that had this scene in it.” Yeah, you’re right, I’m a terrible person.

LS: [laughs.]

DW: You should never accept any recommendation I ever make ever again in my life.

LS: I had that the other day. Talked about a film and some guy was like, “REALLY?! You liked that movie?!”

DW: Mallick films especially. I liked New World. It was interesting. Visual. You know?

LS: It was art.

[youtube=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn7hHKVrTMY”]

DW: Yeah.

LS: Two-and-a-half-hours of art.

DW: Yeah. Some think it’s so boring. “See? You didn’t bring anything to the movie, did you?”

LS: [laughs.] You don’t have a kit.

DW: A kit. A film kit.

This interview concluded in next week’s Ask the Experts!


Be sure to share and comment. And subscribe.

Comment early, comment often, keep it civil:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Lancelot Grapples Style 003 « The Gig

    […] A Film Analyst on Change via Film […]

  2. Lancelot Grapples Style 003 « The Gig

    […] A Film Analyst on Change via Film […]

  3. Ask the Experts: Film Analyst (part 6 ~ Fin) | Lance Schaubert

    […] In part five, we wrestled through the problems of interpreting symbolism in film. This shorter conclusion to the Film Analyst ATE works through the idea of the new American hero in film. (We also praise demolition engineers who get paid to blow $#!! up). […]

  4. Of Gangs and Pickpockets « Lance Schaubert

    […] Tale, I would have thought the violence and prostitution a bit overdone—the thing of Hollywood sensationalism where we glorify violence and devalue sex. Unfortunately, the movie treated Five Points mercy, […]

  5. My Alchemical Wedding or “How We Had a Nerdy Wedding without Wearing Chainmail” « Lance Schaubert

    […] idea of using literary alchemy for my wedding emerged after Doug Welch, Kyle Welch, Kiddo and I watched Avatar in REAL-D! Actually, it had nothing to do with Avatar and […]

Quick note from Lance about this post: when you choose to comment (or share this post with your friends) you help other readers just like you.

How?

Well, see, your comments & sharing whisper a few things to those who come after you:

The first is that this site is a safe place to speak up & stay curious. That it's civil. That discussion is encouraged. That there's no such thing as a stupid question (being a student of Socrates, I really and truly believe this). That talking to one another and growing together is more important than anything we could possibly publish. That the point is growing in virtue and growing together and growing wise. That discovery is invention, deference is originality, that we all can rise together. The only folks I'm going to take comments down from are obvious jerks who argue in bad faith, don't stay curious, or actively make personal attacks. And, frankly, I'd rather we talk here than on some social media farm — I will never show ads and the only thing I'm selling anywhere on the site or my mailing list is just the stuff I make.

You're also helping folks realize that anything you & they build together is far more important than anything you come to me to read. I take the things I write about seriously, but I don't take myself seriously: I play the fool, I hate cults of personality, and I also don't really like being the center of attention (believe it or not). I would much rather folks connect because of an introduction I've made or because they commented with one another back and forth and then build something beautiful together. My favorite contributions have been lifelong business and love partnerships from two people who have forgotten I introduced them. Some of my closest friends NOW I literally met on another blog's comment section fifteen years ago. I would love for that to happen here — let two of you meet and let me fade into the background.

Last, you help me revise. I'm wrong. Often. I'm not embarrassed to admit it or worried about being cancelled or publicly shamed. I make a fool out of myself (that's sort of the point). So as I get feedback, I can say, "I was wrong about that" and set a model for curious, consistent learning, and growing in wisdom. I'm blind to what I don't know and as grows the island of my knowledge so grows the shoreline of my ignorance. It's the recovery of innocence on the far end of experience: a child is in a permanent state of wonder. So are the wise: they aren't afraid of saying, "I don't know. That's new: please teach me." That's my goal, comments help. And I read all reviews: my skin's tough, but that's not license to be needlessly cruel. We teach one another our habits and there's a way to civilly demolish an idea without demolishing another person: just because I personally can take the world's meanest 1-star review doesn't mean we should teach one another how to be crueler on the internet.

For three magical reasons — your brave curiosity, your community, & my ignorance:

Please comment & share with friends how you prefer to share:

Follow The Showbear Family Circus on WordPress.com

Thanks for reading the Showbear Family Circus.
  1. "I think you can write about yourself without the vain, self-focused naval gazing. Good storytelling is a gift from writers…

  2. "His fans didn’t just write fiction about it. One calculated the tensile strength of the material it was made of.…

  3. My mother was the volatile Italian and my dad was the calming influence when things went awry. Dad was our…

  4. Lancelot, thank you, for that congrats, but I fear that continues my jinxed lament - that the late Andy Warhol…

Copyright © 2010— 2023 Lancelot Schaubert.
All Rights Reserved.
If we catch you using any of the substance of this site to train any form of artificial intelligence, we will prosecute
to the fullest extent permitted by any law.

Human children and adults always welcome
to learn bountifully and in joy.