PotC and Popular Forms of Communication (please give continued grace to the length)
Andy,
once again, I need to thank you -- and please, to all, I am not merely trying to be cordial or polite here -- but quite seriously, I am appreciative of our rigourous conversation and engagement here. Andy, I particularly want to thank you for "not letting me get away with anything." (Not that I am a Richard Rorty fan, nor do I believe truth has anything to do with what we think it is or let each other get away with... but in such a forum as this, we need to be accountable to one another, hopefully for the purpose of becoming stronger in our arguementation and development of thought). So once again Andy, thank you. As I read your responses I find myself continually murmuring that proverbial, "hmm" that seems to spring from my voicebox everytime I come across a particularly intelligent point (I think we all do that "hmm" whether we actually make the sound or not... know what I mean?).
Let's discuss this "baptism" scene a little more. It sounds like you agree with me in your last response that it was a powerful and important and "moving" scene that -- (for viewers like you and I) -- makes deep theological statements concerning the death of Christ for the sins of the whole world (even though the whole world is his enemy). My original discussion of your comments on it, however, revolved around your connecting it to an earlier Gibson movie Lethal Weapon. As you wrote, "He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the ...showering/baptism of the guard." What I was frustrated about was that it seems you are implicitly claiming that Gibson included the "baptism" scene so that he could reference his own work in a "pious" manner -- that is, that he was trying to give himself some props with the viewer, as if saying, "See that... isn't that great film making? Kind of like Lethal Weapon... remember that? Wasn't that great?" Actually, now I'm not sure if this is what you are claiming, or were claiming, that Mel is trying to do or not. But that was how I originally read it. What did you mean by this original comment? I supposed I am confused on it. Thus, what you and I agree to be a powerful theological idea portrayed in the image of the "baptism" of the guard, I believed you were degrading to being a mere "throwback" for Mel to previous films. I was shocked by such a comment. I could not even imagine thinking about something like Lethal Weapon when I was confronted so powerfully by this idea of Christ's unmerited sacrifice. So when I saw you draw the connection to Lethal Weapon (which for me seems about a billion miles away) I was left with the conclusion... Did Andy just miss the importance of that? Does he really think this scene is in anyway whatsoever connected to Lethal Weapon? But now you have clarified that you did indeed see the theological ramifications of the scene. And I think you were trying to just show how this movie was made in a similiar manner common to most action flicks today. Is this correct?
I hope this clarifies my admittedly harsh first reaction to your comments. I assure you I was not trying to be patronizing in my comments to you. No, I was simply surprised that when you mentioned the baptism scene, the one and only comment you make about is how Mel is refrencing Lethal Weapon with it... no comments at all on how the image is a powerful theological statement. I want to humbly apologize if I was offensive or patronizing in my initial reaction: such an appearance was not intended. Since you felt I was, once again, I sincerely apologize. I respect you and your opinions a great deal. I am simply trying to understand.
To move on to the substance of our disagreement, I'll try to summarize your position at this point: because the PotC is made in a similiar cinematic style as other contemporary films (and uses similiar images, i.e. Lethal Weapon/Braveheart) you fear that "the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of." You write, "Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style." I think you present your position most cogently with this one sentance, "the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter."
Alright then, here's response. 1) Yes, first off, the film DOES use the popular constructions of film making today. I don't deny that. This film isn't made in any dramatically different way than other mainline popular films (although, I contend within those basic constructions, it is done very well).
2) Then I want to say... OK.. So what? My mind immeadiatly jumps back to the major writtings of the New Testament, which were written in the everyday, normal, call them "popular" if you like, style, constructions, and uses of the medium. When Matthew wrote his Gospel, I'm sure someone could say, "Matt, this book is written in much the same style and conventions that you always write in. It's written in the common style of communication today. Don't you think this story deserves something different?" But I would disagree. I don't see how Matt's using the popular modes of communication in his culture is "Bad'. I don't see how that is a travesty to the subject matter. Should Matthew of chucked all normal forms of the use of that medium and tried to write in some radical wild way to tell this radical wild story? No, he wrote as he always wrote... but the content of the story is what made it wild and radical (as the story of Christ always does... more on that below). The same is true here with this film. Sure, Mel made this film in the popular style he always makes films (I don't know why we would have expected any different from him), but it is the content of it that particularly makes it incredible.
You can go ahead and call me Marshall, but yes, I agree The Medium is the Message. But I would alter that slighty to say, The Medium is at least part of the Message. But the content is also very important and a large part of the message (I think, originally, Marshall had to be hyperbolic to make his point, because it used to be assumed that the content ALONE was the message). To say it another way, I don't believe that the Medium is ALL of the Message. Perhaps you fear that I think the content alone is the message, and thus you are saying, "hey aren't we saying certain things implicitly by the way or manner in which we tell a story? "
My short answer is: yes, I believe we do. And thus... does the movie the PotC say certain things implicitly about the most important story of all time by the way in which it tells it (namely the contemporary "action flick" style, which is, agreed, a lacking style)? Then my answer, once again, is: yes it does. But HERE is where you and I diverge. You find it a travesty that this story is "lowered" to this crude level of popular "action flick" style. Whereas I find the story of Christ to be capable of transcending even this admitedly "undeserving" style. Let me say it like this, "This movie is yet one more powerful telling of the most important story of all time IN SPITE of the fact that it is a modern popular styled movie!" An that, my friend, must give all the credit to the STORY itself. The content itself is what makes this a powerful film, just as when anytime and in any manner the story of our Lord is told it is powerful.
Certainly, some mediums and styles are far more effective than others. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But, I don't care if it is in "popular action flick style", "old silent film style", "dry academic writting style", "American Sign Language style", "church sermon style", "gospel writting style", "smoke signal style", etc, etc, etc. The amazing thing about this story is that it is incredible in any medium, in any way it is communicated. Yes, even this Mel Gibson popular movie style. And in our culture today -- unfortunately but still truly -- the majority of people are used to and interact most commonly with this Mel Gibson style. If that is the case, then Praise God! His story has been powerfully told in the style most common to people today.
For all of our criticisms of the takeover of the image over the word today, I don't want to ever think that we are immune to its affects. I, for one, know that I have been raised in this image driven media world and I am deeply affected by them (for better or worse). Thus, this movie strongly affected me. It probably would have affected a person from 1816 much differently (and, of course, their common mode of communication from the 1800s would affect me much differently than it affected them).
You say, "What I found was that it [the PotC} was about all of those things [big theological ideas] but in completely inappropriate cinematic language." And to conclude my point in opposition to that, I say: This film is made in the language common to today. I agree the common image-based language of today is lacking. Amen. But regardless of that, this is perhaps as good as this particular cinematic language can get. And, further and much more importantly, the story of Christ rides high upon whatever worthy or unworthy vessel it is placed upon. This film is outstanding precisely because it is about "all of those things" that we agree it is about, and completly in spite of the cinematic language it is presented in. To say it another way, this story of Christ will always be great in spite of whatever lacking language is used to tell it.
The last comment (finally... once again this is way too long... my apologies) I have is on your pointing out the centrality of the viewer. Once again, I completly agree. Absolutely, the proper interpretation of any communication rests a great deal in the viewer. For example, certainly someone could walk right up to an original Monet and say, "eh... no big deal." But does that determine the art's value? No. We agree there is brillance in Monet's work and if a viewer doesn't see it... then a viewer doesn't see it -- but that in no way degrades the art. Just because some people (who knows, perhaps many), will miss the ideas communicated in the PotC that does not degrade the PotC. It simply confirms that the onus is on the viewer to understand.
Blessings my friends,
And Andy, thank you so much for your insights and debate. You clearly are a more experienced student of film and I am a "newbie" to debates over this medium. Thank you for your grace. I'm sure many (or all) of my thoughts might be wrong. These are just my ideas at this point. Thank you for sharpening me.
-BJ
once again, I need to thank you -- and please, to all, I am not merely trying to be cordial or polite here -- but quite seriously, I am appreciative of our rigourous conversation and engagement here. Andy, I particularly want to thank you for "not letting me get away with anything." (Not that I am a Richard Rorty fan, nor do I believe truth has anything to do with what we think it is or let each other get away with... but in such a forum as this, we need to be accountable to one another, hopefully for the purpose of becoming stronger in our arguementation and development of thought). So once again Andy, thank you. As I read your responses I find myself continually murmuring that proverbial, "hmm" that seems to spring from my voicebox everytime I come across a particularly intelligent point (I think we all do that "hmm" whether we actually make the sound or not... know what I mean?).
Let's discuss this "baptism" scene a little more. It sounds like you agree with me in your last response that it was a powerful and important and "moving" scene that -- (for viewers like you and I) -- makes deep theological statements concerning the death of Christ for the sins of the whole world (even though the whole world is his enemy). My original discussion of your comments on it, however, revolved around your connecting it to an earlier Gibson movie Lethal Weapon. As you wrote, "He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the ...showering/baptism of the guard." What I was frustrated about was that it seems you are implicitly claiming that Gibson included the "baptism" scene so that he could reference his own work in a "pious" manner -- that is, that he was trying to give himself some props with the viewer, as if saying, "See that... isn't that great film making? Kind of like Lethal Weapon... remember that? Wasn't that great?" Actually, now I'm not sure if this is what you are claiming, or were claiming, that Mel is trying to do or not. But that was how I originally read it. What did you mean by this original comment? I supposed I am confused on it. Thus, what you and I agree to be a powerful theological idea portrayed in the image of the "baptism" of the guard, I believed you were degrading to being a mere "throwback" for Mel to previous films. I was shocked by such a comment. I could not even imagine thinking about something like Lethal Weapon when I was confronted so powerfully by this idea of Christ's unmerited sacrifice. So when I saw you draw the connection to Lethal Weapon (which for me seems about a billion miles away) I was left with the conclusion... Did Andy just miss the importance of that? Does he really think this scene is in anyway whatsoever connected to Lethal Weapon? But now you have clarified that you did indeed see the theological ramifications of the scene. And I think you were trying to just show how this movie was made in a similiar manner common to most action flicks today. Is this correct?
I hope this clarifies my admittedly harsh first reaction to your comments. I assure you I was not trying to be patronizing in my comments to you. No, I was simply surprised that when you mentioned the baptism scene, the one and only comment you make about is how Mel is refrencing Lethal Weapon with it... no comments at all on how the image is a powerful theological statement. I want to humbly apologize if I was offensive or patronizing in my initial reaction: such an appearance was not intended. Since you felt I was, once again, I sincerely apologize. I respect you and your opinions a great deal. I am simply trying to understand.
To move on to the substance of our disagreement, I'll try to summarize your position at this point: because the PotC is made in a similiar cinematic style as other contemporary films (and uses similiar images, i.e. Lethal Weapon/Braveheart) you fear that "the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of." You write, "Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style." I think you present your position most cogently with this one sentance, "the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter."
Alright then, here's response. 1) Yes, first off, the film DOES use the popular constructions of film making today. I don't deny that. This film isn't made in any dramatically different way than other mainline popular films (although, I contend within those basic constructions, it is done very well).
2) Then I want to say... OK.. So what? My mind immeadiatly jumps back to the major writtings of the New Testament, which were written in the everyday, normal, call them "popular" if you like, style, constructions, and uses of the medium. When Matthew wrote his Gospel, I'm sure someone could say, "Matt, this book is written in much the same style and conventions that you always write in. It's written in the common style of communication today. Don't you think this story deserves something different?" But I would disagree. I don't see how Matt's using the popular modes of communication in his culture is "Bad'. I don't see how that is a travesty to the subject matter. Should Matthew of chucked all normal forms of the use of that medium and tried to write in some radical wild way to tell this radical wild story? No, he wrote as he always wrote... but the content of the story is what made it wild and radical (as the story of Christ always does... more on that below). The same is true here with this film. Sure, Mel made this film in the popular style he always makes films (I don't know why we would have expected any different from him), but it is the content of it that particularly makes it incredible.
You can go ahead and call me Marshall, but yes, I agree The Medium is the Message. But I would alter that slighty to say, The Medium is at least part of the Message. But the content is also very important and a large part of the message (I think, originally, Marshall had to be hyperbolic to make his point, because it used to be assumed that the content ALONE was the message). To say it another way, I don't believe that the Medium is ALL of the Message. Perhaps you fear that I think the content alone is the message, and thus you are saying, "hey aren't we saying certain things implicitly by the way or manner in which we tell a story? "
My short answer is: yes, I believe we do. And thus... does the movie the PotC say certain things implicitly about the most important story of all time by the way in which it tells it (namely the contemporary "action flick" style, which is, agreed, a lacking style)? Then my answer, once again, is: yes it does. But HERE is where you and I diverge. You find it a travesty that this story is "lowered" to this crude level of popular "action flick" style. Whereas I find the story of Christ to be capable of transcending even this admitedly "undeserving" style. Let me say it like this, "This movie is yet one more powerful telling of the most important story of all time IN SPITE of the fact that it is a modern popular styled movie!" An that, my friend, must give all the credit to the STORY itself. The content itself is what makes this a powerful film, just as when anytime and in any manner the story of our Lord is told it is powerful.
Certainly, some mediums and styles are far more effective than others. I wholeheartedly agree with that. But, I don't care if it is in "popular action flick style", "old silent film style", "dry academic writting style", "American Sign Language style", "church sermon style", "gospel writting style", "smoke signal style", etc, etc, etc. The amazing thing about this story is that it is incredible in any medium, in any way it is communicated. Yes, even this Mel Gibson popular movie style. And in our culture today -- unfortunately but still truly -- the majority of people are used to and interact most commonly with this Mel Gibson style. If that is the case, then Praise God! His story has been powerfully told in the style most common to people today.
For all of our criticisms of the takeover of the image over the word today, I don't want to ever think that we are immune to its affects. I, for one, know that I have been raised in this image driven media world and I am deeply affected by them (for better or worse). Thus, this movie strongly affected me. It probably would have affected a person from 1816 much differently (and, of course, their common mode of communication from the 1800s would affect me much differently than it affected them).
You say, "What I found was that it [the PotC} was about all of those things [big theological ideas] but in completely inappropriate cinematic language." And to conclude my point in opposition to that, I say: This film is made in the language common to today. I agree the common image-based language of today is lacking. Amen. But regardless of that, this is perhaps as good as this particular cinematic language can get. And, further and much more importantly, the story of Christ rides high upon whatever worthy or unworthy vessel it is placed upon. This film is outstanding precisely because it is about "all of those things" that we agree it is about, and completly in spite of the cinematic language it is presented in. To say it another way, this story of Christ will always be great in spite of whatever lacking language is used to tell it.
The last comment (finally... once again this is way too long... my apologies) I have is on your pointing out the centrality of the viewer. Once again, I completly agree. Absolutely, the proper interpretation of any communication rests a great deal in the viewer. For example, certainly someone could walk right up to an original Monet and say, "eh... no big deal." But does that determine the art's value? No. We agree there is brillance in Monet's work and if a viewer doesn't see it... then a viewer doesn't see it -- but that in no way degrades the art. Just because some people (who knows, perhaps many), will miss the ideas communicated in the PotC that does not degrade the PotC. It simply confirms that the onus is on the viewer to understand.
Blessings my friends,
And Andy, thank you so much for your insights and debate. You clearly are a more experienced student of film and I am a "newbie" to debates over this medium. Thank you for your grace. I'm sure many (or all) of my thoughts might be wrong. These are just my ideas at this point. Thank you for sharpening me.
-BJ
posted by BJS at
3:14:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home