Thimblerig’s Spoilerific Thoughts on Captain America: Civil War

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Captain-America-Civil-War-Divided-We-Fall-Poster-Robert-Downey-Jr

One of the benefits of living in China is that every now and then, the Hollywood studios decide to roll out their big films in our corner of the world, rather than in the United States, where you’d think they’d drop first. Of course, there’s quite a bit of irony in the fact that a Captain America movie would not premiere in America, but regardless, it’s still cool for us. And considering the movie has already made $84 million internationally [update: $200.2 mill], and has yet to open in the United States or even in my host country of China, I’d say it’s been cool for a whole lot of people.

So, yesterday my kids and I hopped a ferry from Shenzhen to Hong Kong with the express purpose of eating at McDonald’s Next, and taking in a viewing of Captain America: Civil War. It was a tiring day, but was it worth it?

civil warAbsolutely, it was.

As director Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange) tweeted yesterday:

I agree wholeheartedly with Derrickson. This is a trilogy where nothing erodes or gets lost from episode to episode. In fact, if anything, each installment builds on and improves on the other. Even my beloved original Star Wars trilogy wasn’t able to accomplish this, with The Empire Strikes Back unarguably the high point of the trilogy.

With Captain America, the films just get better and better, and this last installment is – by far – the high point.

Before I get into my thoughts on the film, I want to discuss the biggest, most glaring lesson that I took from the film. And no, this doesn’t involve spoilers.

The Goodness of Steve Rogers

Captain-America-image-1Ever since Chris Evans and the Russo brothers first suited up, I have been constantly blown away by the unflinchingly goodness of Captain America. This is a character that lives for doing the right thing, even when the forces of the world are arrayed against him. As we saw in Avengers: Age of Ultron, he has a strong moral code, and he tries to elevate his comrades to live by that same code, even as they make fun of him. He would sacrifice everything for the sake of his friends, including friendship when need be. He has such a noble character that he could almost pick up Thor’s hammer, and if he had, we wouldn’t have been surprised.

And while most of the other superheroes we see are tortured about one thing or another, in the Captain America trilogy, Rogers is only tortured by two things: not being able to help is friends in need, and the fact that he is a man out of time, that he was ripped away from all that he knew when he was thawed out in the 21st century.

And yet, Captain America is one of the most popular superheroes to come out of modern superhero films.

chris-evans-shirtless-captain-americaYou could argue that one reason that Cap is so popular lies in the fact that Chris Evans is, as my friend Jasmine said, just so hot. (Yeah, I put that image there just for you, Jasmine. You’re welcome.)

And while that might be the draw for a certain demographic, I don’t think Evans’ hotness has anything to do with the fact that I see kids here in China running around wearing red, white, and blue Captain America t-shirts.

Then what is it? In my mind, it boils down to the truth that Cap is the hero we all wish we had in our lives: someone who will stand up for us, and who will refuse to stay down on our behalf, because it will always be the right thing to do. But not only that, thanks to the Dr. Stark’s Super Soldier Serum, he has the skills to back up the stands that he takes. He’s like the Boy Scout’s Boy Scout, All-American, apple pie, Brooklyn, and all that jazz. Cap proves time and again that in the right hands, our absolutely good characters can be portrayed as absolutely good, and it can work. They don’t always have to go through a dark night of the soul to get there. (Hear that, Zach Snyder?)

This all speaks volumes about the Russo brothers and Joss Whedon, writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and Chris Evans. They chose to handle this potentially irritating and absurdly good character with integrity and consistency. Directing, writing and acting tortured characters is not such a challenge. Directing, writing, and acting good characters that maintain their goodness throughout, and doing so in a compelling way is nearly impossible.

But these guys have pulled off the nearly impossible.

But enough Captain America pontification. If you have not seen Captain America: Civil War yet, and you are trying to steer clear of spoilers, then steer way clear of this blog post. Because here there be spoilers.

***SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS***

I’m not going to take the time to summarize the events of the movie, as you can find that just about anywhere, including Wikipedia. Rather, I just want to give my thoughts.

• As anyone would know from watching the trailers, Captain America: Civil War could actually be called Avengers: Civil War. While it focuses most of the attention on Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, the filmmakers would have been hard-pressed to stuff any more Avengers into this film. And the amazing thing is that each Avenger has their moment to shine, and so the film doesn’t come close to feeling overstuffed.

captain-america-civil-war-will-change-the-mcu-even-more-than-the-winter-soldier-say-866418• I loved how both Captain America and Tony Stark are right, in their own way. It’s an interesting metaphor of how wars can really start – with a small disagreement that eventually billows out of control. And in wars, people get hurt. Civil War is no exception. And the fight at the end between the two of them feels earned, as compared to that other big superhero v. superhero film that came out earlier in the year. And I loved that the big issue between them isn’t resolved in the end. It gives us somewhere to go with the characters in the upcoming Infinity War films.

• I’m fascinated that Captain America, who has headlined three movies and been featured prominently in two others, is a character with no arc. Like James Bond or Indiana Jones, Cap changes very little, but rather demands change from those around him. Conversely, Tony Stark has been forced to go through several radical changes since he premiered in the original Iron Man, but with Captain America, this lack of substantial change works.

• The film’s humor is spot on. Considering the destruction of both property and relationships, the film has several laugh out loud moments. The strained relationship between the Falcon and Bucky being a great example, another being the expected quips of Spider-Man (more on him later). But the best example of use of humor in this film was anything that came out of the mouth of Scott Lang, aka Ant Man. If this film accomplished anything, it made me look forward to the next Ant Man film to see more of Lang, who played a decidedly BIG role in one of the best scenes of this, and just about any superhero movie that has come down the pike.

Oh, and while Stan Lee’s cameo was not so impressive, Rhodes’ (War Machine) response to it was priceless and perfect.

• Spider-Man. What can I say? Spidey has always been my favorite superhero, and while I enjoyed Tobey and Andrew’s turns in the red and blue suit, Tom Holland looks to be the perfect choice to carry the mantle. I love that he is actually the age that Spider-Man would be after just receiving his powers, and his immaturity shows. He is skilled, but not as skilled as he will be. And he is immature, just wanting to please Tony Stark, and so starstruck by his new relationship with him that he is unable to think for himself or entertain the notion that Stark might be wrong.

This film (and the end credits scene) are a nice setup to the new Spider-Man franchise, and I look forward to seeing what the filmmakers do with it (especially since we blessedly won’t have to sit through another tired Spider-Man origin story).

My one beef with Spidey in this film was that the CGI wasn’t quite as fluid as I would hope. There were moments that he looked cartoonish, which I hope that they fix when they make the standalone film.

• The trailer bait and switch. As with the trailer for The Force Awakens, the Russos did a great job making a trailer that made you think you knew what would happen, while in actuality, something else entirely was going to happen. Some examples: the almost Luke Skywalkerian Spider-Man trailers made it seem like Spider-Man would play a much smaller role in this film than he actually ended up playing. Also, the trailer made it appear that Bucky shoots down War Machine, when someone else altogether is responsible for that incident. I love when trailers do this, rather than just giving away everything, or not giving enough.

I obviously loved this film, but as I rode the ferry home writing notes, I realized that I had several questions:

  1. How did Zemo know that blowing up Vienna would help him to achieve his actual goal of tearing apart the Avengers? I know that he had studied the Avengers, and he apparently knew that Cap would go off to help Bucky after he framed him for the destruction, but how did he know that Iron Man wouldn’t support his teammate?
  2. Also, Zemo kept referring to December 16, 1991, the night that Stark’s parents were killed. How did he know that the Winter Soldier had something to do with it? Why did he even suspect it?
  3. How did Cap know that the Winter Soldier killed Stark’s parents, and when did he find it out? I didn’t take any bathroom breaks, but I don’t remember this being explained.
  4. Where did the Black Panther get his powers? I know the comic books explain this, but I felt like the film just wanted you to accept that he had them. That wasn’t quite good enough for me.
  5. How did Stark know that Spider-Man was Peter Parker?

These are minor issues, and perhaps some intrepid reader can help explain the answers to me.

So, in conclusion, this film just continues to build on the fantastic MCU that is being developed with such incredible deftness and consistent balls-out-of-the-park by Marvel. It makes me that much more interested and even excited to see what Scott Derrickson and Benedict Cumberbatch do with Dr. Strange, where Guardians 2 takes us, and what will happen with Thor and Hulk in Thor 3. Not to mention Avengers: Infinity Wars.

Let me know your thoughts!

Thimblerig’s Review • Risen

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

risen_posterWe’ve been living in an unusual time of cinematic history, where it has become normal to find a film or two aimed squarely at the Christian filmgoing audience in the local cinema at any given moment, often making decent box office. While the presence of so-called “Christian” films has become so much of a given that they are now even mocked by the entertainment industry, what has not been a given is the quality of the films. They typically resonate with the intended audience, but don’t typically make much of an impact outside of that demographic. And they’re usually destroyed by most critics, both secular and Christian, in the process.

Why is this? Well, the reasons have been discussed far and wide (including right here on this blog), and hopefully filmmakers and film producers are starting to listen. Perhaps they are starting to heed the call to look beyond the bubble when casting the vision for their films. Maybe the time is coming that films produced for us will stop naval gazing, that filmmakers will put the kibash on creating works of propaganda rather than works of art. We can only hope that producers will begin to see the value in (to paraphrase the late Prince) giving the audience what they need, rather than what they want.

With the exception of a few slight missteps, Risen has the potential to do all of those things. Risen is a bubble burster (is that a word?), where the filmmakers have made a Jesus movie that isn’t focused on Jesus, and in the process, they’ve made a film that is potentially accessible to a large and varied audience.

maxresdefaultIn the film, Clavius (Joseph Fiennes) is a Roman military tribune stationed in Jerusalem who is entrusted by Pontious Pilate (Peter Firthwith the responsibility of overseeing the execution of one Yeshua of Nazareth (Cliff Curtis). When Sunday comes, and the body has vanished from the tomb, Pilate orders Clavius to find the body and squash any trouble before the Emperor arrives to evaluate Pilate’s job as the prefect of Judaea. With the hourglass sand running, Clavius sets out to prove that Yeshua is dead.

The goal of Thimblerig’s Film Reviews is to see how well movies made by Christians (or with Christian involvement) accomplish the five challenges I set out in my article, What’s Wrong With Christian Filmmaking. Those challenges are:

1.  Take more risks

2.  Challenge your audience

3.  Provoke your audience by raising questions without necessarily giving the answers

4.  Recognize that art is art and the pulpit is the pulpit

5.  Tell good stories

The reviews are honest about what the filmmaker has done well, and where improvement is needed.  I humbly acknowledge that making any film is a huge achievement, worthy of respect, and I hope my reviews are read with that in mind.

So, now to Risen, with a slight spoiler warning.

1. Did Risen take risks?

Let me put it this way: I’m amazed that Risen got made.

First, when you consider the thrashing the “faith-based” audiences gave to Aronovsky’s Noah and Scott’s Exodus, one would think that no studio would have the nerve to play around with the biblical narrative again. But here’s a movie that took that narrative and flipped it on its head, examining the story of Christ from an entirely different perspective. And best of all, the filmmakers managed to do it in a way that didn’t make the audience feel disrespected.

Jesus-2Second, as I said earlier, it was a risk to make a Jesus movie and barely show Jesus, and not even say the name “Jesus,” rather opting for the Hebrew name, Yeshua. I also admire that the filmmakers went the route of casting a non-white actor in that role, acknowledging that Jesus may actually have not been blond and blue-eyed. This is something that Hollywood doesn’t even have the nerve to attempt.

Third, the filmmakers also took a bit of heat for portraying Mary Magdelene as a prostitute, something that is not supported by the biblical text, but was a risky choice that was good for the film. It made Mary Magdelene’s journey that much more powerful, seeing that she went from being “known” by the majority of the soldiers in the barracks to knowing and following Yeshua, to the point of being willing to die for him.

[As an aside, did anyone else notice what Clavius’s assistant called Mary Magdelene when Clavius said she was mad? “Perhaps she’s a witch, sir. Shall I have her stoned?” I really want to know if the filmmakers gave Tom Felton this line because he played Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films…]

Finally, the film took the risk of making the disciples look, as a group, like an absolute mess. When watching the film, you can’t help but wonder that this group of bumblers would actually be largely responsible for exporting the words and message of Yeshua to the world. Bartholomew is a blithering idiot, Simon Peter is a hothead, and the rest just stumble along barely making their way. The filmmakers were critiqued for this choice, but it holds true to the biblical account, and makes it even more amazing that the Christian faith actually made it out of Judea.

Kudos to the filmmakers for taking risks with this film.

2. Does Risen Challenge the Audience?

Risen was released by Affirm Films, which is one of the top studios producing, acquiring, or marketing films to the faith based audience. Recent projects have included War Room, Miracles from Heaven, Heaven is for Real and Mom’s Night Out. Affirm also publicizes itself as “the industry leader in faith-based film.” And so it’s not a surprise that Risen would fit that mold.

So, would the faith based audience be challenged by Risen?

Yes and no.

risen-clavius-marymagdalene-1024x304I think there are aspects that might challenge a Christian. For example, looking at the Scriptures from a different angle would challenge many. Evangelical Christians (who make up the bulk of that faith-based demographic) have a way of holding onto Scripture tightly, not permitting any deviation for fear of the corrupting influence deviation can have. This is understandable when dealing with exegesis and Bible study, but creates severe limitations on artistic interpretation.

In the case of Risen, the filmmakers have walked the tightrope of being true to the biblical account, but also taking creative licence in several different areas for the sake of the narrative. And for the most part it works, and the results may challenge some believers to be willing to look at Scripture from different points of view.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the film goes far enough in challenging that core audience. There are beats in the story that feel like they were added so that the faith based audience would be happy, and I desperately want my brothers and sisters in the film industry to stop making movies just to make us happy. At least not all the time.

For example, I was so excited to see that the film was dealing with a skeptic, but was let down that the film allowed us to see Clavius make the decision to become a believer. It felt like this choice was shoehorned into an otherwise excellent script in order to hit those beats that the faith based audience would demand.

Which leads us to the next point…

3.  Provoke your audience by raising questions without necessarily giving the answers.

As I said before, the film took us on Clavius’s journey from skeptic to believer, and I don’t know about you, but I long for the Christian film that doesn’t feel the need to show the skeptic making a definite decision. In fact, if Risen had ended with some question as to whether or not Clavius had believed, it might have been more effective in provoking conversation on the question of belief from the non-faith-based audience.

1122563Christopher Nolan’s Inception did “question” wonderfully well, and people still have arguments about that maddening ending with the spinning top. Was Cobb awake, or was he still in the dream? But our Christian made films have a very hard time with the concept of the ambiguous ending. I think we’ll be demonstrating a higher level of maturity when faith based audiences begin to permit ambiguity – at least from time to time.

4.  Recognize that art is art and the pulpit is the pulpit

Risen was good art until the last ten minutes of the movie. Things I really liked:

The setup, the action scenes, the character of Clavius and his interactions with Pilate, the investigation (even though I knew the answer to Clavius’s question, I was fascinated watching him try to figure it out).

I thought the scene when Clavius finally encounters Yeshua was wonderfully mysterious, especially when Yeshua vanishes, taking everyone by surprise. In that scene, Fiennes did a great job expressing everything he was thinking through body language and facial expressions, and you could imagine what was taking place in his mind as he wrestled with the truth about what he had just witnessed.

I enjoyed the disciples and their journey across the desert, loved watching Simon Peter develop in the short amount of time we saw him, thought it was brilliant that Clavius’s skills as a soldier was put to use helping protect this fledgling group of Yeshua followers, how it demonstrated the respect he’d developed with his assistant as they were found out in the ravine.

I enjoyed the way the filmmakers interpreted the fishing trip, and the dark figure on the beach yelling instructions. I even thought the healing of the leper was nicely done.

Screen Shot 2016-04-26 at 3.46.01 PMBut then we get to that last scene with Yeshua – The Ascension. At that point, we were taken out of the film and dropped directly into a pew. And compared to the artistry of the rest of the film, the scene seemed rushed and thoughtless, like it was there because the audience would demand it.

It was not the ending that the rest of the film deserved.

5.  Tell good stories

As the rest of my responses have insinuated, Risen did an admirable job with storytelling, much better than the typical faith-based film. The concept of the film was brilliant, and the execution was extremely well done for the first ninety minutes of the movie. If the film had found a way to wrap things up more quickly after that impressive scene with the flock of starlings, I would have said that the film was great, rather than just really good.

As it was Risen represents a huge step in the right direction for films being made and marketed to the faith-based audience. It’s a film I would gladly watch with friends who don’t share my beliefs, and I would feel no regrets or embarrassment (with the exception of the last ten minutes), which is not usually the case. It was extremely well cast and acted, the cinematography was good, the locations were authentic, the soundtrack fitting… I could go on with the things the filmmakers did well.

But the main shortcoming brings us back to where we usually find ourselves – the misguided attempt by people putting out faith-based movies to please and not challenge the faith-based audience, to give us what we say we want, and not what we need.

We’re past the baby food, y’all. We’re ready for some meat and potatoes.

By the way, Peter Chattaway at Patheos does a good job of getting information out about films that are of interest to the “faith based” audience. Here are some links to some of his stories leading up to the release of Risen.

Apparently, Risen was originally called Clavius. That seems like a good name change.

And in the original version, Clavius had a Jewish lover named Rachel. I really wish they’d kept Rachel in the final version of the film, as it seemed like Clavius would have benefited from that relationship.

Finally, Mary Magdalen was originally going to play a larger role in the film, going with the disciples to Galilee. I also wish they’d have kept this in, as MM was a well-formed character, as opposed to ten of the twelve disciples.

The Ballad of Dr. Bill Story, Christian Cardiologist

Tags

, , , ,

[This story is dedicated to Christian film critics who actually critique films made by their fellow Christians – just as they would any film – and don’t just give free passes because the films are made “in the family”.]

UntitledI want to tell you about my friend, Dr. Bill Story. Dr. Bill is a great guy; he coaches his son’s little league baseball team, teaches a couple’s Sunday School class with his wife every weekend, volunteers with his daughter’s Scout troop at an animal shelter as often as he can, and more. With Dr. Bill, what you see is what you get. He’s the real deal.

Dr. Bill loves his family, and he loves his work as a cardiologist. He became a doctor because he dreamt of using his gifts as a cardiologist to help share his Christian faith. He says that he wants to heal people’s spiritual hearts as well as their physical ones. He shares that vision regularly with men’s groups and church groups whenever he can.

Dr. Bill is an amazing guy.

Dr. Bill’s patients love him. They come mainly from the churches he visits, because they want to encourage and support Dr. Bill’s dream, and Dr. Bill works really hard to help them with their heart issues. He prescribes meds, diagnoses medical problems, and has even started working on surgery over the past few years, all within the confines of the churches who support him.

When you consider that Dr. Bill didn’t go the traditional route to become a cardiologist, it’s even more inspiring. You see, Dr. Bill trained himself. He read books, talked with others interested in cardiology, moonlighted in a surgery ward, used trial and error, and prayer. And the result? He has accomplished the amazing. He is probably the most dedicated doctor I know.

I really, really admire Dr. Bill.

Recently, Dr. Bill performed major open heart surgery in the main operating theater at the big university hospital in our city. It was huge, because it meant that Dr. Bill was finally going to be able to make an impact outside of his supporting churches. It was covered by all the big secular and Christian media companies, and – maybe you heard about it? If you didn’t watch the live streaming, you really should go back and watch the videos. There were some real harrowing moments when Dr. Bill nearly lost the patient because of some small mistakes (Dr. Bill is only human, after all), and there’s some talk that the patient will have lost some motor functions after he recovers, but he is alive.

Here are some reviews of that surgery, from some of the people who watched the live stream:

“Dr. Bill is a great man of God, and his surgery was an amazing testimony to the power of prayer. Just think about it – he was touching that man’s heart, and that man is still alive today!” Pastor Dale Srudge, Rural Heights, Alabama.

“If my heart stopped, I would want Dr. Bill to be the one to restart it. He has annointed, healing hands.” Mrs. Emma-Lou Johnson, 75. Johnson City, Tennessee.

“That was the best heart surgery I’ve ever seen IN MY LIFE! Dr. Bill is AWESOME!” Heather, 12. Chicago, Illinois.

“When I try to picture a great American Christian man of God, who is promoting American and Christian values from surgery to the sanctuary, from the pulpit to the prep ward, I think of Dr. Bill.” Dr. Ted Bear, DoctorGuide Magazine.

And best of all, because of the support of his church communities, Dr. Bill’s surgery was one of the biggest live-streamed surgeries of the year, receiving an A+ at SurgeryScore. The medical establishment had to pay attention, because the numbers of views were so impressive. There were even folks watching from as far away as China!

Dr. Bill’s life is just one big miracle after the other.

Unfortunately, this high-profile surgery brought out the critics. Biased secular critics said that Dr. Bill’s work was “sloppy”, “amateurish”, and “barely proficient.” Further, the secular critics had the nerve to compare Dr. Bill’s work to the surgeons out in Los Angeles who have been performing heart surgery for years. Given, those surgeons have lost fewer patients then Dr. Bill, and their patients who survived have had fewer complications as a result of their work. But when they look at Dr. Bill, all these critics can do is focus on his mistakes.

This shouldn’t be a surprise, because these critics are secular, and of course they would hold Dr. Bill to a different standard, because he is an outspoken Christian cardiologist.

But what I can’t understand is the Christian critics who do the same thing. The critic over at Christian Medical Today said that Dr. Bill’s lack of training made his operation “irresponsible”, and they suggested that he might want to reexamine how he’s going about reaching his dream. The critic at Relevant Surgery went further, expressing that Dr. Bill should just go back to administering basic healthcare clinics out of his church, but leave the heart surgery to the “professionals.”

I have this response to these so-called “Christian” critics who would attack their so-called “brother”:

Dr. Bill is a committed Christian, he really loves God, and he is doing everything he can to honor God through his surgery. His surgeries may not be as effective as those of his secular colleagues, and he might lose a patient from time to time, but is that really what matters here? After all, he’s only treating other Christians so why would we judge his medical practices by the “standards” of the world?

And don’t forget – surgery is really, really hard. It takes a long time, and lots of practice, and people to practice on, and lots of extra blood, and the scrubs and doctor’s gloves and such. It’s not cheap and it’s not easy, and not just anyone can do it.

Which brings up the big question: if these critics are such experts on doing open heart surgery, why don’t they go out and do some open heart surgery themselves? If they think being a cardiologist is so easy, why don’t they go out and unclog some poor fat bastard’s arteries and see what happens?

They don’t, because they can’t.

Remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds

All the critics can do is complain and make Dr. Bill’s life difficult, not to mention all of the other Dr. Bills out there in the world who could be inspired by his success. Are they jealous? Is their criticism a sign of spiritual immaturity? Maybe they’re just failed medical students who can’t stand seeing someone else become what they were not able to become. I don’t know.

But it’s sad. And it’s especially sad when you remember how great Dr. Bill is, and how wonderful and inspiring his life dreams are. Why can’t the critics just realize that, and get on board the Dr. Bill train, where the destination is Peace, Joy, and Happiness?

Dr. Bill has a big open heart surgery scheduled for the middle of summer, and rumor has it that he’ll be operating on his first atheist. I’m sure it will be publicized in all the big Christian podcasts, magazines, websites, and so on. When it comes, you can help Dr. Bill by making sure you support it. Gather your youth group, your Sunday school class, your small group Bible study, and buy the group licence to watch that live stream. Buy the Dr. Bill Study Guide and Prayer Journal and give a copy to your friends! Convince your pastor to use the four week preaching series, “Give Us A New Heart, the Dr. Bill Story Story” and don’t forget to invite seekers!

Most especially, go onto Healthy Tomatoes, the surgery review aggregator, comment, and give Dr. Bill a high rating. Remember, by doing all this, you will be helping to send a message to the Big Medical Establishment that we want more cardiologists, doctors, and surgeons just like Dr. Bill!

What’s REALLY Offensive About The SNL Parody of God’s Not Dead 2

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last weekend, Saturday Night Live aired a movie teaser that was a parody of the Pure Flix film, God’s Not Dead 2. In the parody, a religious baker is forced to go to court to defend God’s honor after she refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple.

As you might imagine, the response has been across the board. On the pro-SNL trailer side you have people saying this:

Cineblend called the parody “hilarious” and said that it was “one of their best pieces in the past couple of years.”

Buzzfeed said that the parody was “brilliant” and “spot on.”

Vulture said the parody was “inspiring”, although there may have been some tongue in the cheek of that one.

Others have been just as clear regarding their less positive feelings about the parody:

The Blaze said it was “sacrilegious.”

CharismaNews said it was “blasphemous.”

In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, actor Pat Boone called the parody “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, cowardly, “diabolical” and even demonic.”

And when Pure Flix founder (and most-active-actor) David A.R. White linked to a story about the trailer on his Facebook page, fans of the God’s Not Dead movies were quick to rush to the film’s defense, saying things like:

“This movie must have really rattled the enemy’s cage.”

“Evil will never let a good thing go unchallenged, and your movies are very good things. That SNL would mock you means you have arrived, Mr White. Your success is huge so go make more good movies!”

“If SNL did a skit about Allah, there would be a bloody war. Why is it ok to bash Christianity but no other faith?”

“The simple fact is that if they are mocking it, they are afraid of it. Despite the blasphemy and ignorant childishness of the liberals at SNL, this is a victory for Christians.”

“This is disgusting. But it qualifies as persecution, doesn’t it. If they hated us, they hated Him first, but I hate to see God almighty mocked this way. But it’s like what was said in the first movie. “How can you hate someone that you say doesn’t exist?””

And the kicker…

“Hell will be full of SNL individuals.”

Here’s the rub…

SNL was not mocking God.

I know, I know… the name of the parody is “God is a Boob Man”, which on the face of it, seems to be making fun of God and mocking those who believe in God, regardless of their faith (after all, “Allah” is the Islamic word for “God”).

But SNL wasn’t aiming at God with this parody, they were just using the idea of God to push the message of their parody video.

Using God to push an agenda or to earn a profit is something that people of all religious persuasions have done for years, including Christians.

So it’s not that.

SNL wasn’t mocking Christianity. 

Yes, there’s a line where the baker says, “Christians are the most oppressed group in this country.” But it’s not an unearned jab. A cursory examination of the comment section of any story about Christian persecution in America demonstrates that there really are Christians in America who feel that we are oppressed. Otherwise, there’s not another mention of the Christian faith anywhere in the trailer.

If SNL intended to mock the historical Christian faith, they could have done a lot more to “Christianize” the character. The baker’s not even wearing a cross necklace, for heaven’s sake!

So, if they weren’t mocking God or Christianity, who or what were they mocking with this parody video?

SNL was mocking the God’s Not Dead movies.

I think this is pretty obvious. The God’s Not Dead movies are infamous for the way they negatively portray people who are not Christians. With their villainous Atheist professors, their non-believing heartless businessmen boyfriends, their violent Muslim and Chinese fathers, their Satanic ACLU lawyers, their spineless separation of church and state school boards, they’ve done a pretty good job calling everyone else awful, and Christians the only good in the world.

Basically, they’ve been asking to be parodied for quite a while now. I’m just surprised it took so long before it happened on the big stage.

So we Christians can calm down on all the calls of blasphemy, sacrilege, and anti-Christianity. Parodying and mocking the films of Pure Flix is not the same as parodying and mocking God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Church.

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 5.58.01 AM[And if I might add, Pure Flix is acting in a dangerous and irresponsible manner by permitting and even encouraging the conversation to imply that they are the same thing. Pure Flix should be the ones stepping out and saying what I’m saying, but I don’t see that happening. It’s almost like they are happy for the controversy. It’s almost like they are fully aware that it emboldens their fans, and they know that SNL just gave them a big gift…]

But I’m getting off topic.

Let me just to say it one more time… THE FILMS OF PURE FLIX ARE NOT THE CHURCH. They are bits of entertainment in pop culture, just like superhero movies and sports flicks, and they are wide open to parody and ridicule as much as anyone or anything else.

That’s just a part of the game.

But having said all of that, Pure Flix was not the only target of SNL’s ire, and maybe not even the primary target. Or, maybe they were, but SNL just so happened to hit a more important target in the process of parodying God’s Not Dead.

SNL was mocking FAITH-BASED FEAR.

You know what I’m talking about, right?

I’m talking about the fear that Christians are losing something because of the color of a coffee cup at Christmas.

I’m talking about the fear that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to forcibly convert you to Islam.

I’m talking about the fear that same-sex marriage will turn Christians gay.

I’m talking about the fear that baking a cake for a gay wedding will somehow cause more harm than refusing to do so and going to court over the issue.

I’m talking about the fear that dark forces are plotting how to take our children and indoctrinate them into rampant social liberalism.

I’m talking about the fear that our neighbors are dangerous because they wear the head covering of a certain religion, or because they have different colored skin then we have, or because they come from a part of the world that makes us nervous.

I’m talking about the fear that public schools might teach our children about other religions.

I’m talking about the fear that took a low level state bureaucrat in Kentucky and made her into a folk hero for not doing her job.

I’m talking about the fear that encourages Christianity-themed movies that demonize just about everyone who isn’t a Christian for the sake of helping us feel better about ourselves as Christians.

I’m talking about the fear that we will soon be rounding up teachers and putting them on trial for mentioning the name of Jesus in a public school history class.

I’m talking about the fear that our faith isn’t as influential as it once was, that our voice isn’t as loud as it once was, and that our opinion doesn’t matter like it used to.

And this is the most offensive thing about the parody trailer, that it shows us who we really are, and what we’re truly afraid of. It shows us that we are not being salt and light as much as we are being pains in the butt. It shows us that we are being ruled by our fear in the eyes of the culture.

See, fear is a very powerful thing, but it’s not real. It’s based on what we think could happen, whether those fears are founded or not. And it’s not supposed to be a part of who we are as the Church, and it’s not supposed to be a part of who we are as individuals who claim Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

And yet in America we are letting fear set the agenda for just about everything we do on the public stage.

Christians, that’s just not right.

So, instead of getting upset and up in arms over the SNL parody video, we need to take it for what it is – a parody lampooning Pure Flix films, and a parody lampooning our un-Christlike fears, and a mirror reflecting who we can often seem to be as Christians to the rest of the world.

We should take it, learn from it, and let it encourage us to be the kind of Jesus follower that God wants us to be.

Not fearful.

And in the spirit of God’s Not Dead flooding their end credits with court cases that have little to do with the cases presented in their films, I leave you with a list of Bible verses that have everything to do with how a Christian should handle fear.

Psalm 23:4

Psalm 27:1

Psalm 118:6

Psalm 115:11

Psalm 103:17

Deuteronomy 31:6

1 Chronicles 28:20

Isaiah 41:10

Isaiah 41:13

Isaiah 54:4

Matthew 10:28

Romans 8:15

1 Corinthians 16:13

Hebrews 13:5-6

1 Peter 3:13-14

1 John 4:18

2 Timothy 1:7

Unpacking that God’s Not Dead 3 Teaser

Tags

, , , , , , ,

godsnotdead2In a recent post, I examined the cases that were listed at the end of God’s Not Dead 2 to see how well they applied to the fictional case presented in the film. My conclusion was that they did not. Click here to read that post, if you are interested.

In response to my post, a blog guest named Gail commented:

As to the teaser at the end of the movie–did you know that ministers in Houston, TX fought against the ruling that they were supposed to bring their sermons into City Hall to make sure they were not preaching against homosexuality–there is legal precedent to stand on here after all.

To clarify what Gail means, God’s Not Dead 2 ended with an ominous post-credits scene, in which we see Pastor Dave (David A.R. White) being taken away by police because he had been subpoenaed by the government to turn in his sermons.

This scene was included as an obvious Marvel-esque teaser to what would be coming next in the God’s Not Dead Cinematic Universe (GNDCU).

I was familiar with that case in Houston, and I remember being outraged when it happened. After all, you imagine some cold war communist government demanding sermons from churches, but not America. However, I hadn’t really done much reading about it in quite a while. So, inspired by Gail’s comment, I went and did some digging.

My digging produced three interesting things about that situation as it relates to the God’s Not Dead movies, and in particular – to the teased situation for God’s Not Dead 3.

First, in that situation in Houston, the subpoenas were issued as a part of the discovery process because some Christians had filed a lawsuit against the city of Houston. They’d filed the suit to try and halt some legislation with which they disagreed. The pastors, while not a part of the lawsuit, were intimately involved in the issue at the core of the lawsuit. You can read about that here.

Second, when overwhelming support came down for the pastors from the right and the left, the mayor bowed to the pressure and withdrew the subpoenas. The subpoenas had stepped over important boundaries, and the mayor admitted it.

Then the pastors sued the mayor for subpoenaing them in the first place, but the suit that was ultimately dismissed by a federal district judge.

Third, and this one is the kicker: many liberal groups – including the ACLU – came down on the side of the pastors. In fact, during the heat of this, the ACLU issued a statement in support of the pastors which said, among things:

“The government should never engage in fishing expeditions into the inner workings of a church, and any request for information must be carefully tailored to seek only what is relevant to the dispute.”

Do you think God’s Not Dead 3 will be based on any of that reality?

Will they change the story to show that Pastor Dave’s sermons were subpoenaed because Christians had sued the government, and not because someone was suing Christians?

Will they truly rip the story from the headlines and have the charges dropped when everyone realizes that subpoenaing a pastor for his sermons is a massive overstepping of civil liberties and legal boundaries?

And the big $60,000,000 question – will the same filmmakers who made the ACLU the black-hearted villains of GND2 have the courage to have the ACLU supporting the civil rights of Pastor Dave in GND3 – as they do in real life?

Only time will tell, I suppose. But to be honest, I’m not hopeful.

Reel Life Imitates Real Life? Really?

Tags

, , , ,

godsnotdead2-1Pure Flix has posted the list of court cases they show at the end of God’s Not Dead 2 in a post entitled “Real Life Imitates Reel Life.” (Actually, it should have been the other way around, since the movie was supposed inspired by events in real life. But, that’s not so important).

As you might know, God’s Not Dead 2 deals with a teacher who is sued for discussing Jesus in a history class. The film has been described as being a “wake up call” that is “ripped from the headlines.” As a part of proving the legitimacy of the film’s premise, the filmmakers chose to show a long list of court cases that supported their case.

The interesting thing is that if you look over the list, twenty-three of the cases were situations where a Christian sued someone else, and only eleven were situations where a lawsuit was brought against a Christian – as happens in the film.

And it’s even more interesting that none of the cases mentioned dealt with a teacher being sued for mentioning Jesus in a high school history class, or any other similar situation. In fact, only one case involved a classroom (Brooker v. Franks), and that was a case where a student sues their university. Incidentally, that case was also in the list given in the credits of the first God’s Not Dead.

In Brooker v. Franks, a student was given an assignment that went against her religious beliefs (dealing with adoption and homosexual couples), and so she sued the university, and the university very quickly settled the case out of court. This all happened over ten years ago, and you can read more about it online by searching for “Brooker v. Franks.” I’d especially recommend that you read the professor’s point of view, as he is also a Christian, and claims that he allowed the student to do a different assignment.

But things get more interesting when you look at the bulk of the cases. Thirteen of the listed cases dealt with issues of homosexuality and twenty-two dealt with abortion/healthcare issues. If the filmmakers had chosen their fictional protagonist to take a stand based on her convictions on one of these issues, it would have been a much gutsier move. As it is, the story in the film is just fantasy, and the court cases mentioned, when properly scrutinized, don’t seem to do anything to bolster the legitimacy of the film’s premise.

gods-not-dead-2-1And considering the storyline for God’s Not Dead 3 that was teased in the end-credits scene of GND2, it seems like that film will have even fewer legal precedent legs to stand on.

Thoughts?

After writing this, I came across a more thorough examination of the cases over on Patheos’s The Friendly Atheist. A reading of that more complete dissection demonstrates that Pure Flix’s inclusion of the list of court cases doesn’t actually help their argument at all. But, I suppose just having the list breeze past makes the core audience feel better, because if it’s up there, it must have deep meaning, right?

You Don’t Have To Be An Atheist To Dislike God’s Not Dead

It’s okay if you don’t like a Christian movie.

Regardless of how Christian media companies are pushing the films that have been coming out recently in an attempt to “send a message to Hollywood”, if you think a Christian movie is a bad movie, then it doesn’t mean you are a bad Christian. In fact, having such feelings might just mean that you are experiencing some detachment from American Cultural Christianity.

And that’s not a bad thing.

godsnotdead2For example, this weekend, God’s Not Dead 2 was released, and my Twitter page was filled with people Tweeting: “I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God” – Grace Wesley   . I found myself wondering why people were so excited by this movie, when (in my opinion) the first movie was such a poor example of a movie.

Hey, Christian, if you also feel that way, then it’s okay. It doesn’t mean that you are any less devoted to Jesus because you don’t like a movie that the Christian media industry is insisting that you like. Jesus based salvation on grace and his finished work on the cross, not how many faith-based movies we see.

Maybe your church purchased the God’s Not Dead 2 Church Kit ($59.95 at the God’s Not Dead 2 website), and your pastor used the provided sermon outlines to preach about the movie for a month of Sundays. And you couldn’t help but wonder: What the heck is my pastor doing preaching sermons provided by a movie company?

This should make you uncomfortable. In fact, you should probably schedule a meeting with your pastor to discuss his choices for Sunday morning messages.

But it doesn’t mean your own salvation is at risk. It might just mean that you are experiencing discernment. And that’s a good thing.

Did your cousin buy multiple copies of Rice Brooks’ Man, Myth, Messiah which was so subtly promoted in God’s Not Dead 2, and has she been giving them out to friends and family, hoping that the apologetics presented will convince someone to come to faith in Jesus?

While your cousin might have her heart in the right place, maybe you find yourself questioning this action as well. After all, you see big faults in the film that featured the book, such as the false persecution narrative that might just end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy…

…and well, you’re just fine thinking that. It doesn’t mean that you are somehow less mature as a believer.

You are likely still a faithful Christian.

Back to your cousin: certainly you can appreciate your cousin’s motivation, and there are probably lots of good things to be learned from the book. But maybe you could take the time to explain to her how these God’s Not Dead movies affect many atheists. Maybe you could discuss that many atheists watch them and are deeply offended by the way the films turn them into moustache twirling cartoons, demonized and villianized, and that the very audience that the movie purports to be trying to reach are likely to become closed to the message because of the way they are portrayed.

And then maybe you could recommend a different resource for your cousin to use to reach people: your cousin’s own life.

Maybe your well-intentioned cousin could simply live out her testimony, loving her neighbors, and demonstrating how Jesus has impacted her, changed her, and made her a new creation.

Perhaps you could explain to your cousin that she doesn’t need a movie or a high-priced movie resource to do this. Encourage her that a personal testimony is free, and much more effective than than a movie or a book.

At the end of the day, Christian movies are just movies, and you, as a Christian, are not beholden to them. They are a business like any other business, and they were made by people just like you and me, people with a myriad of motives and hopes.

But if you aren’t inspired or encouraged by a movie, faith-based or not, then it’s fine, because regardless of the importance that many Christian media companies place on the new Christian film movement, at the end of the day, they aren’t Scripture.

They aren’t reality.

They are just movies.

And if you don’t like a Christian film, then it’s perfectly alright. You are not any less of a Christian for not liking it.

And don’t let anyone make you think otherwise.

 

God’s Not Dead 2: How Will it Do?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

godsnotdead2-1This weekend marks the release of the sequel to 2014’s surprise faith-based hit, God’s Not Dead. The new film, creatively called God’s Not Dead 2, is expected to do well among the target demographic, but only time will tell if Pure Flix has another megahit on their hands.

Hollywood screenwriters couldn’t have written the story of the first film, because nobody would have greenlit the production.

In that story, the writers would have invented a small Christian production/acquisition/distribution company and called it Pure Flix. That company would produce two or three feature length Christian films a year that would typically go straight to the DVD rack at the local Christian bookstore, and while the company would be solvent, it wouldn’t exactly be the next Disney.

As a part of this usual routine, the small Christian production company would release a low budget movie about a student working to prove to his atheist university professor that God is not dead. But, taking advantage of the new interest in the faith-based film genre, the company would arrange a wider distribution then usual for their films, getting it released in over 700 theaters.

maxresrrdefaultOf course, being a small film with no A-list actors, and being a “faith-based” film, most people wouldn’t have this movie on their radar. But, the writers of our little drama would create a massively successful grassroots marketing campaign that would cause the faith-based movie to explode out of the gate. And then, the little film with a budget of around two million dollars would go on to make over $90 million dollars, combined box office and home video sales.

And Pure Flix would live happily ever after.

Of course, if there’s one thing that is true, it’s that finding box office success is like catching lightning in a bottle. For Pure Flix, this has proven to be the case with the less than spectacular results of their follow up films, Do You Believe? ($14.5 million on a $2.3 million budget, still quite respectable, but undeniably the film was riding on God’s Not Dead‘s coattails) Faith of our Fathers ($1.3 million on an undisclosed, but probably pretty small, budget), Woodlawn ($17 million on a $25 million budget), to name a few. The company has also acquired and released several other smaller films, and has turned profits by keeping production costs low.

But the question remains: was the success of God’s Not Dead just an aberration? A fluke? A luck of the draw?

Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 1.54.28 PMThe folks at Pure Flix, in a series of pretty brilliant business moves, made the wise decision to not put all their eggs in the God’s Not Dead basket. For example, they took some of those GND profits and bought out a fledgling faith-based streaming service, turning Pure Flix into the premiere faith and family filming streaming service. Finally, the name “Pure Flix” makes some sense as a faith-based alternative to Netflix. Second, they took some more of those profits and developed their own U.S. theatrical distribution wing that would enable them to put more of the box office revenues back into the company rather than into the coffers of the traditional distributers. Also, they invested even more profits in building up their international wing, Quality Flix, in an attempt to build the reputation and potential revenue for that coveted international audience.

Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 2.25.44 PMWhat they didn’t do with that money is decide to give away their ministry materials. So yes, for $22.95 you too can purchase a God’s Not Dead 2 DVD study kit. This stands in opposition to smaller faith-based films that gave away their study kits, including Captive and The Young Messiah.

Come on, Pure Flix… you can do better than that.

But I digress.

All in all, whether or not you appreciate the films released under the Pure Flix banner, you have to appreciate that they have developed a good business model.

Which brings us back to what is arguably the most anticipated film on the Pure Flix slate, God’s Not Dead 2. Box-office-wise, there are three possible outcomes of this film’s release:

1. GND2 will flop, and not earn back its budget.

This won’t happen. Although Pure Flix hasn’t released the budget of GND2, I’m guessing it’s probably around $10 million (edit: they released the budget, and it was $5 mill). GND2 would have work pretty hard to not make that back considering the fact that GND was such a hit. It also helps that GND2 will be bowing in over 2,000 screens, which is three times the number of theaters as GND. So, making back the budget is pretty much a given.

252881heh2. GND2 will repeat or surpass the success of the original.

This won’t happen. God’s Not Dead was a bonafide phenomenon, and it’s extremely difficult to replicate something like that. And considering that this film has mostly a new cast and no A-list actors, there isn’t anything new to bring in a new audience.

3. GND2 will turn a respectable profit, but nowhere near GND.

This is the most likely option, and it’s all about the timing.

GND came out in 2014 during “the year of the Christian film,” when the genre was just starting to gain traction. Since that time, we’ve seen plenty of faith-based films bomb at the box office, even with the occasional success story. GND2‘s big challenge is that a swarm of other faith-based films were released in the past six weeks (Risen, The Young Messiah, Miracles from Heaven, TV’s The Passion), and so God’s Not Dead 2 will be going up against some pretty serious faith-based film fatigue.

The faith-based film fatigue will mean that GND2 will probably not see the multiple viewings or experience the FOMO factor that we saw with GND in 2014, and those things are the keys that make a small budget genre film like this become a phenomenon.

That being said, the film will do better than most would in this climate because of franchise name-recognition.

And so, my prediction is that God’s Not Dead 2 will end its run at about $40 million. Not bad on a $5 million dollar budget.

(edit: as of April 11, the box office is just over $14 mill, so it looks like my estimate was quite high. Still, profit, but not a phenomenon like the first one.)

(edit again: now, this is interesting. The day GND2 was released, it was #4 in the box office, and #5 was another faith-based film, Miracles from Heaven. After April 1, GND2 slipped behind Miracles, and has stayed behind it every day since, even though Miracles was released three weeks earlier. So, GND2 wasn’t just not a phenomenon, but it couldn’t even beat another faith-based film that has been out three weeks. Miracles has earned over $50 mill on a $13 mill budget, btw. Source: Box Office Mojo.)

THE FUTURE?

Regardless, GND2 will be financially successful, which means that in a couple of years we can expect to see God’s Not Dead 3, officially making this series the first serious theatrical faith-based film franchise.

In celebration of that fact, I’d like to suggest to Pureflix that they open up the naming of GND3 to the internet. I have to admit that my motives are not entirely pure in this suggestion, as such a competition would likely give us a film named something like God’s Not Dead 3: Boaty McBoatface.

And that would give me unending joy.

Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 2.10.48 PM

But there are some other interesting ramifications of this new Christian film franchise for Pure Flix… could it lead to the creation of a GNDCU? Just like Marvel has the MCU, could we have a whole series of spinoff films from the God’s Not Dead universe?

I can see it now – God’s Not Dead: The Martin Chronicles. In this film, Martin (the Chinese student) returns to China to prove to his strictly traditional atheist father that God is, in fact, not dead, and is surely alive, and he could take the Newsboys with him to help prove it. (Note to Pure Flix: “Newsboys” in Chinese is “新闻男孩”)

GND:TMC could be made in partnership with a Chinese film company, and could be the movie that really puts Quality Flix to work, opening the door to the company being the first faith-based entertainment company to do serious business in the soon-to-be largest film market in the world! Of course, to be accepted by Chinese censors, they’d have to take “God” out of the title, and probably most of the overt Christian language. But still, it could mean new chapter in the life of Pure Flix Entertainment LLC.

But regardless of what the long term future holds, in the short term, God’s Not Dead 2 will surely be opening in theaters this weekend, and will make plenty of money, even while being panned by most critics (my Rotten Tomatoes prediction? 18%).

But the question remains – will the movie be good? That’s a question for another blog post.

For my (somewhat snarky) review of the first God’s Not Dead 2 trailer, click here.

For my (not-so-snarky) review of God’s Not Dead, click here: Part I and Part II.

A Response To A Hopeful Screenwriter

Tags

, , , , ,

I recently received an email message from an individual looking to promote their screenwriting. I was putting together a response and I realized that the advice I was giving this individual might be useful for others also looking to “break into the business.”

Here is the original email, unaltered except for taking out the writer’s name and location, followed by my response:

Hi my name is — . I live in — and I know that you’re on the other side of the world. I just had to ask do you by any chance know anyone that is interested in a  religous short screenplay? It has won three film festivals but is not getting the exposure/attention I wanted it to get.  I even have a great TV pilot ,but I have no way into breaking into this business as I have no agent. Plz contact me if you can help in any way.  Thanks again. 

Dear —,

Thanks for writing, and for asking my assistance in finding filmmakers to connect with your screenplays. Unfortunately, I don’t have any filmmaking friends who have announced that they are shopping around for new material, so I really can’t do anything for you in that regard. However, if you are really serious about having your work read and potentially produced, I have a bit of advice. You can take my advice, or you can ignore it with extreme prejudice – it’s your choice.

First, don’t ever, ever, ever take this cold call approach when trying to market your writing. Serious filmmakers are serious about their business, and they typically don’t pay attention to messages from people they don’t know. In fact, a cold call message is a pretty good way to make sure that your writing is never read.

Don’t cold call on the phone or email, don’t send unsolicited screenplays, don’t write unprompted self-promoting messages on Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media outlet in an attempt to try and get someone to read your work. There are appropriate channels for getting your writing out there, and these are not them. So, do a bit of research, and use the right channels to get your writing into the right hands. It’s a bit of effort, but if you are serious about being a writer, you should be willing to put in the hard labor to accomplish your goals.

Second, take care with how you craft your correspondence. When you write to people in the industry, make it professional and formal, especially when they are people you don’t know. Don’t dash off quick emails on your phone, but take the time to write proper business emails with correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Use proper greetings and sign off your messages properly as well. The old cliche about not getting a second chance to make a first impression is a real one!

Also, avoid assuming familiarity, even if you feel like you know the person because they might have a familiar public persona. For example, don’t use internet shorthand like “Plz contact me”, as that’s a great way to ensure that people won’t, in fact, contact you. Let your correspondence communicate seriousness, and you stand a better chance of being taken seriously.

Keep in mind that none of this may matter, and your well-crafted message may be deleted just as quickly as your hastily jotted message. However, it might also be that a well-written letter would be such a novelty to your target reader that they actually stop and give it a glance. Stack the odds in your favor as much as possible.

Third, if you are really serious about “breaking into the business”, you need to go to the business rather than waiting for the business to come to you. In the film industry, the business is Hollywood. So, that means that if you are able, you should consider a move to the West Coast. But if you do, be patient, as the numbers of unemployed writers using free coffee shop wifi in L.A. attest to the fact that overnight screenwriting success is the stuff of fairy tales. Be prepared to work and wait.

When I was taking part in the Act One Screenwriting program back in 2007, industry professionals told us over and over that a screenwriter can expect a minimum of ten years between setting out to be a writer and actually making a living at it. I’ve seen this played out in the careers of other Act One alumni. Of those who stuck to screenwriting (and many have not), most are just now starting to come into their own, and we’re coming up on the ten year mark.

Also, remember that this pattern holds true when the writer is actually living in Hollywood while trying to develop their writing career. If you choose to live outside of Hollywood, the likelihood of industry success decreases exponentially. You can still be a writer, but you may have to go about it differently.

Fourth, do it yourself. If you really believe in your writing but you’re also too impatient to go the traditional route, then make your film yourself. Study the business of filmmaking, find some like-minded creatives, get a decent digital camera (use your iPhone!) and invest in some editing software, put together an Indigogo campaign, and build your writing into an indie film project. It won’t be easy, and the end result might not be so great, but when the credits roll you will have gained experience and put your ideas onscreen, which is a substantial accomplishment in and of itself.

The bottom line is – if you are serious about being a screenwriter, then you have to be willing to take it seriously. Learn the craft, give it all of your energy and focus, and then be willing to fail, because most hopeful screenwriters do just that.

But anything worth doing is worth risking failure, I think.

Best of luck with your writing!
Nate

Web: www.thimblerigsark.com
Blog: thimblerigsark.wordpress.com
Facebook: /ThimblerigsArk
Twitter: @RNFleming

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,025 other followers