Thimblerig’s Review • Ben Hur

ben-hur-final-posterI need to begin this review with a confession: I am not a fan of the 1959 Academy Award winning version of Ben Hur. I saw the film on television when I was a kid, but it didn’t make much of an impression on me one way or the other. I respect that the movie won so many awards, and I appreciate the influence the film had on a generation of film lovers, but even with all of that in mind, I simply don’t get the hostility aimed at filmmakers who would dare remake a movie that came out over fifty years ago.

While I appreciate that people like the old film, is anyone really so invested in that particular story that they’re willing to be upset that it’s been remade for the modern age? Especially considering that the 1959 film was a remake of a remake itself?

Maybe there are. And if so, then obviously nobody will make these people see Ben Hur, and they can live their lives as if it never happened.

However, I think the more relevant question is this: is Ben Hur (2016) any good?

My answer? Yes, it is good. And at the same time… no, it isn’t.

But I’ll get to all that in a moment. First, a bit of voiceover narration to set the scene.

The latest incarnation of Ben Hur is an unusual animal: a wide-release $100 million dollar secular film that has been promoted strongly to the faith-based audience. It’s understandable that Hollywood would do this, because the faith-based audience has proven that it will show up for the right project. But finding that right project has not proven easy.

To help shepherd the faithful to Ben Hur, Paramount and MGM brought in Hollywood’s premiere faith-based power couple, Roma Downey and Mark Burnett, as executive producers early in the film’s development. This was an unprecedented move, and presented a huge opportunity for faith-based films to enter the mainstream. Unfortunately, opening weekend box office returns do not bode well for the film, or for the experiment. As of this writing, the film has made about $20 million combined domestic and international, and films typically don’t gain momentum after that opening weekend.

[Insert chariot joke here]

It really is a pity that it’s gone this way, because – Rotten Tomato score notwithstanding – Ben Hur is actually an enjoyable movie. It is not going to repeat the awards success of the 1959 movie, and it was far from a perfect film, but it did what a big summer flick is supposed to do: it entertained.

What I liked about Ben Hur (minor spoiler alert):

1. That the leads were not big names.

It’s been argued that the film has not attracted the audience it could have attracted because the main actors are not household names. I can see this, as audiences crave familiarity, and there’s a reason why certain actors command huge salaries. Ben Hur’s only well-known actor was Morgan Freeman, and he plays a supporting role.

In this case, I actually appreciated that I didn’t know the actors who were playing Judah and Mesalla because they seemed real to me. I wasn’t distracted by having Bradley Cooper or Tom Hiddleston (he considered the role) looking back at me every time they were onscreen. It allowed me to be more immersed in the film.

2. It was not a white-washed Bible movie.

Considering the criticism Hollywood has received recently for white-washing films, it’s pretty stunning that Ben Hur’s filmmakers largely avoided this trap. For example, Jack Huston (Ben Hur) has Jewish roots, Rodrigo Santoro (Jesus) is Brazilian, Nazanin Boniadi (Esther) is Iranian-born, Ayelet Zurer (Naomi Ben Hur) is Israeli, Morgan Freeman (Ildirim) is African-American, and the list goes on. This diversity in casting gave the film increased authenticity, and the filmmakers should be applauded for this. Strangely, I’ve seen very little celebrating of Ben Hur‘s diversity from the folks who typically love to point out this issue.

Of course, now people are calling Ben Hur an example of “straight-washing“, so… I guess you can’t win.

3. Timur Bekmambetov

WACVNS_D005_04477I love that this big budget Hollywood Bible epic was directed by Kazakhstan’s most famous film director. This is showing some bias on my part, as I lived in Kazakhstan for fourteen years, and my wife is Kazakh. But Bekmambetov is famous for a reason: he has a unique style and voice as a director that he’s shown over and over, and he was able to bring a lot of that unique vision to this film.

Bekmambetov’s style worked especially well in Ben Hur’s big action set pieces. The sea battle was amazing, because it was so claustrophobic. Bekmambetov kept you locked in the galleys with Ben Hur, with only quick tantalizing glimpses at the battle that was raging outside. It was a stunning visual example of the power of showing less, and it was incredibly effective. The same could be said about the infamous chariot race, where fast cuts, thumping sound effects, and unexpected camera placement put you right into the heart of the race.

In short, thanks to Bekmenbetov’s direction, I was never bored with Ben Hur. Unlike most films that are categorized “faith-based”, the film kept my attention from the beginning.

4. There wasn’t much Jesus in this faith-based film

I’ll also be talking about this in my negatives section, but I was so glad that this faith-based Bible period film didn’t show very much Jesus. In fact, the most effective scene involving Jesus didn’t show him at all. In this scene, Judah was talking to Esther while she’s going with a group, palm fronds in hand. It’s pretty obvious that they’re heading to Jesus’ Triumphant Entry, but there’s no mention of it, and no follow up. It’s like an Easter Egg (pun intended), and it worked. I wish they had used this sort of subtlety more.

5. It felt like a real movie.

This point is huge for a faith-based film, and hopefully reflects a new age for these sorts of films. Most faith-based movies have a distinct “made-for-TV” feel. When you watch them you realize that you really wouldn’t have missed anything if you’d waited and watched the film on Netflix (or one of the Christian versions of Netflix). Ben Hur is not this sort of film, and seeing the big set pieces on the big screen definitely enriched the experience for me (although 3D is not necessary). The film also has a distinctively epic feel to it, and it is firmly and distinctly grounded in the right era, with great attention apparently paid to detail.

If you don’t get to see it in the theater, at least make sure you watch it on a worthy home theater system.

6. Giving away ministry resources

This doesn’t have to do with the movie per se, but more with the marketing of the movie and recognizing the difference between ministry and commercialism.

It’s become common for Christian movies to develop ministry resources for their films, with the hopes that pastors and Bible study groups will purchase copies of the movie for viewing, and purchase study materials to go along with it. It’s actually a pretty big money-making component of faith-based films, and an unfortunate part of the development of a “Christian film industry” that often seems more enamored by profit than outreach.

And almost all of the big faith-based filmmakers do this.

But Ben Hur is an exception. Yes, the filmmakers developed ministry resources, but somehow they were able to convince the bean counters that ministry resources should be free.

Look what happens when you search for Ben Hur on Lifeway, the big Christian retailer.

Now, look what happens when you search for War Room.

And God’s Not Dead.

And look what happens when you go the Ben Hur official ministry resource page. Everything is free.

I have nothing but respect for the fact that Downey and Burnett have decided to give away all of their ministry resources. Kendricks, Pure Flix, everyone else – this is how it should be, especially if you are making big money off your movies and can already afford to pay your writers.

You can read more about my thoughts on this subject here, How George Lucas Helped Shape The Christian Film Industryif you are interested.

What could have been better about Ben Hur:

The movie was good, and I enjoyed it, but there were also some big problems. They weren’t big enough that they soured the movie for me, but they were still problems.

1. Use of Voiceover

jack-huston-stars-as-judah-ben-hur-and-morgan-freeman-is-ilderim-in-ben-hur._V1_SX1024_CR001024575_AL_The film starts and ends with voiceover narration. I understand that you’d probably be a fool not to use Morgan Freeman’s voice if you have it, but even so, it was not necessary. In fact, it is rarely necessary. Don’t waste time telling me what you want me to know, jump right into showing me what you want me to know.

Not a fan of the voiceover, even with Morgan Freeman’s glorious pipes providing it.

If Mr. Bekmambetov had asked my opinion, I would have suggested that they start the film with Judah and Messala racing the horses as kids – establish that they are close from a young age – maybe even have a moment where their race is interrupted by the sight of Roman soldiers to establish how much Messala admires the Romans, then they start racing again. Do a “ten years later” thing and drop us into the race as young adults that they show us and pick it up from there. Forget the initial glimpse of the chariot race, forget the Morgan Freeman voiceover, just drop us right into the action.

And by the way, what happens at the end of Judah and Messala’s initial horseback race was wonderfully unexpected. The lady beside me literally shrieked and nearly fell out of her chair. It was delightful.

2. There was too much Jesus in this faith-based film

ben-hur-movie-clip-screenshot-jesus-the-carpenter_largeNow, I know that above I mentioned that it was good that the film had so little of Jesus, but to be honest, they could have done with much less. I’ve heard the term “shoehorned” used to describe Jesus’ part in this film, and I would agree wholeheartedly. It was like the filmmakers stopped Ben Hur several times to interject a scene from an entirely different Jesus movie. I wish they’d gone more subtle – as the original did. Faith-based audience needs to learn to embrace subtlety and not have to have things so in-the-face, a lesson that I hope Burnett and Downey learn from this experience.

By the way, I do recognize that the filmmakers could have gone nuts and done a whole lot more with Jesus in this movie, and I’m glad that they didn’t. I just wish they had done less with him.

3. Ben Hur’s Redemption

This one has taken me a while to process, and it’s a big one. I liked Huston in the role of Judah Ben Hur. He carried the film well, and he demonstrated that he is a very good actor. But as I thought about the movie afterwards, it occurred to me that the character ultimately didn’t work – and it came down to Ben Hur’s redemption.

The more I thought about it, the more I didn’t get it. Why would hearing Jesus say that he was willing to die by his own free will matter? Why would seeing Jesus crucified change him? Why would Jesus looking at him while he says, “Father forgive them” cause him to fall to his knees in repentence? Yes, knowing what I know about Jesus, I get it. But in the context of the story, I didn’t.

Ultimately, I didn’t buy Ben Hur’s descent into hatred and unforgiveness that needed to be redeemed in the first place. Judah, as played by Huston, seemed like a fairly nice guy through the entire film. He didn’t seem consumed by a thirst for revenge, just a desire to see his family.  And when Messala came to meet him in the abandoned Hur house, I didn’t get the sense that Ben Hur wanted to do anything more than punch him in the face, which he did. Where was the rage? Where was the hatred? It would have helped if Ben Hur had really let loose on Messala, so that the troops breaking in actually stopped him from murdering his brother.

5. The healing of the sisters

Benhur-13Healed by the rain of the crucifixion? Please. Yes, I know this happens in the 1959 movie, too, but it was just so convenient and contrived and typical faith-based “trust God and he’ll solve all your problems” theological nonsense.

Considering how Biblically accurate Downey and Burnett have wanted this film to be, why go so far off The Book? Jesus heals the women himself in the original novel, and I wish the new movie had gone that route. Or, they could have gone an even riskier route and had the sisters not be healed at all.

6. The ending

Which leads me to the ending. Really? They’re all back, happy, like nothing ever happened? I know that reconciliation and forgiveness were the themes of this movie, but what about consequences? What about dealing with loss? In the original novel, Ben Hur and Messala do not reconcile. In the 1959 movie, they reconcile as Messala dies after the chariot race. In this version? They’re all happy, back together, and going off to live with Morgan Freeman.

This detail sets this incarnation of Ben Hur apart from any earlier versions, and not in a good way. Unfortunately, it’s what we’ve come to expect from faith-based films.

7. The pop song in the end credits

I really don’t have anything more to say about it except this: what a terrible, terrible idea, to freeze frame the boys on their horses and turn on this pop song, the name of which I don’t recall. I’m sure the song is probably fine as far as pop songs go, but it was completely jarring and unfitting to the rest of the movie. A bad decision.

8. The shaky cam

My last criticism is a small one, but it’s worth mentioning. While I do like Bekmambetov, I so, so, so dislike the shaky cam. I know that it’s supposed to create a sense of being “in the moment” and urgency, but to me it just makes the action hard to follow and gives me a headache. I was so glad I wasn’t watching this in 3D.

And so, there you have it. My thoughts on the 2016 redo of Ben Hur. My final prognosis is that the movie is pretty good, is brilliant in parts, and is well worth the price of admission as a big summer movie.

And while I don’t typically subscribe to this point of view, if you are a Christian who wants Hollywood to make more fare that recognizes and respects your faith, you really should go see this movie, and convince your friends to go as well.

Remember, Ben Hur is a big experiment being conducted by the studios. They want to see if they can make a big budget film that you will enjoy, that you will pay to see. If the film ultimately fails, it will quite possibly be a long time before we see another like it. We’ll be relegated to nothing but the little micro-budget movies like the Kendricks and Pure Flix make. Given, those movies have their place, but it would be a shame if they continued to be our only option.

Not to mention that non-Christians who would never go see a low budget Christian-made film will possibly go see Ben Hur, partly because it’s a big budget summer movie, and partly because they saw the 1959 movie and are curious what the updated version will do. This non-Christian viewer will possibly be affected by Ben Hur’s redemption in a way that I wasn’t, and it might be an important point on their own journey of faith.

And that would be worth the price of admission.

By the way, if Ben Hur fails, it might not be the end of big budget faith based films.

As Yoda tells Obi-Wan at the end of Empire, “There is another…”

And his name is Mel.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

An Outsider’s View of the Variety Purpose Summit on Faith and Family Entertainment

As a reviewer and commentator of Christian media who lives in China, I’m used to being on the outside looking in. If there’s a new movie released aimed at the “faith-based” audience, then I will see it, but it will often be months later. I read about deals being made and productions being planned, but it’s always from a great distance. Even with regular communication with friends who work full-time in that industry, and even though I’m able to stay on top of news about the industry thanks to the web, I’m still on the outside, far removed.

Don’t get me wrong. I love living in China, and I’m convinced that it is exactly where God wants me to be. But I feel like – and forgive the Flash reference – my Earth 2 doppleganger moved to Hollywood, made it as a screenwriter, and was just nominated for his fourth Earth 2 Emmy.

Yeah, the Earth 2 me lives on the inside, no doubt.

But every now and then, God throws the Earth 1 me a bone to help me not feel completely cut off; a glance or a step inside this niche industry that fascinates me so much.

Header_Purpose_2016-1This time, the bone I was thrown was a press pass to the Variety Purpose Summit, held Friday at the Four Seasons Beverly Hills in Los Angeles. This was an amazing gathering in which I was able to stand in the same room as many faith-based media movers and shakers as well as studio big-wigs, and I was finally given the chance to see first hand what happens when the curtains are pulled back.

Variety did a great job assembling professionals with many years working in Hollywood on all sorts of different levels, and these industry insiders talked at length on a variety of issues. Panels dealt with issues such as “Faith and Culture in Mainstream Entertainment”, “Succeeding in Family Entertainment and Faith-Based Finance and Production”, and “Multiplatform Family Entertainment and Faith-Based Storytelling”, to name just a few.

I want to focus on a few things I learned throughout the day.

Christians are alive and well in the heart of Hollywood

Over and over, I was introduced to producers, writers, directors, and investors who are people of faith and who have a desire to make great, accessible stories for everyone, and not be boxed in by the “faith-based” label. These filmmakers are working on projects with the big film studios that are broad and non-didactic, involve A-list actors and directors, and they are attempting to make films that people both inside and outside of the church would find accessible.

And church? They need our support.

But hang tight, church… I’ll be talking to you later.

Two such filmmakers that stood out were Michael Carney and Matthew Malek, Carney is the writer, director, and producer of the upcoming Same Kind of Different as Me with Renée Zellweger, Jon Voight, and Greg Kinnear, and Malek is the producer of Martin Scorcese’s Silence, with Liam Neeson, Andrew Garfield, and Adam Driver and which will be released later this year.

During their panel, both Carney and Malek emphasized over and over that films don’t have to be overtly Christian to be used by God, that art that is “good, true, and beautiful” will hit the mark (Malek). Furthermore, Carney pointed out that prior to the success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, there was really no such thing as the Christian or faith-based film genre. Films that dealt with Christian themes and ideas did so organically as a part of their wider genre, and they often did so very well (Chariots of Fire, Shawshank Redemption, The Mission, for example). “Shed it!” Malek said, speaking of the faith-based category. “God’s going to do what God’s going to do!”

The Christian filmmakers in attendance received the message enthusiastically, but I’d like to suggest that they really aren’t the ones who need to be convinced. History bears that the “faith and family audience”, that coveted enormous demographic, only wants to support Christian-made films written and designed to preach to the them, and until that audience opens its mind and allows Christian filmmakers some leeway, we’ll continue just getting more of the same.

That said, it made me hopeful to see how passionate so many Christian filmmakers seemed to be about this issue.

Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It

This trip to Hollywood was not the first filmmaking bone that God had tossed my way. The first was a month-long intensive screenwriting course I took in in Hollywood back in 2007 with Act One, a Christian organization that tries to help prepare believers to survive and thrive in Hollywood.

As well as learning about story structure, character building, and dialogue, Act One also taught students the realities of life in the business of filmmaking. We learned that 2007 was a significant time in the history of filmmaking in general and faith-based filmmaking specifically for two reasons. First, it was only three years after the release of Gibson’s Passion, a film whose success had caught Hollywood completely guard and whose success Hollywood wanted desperately to repeat, and second, the wider film industry was still in the midst of trying to figure out how the internet could be utilized as a delivery form for entertainment.

Since that time, people have started to figure out how to profit from the power of the internet (Netflix, Amazon, to name a few), but according to what we heard at Friday’s summit, most still have no idea how to reach that massive faith-based audience. After Gibson’s film, most studios quickly developed faith-focused divisions to try and recapture the lightning in the bottle, but attempts, with a few notable exceptions, have been largely unsuccessful.

IMG_6906Many of the panelists were the ones working in the trenches (DeVon Franklin, CEO of Franklin Entertainment and producer of Miracles from Heaven and The Star, an upcoming CGI faith-based film; Brian Bird, Executive Producer and showrunner of the cult favorite Hallmark show, When Calls The Heart; Steve Wegner, producer of the Dolphin Tale movies and Blind Side, to name a few), and they spoke about their experiences helping guide studios through the undiscovered country of successfully reaching a faith audience.

Several panelists also talked about the many non-traditional grassroots methods used in an attempt to mobilize believers to support the films and television programs being made for them. Methods discussed ranged from inviting pastors to early screenings of the films in an attempt to get them on board with the project, developing study materials where believers could explore the ideas raised by the films from a Christian context, and cultivating large followings on various social media platforms to help energize audiences when new films are being released.

thirty_three_ver10Sometimes these attempts have worked (Heaven Is For Real, God’s Not Dead, War Room), but just as often (maybe more often) they’ve failed, and the films haven’t lived up to their financial potential. A telling example came from Catherine Paura, the co-head of marketing for Alcon Entertainment, who spoke of her frustration when they were trying to market The 33. The film had all the right ingredients to be a hit with the faith audience: it was an inspirational true story where people in a potentially tragic situation survived at least in part because of their faith; it featured Antonio Banderes, a popular A-list actor; and it was designed to fit square in the category of a solid faith-and-family-friendly film.

“We did everything right,” Paura said, speaking of the marketing, but when the film opened the faith audience just didn’t turn up, and the film fared poorly at the box office.

Of course, one could argue that Hollywood is constantly in the business of trying to figure out the audience no matter the demographic, and the fact that they are so invested in figuring out the faith-and-family audience just means that there are enough of us to make us worthy of that investment.

The Value of Story

Throughout the day, panelist after panelist emphasized the importance of telling a compelling, well-crafted story. This is a message that all filmmakers need to hear, but especially those filmmakers and audiences (typically in the “Christian film” genre) who think that message trumps story.

Risen_2016_posterProducer Patrick Aiello shared that they took two years honing and perfecting the script for Risen before they began shopping it around.

“It’s all about content,” Matthew Malek insisted, reinforcing the idea of the power of a good story.

When moderator Jack Hafer asked his panel what the most important thing a content creator should consider when pitching, Steve Wegner said something that should surprise no one, but faith-based screenwriters should take to heart: “I have to love the story.”

Not the message, not the motivation for writing the script, but the story.

Another primary ingredient to good storytelling that was discussed across the panels was recognizing the value of being true to the characters and the situation, not being content to settle for caricatures and forced narratives. Esther Kustanowitz, a writer who also consults with filmmakers as a Jewish Community Consultant emphasized that “stories have to be authentic.”

The panelists seemed to share the idea that you influence through artistry, that you enable change by showing people their potential on the screen through story. “Government doesn’t change people, Hollywood changes people,” said Reza Aslan, CEO of BoomGen Studios. As an example, Aslan discussed Vice President Biden’s comment that America’s thoughts on homosexuality changed as a result of Will & Grace, not because of legislative influence.

Agreeing with the power of entertainment to affect change, DeVon Franklin added that people of faith need to learn to use that same instrument of well-told stories and empathetic characters to change the popular narrative that Christians are bigoted, uneducated, narrow-minded hypocrites.

What Was Unseen and Unsaid

For the most part, I thoroughly enjoyed the day, and felt like my peek behind the curtain was time well spent. As I’ve been digesting my thoughts on the event, I’ve come away with two critiques of the event. These critiques don’t have anything to do with what was said, but what was unsaid, as well as who was unseen.

Unsaid

The elephant sitting in the back of the ballroom, undoubtedly noticed by everyone but not spoken about by anyone, was actually not an elephant at all, but a big red dragon named China.

Nobody, on any panel, at any time, said anything about the dragon.

This didn’t really occur to me until after lunch, when I was looking back over my notes, realizing how Ameri-centric the vast majority of the conversations had been. While there were a few references to international markets over the course of the day, the summit itself didn’t include any conversations regarding how the faith and family market can expand outside the 50 states into the international market, particularly China.

This stood out to me, partly because I live in China, but also because just the day before I’d made my way to an IMAX theater in West Hollywood to watch Star Trek: Beyond. As the producer credits were rolling at the beginning of the film, the logo for Alibaba – one of the biggest companies in China – appeared.

hqdefault

Even as an outsider, I know that everyone in Hollywood is trying to crack the China nut (so to speak) and figure out how to put films on screens in what will be the world’s biggest entertainment market in just a few years. At the same time, Chinese producers and media companies are trying to figure out how to profit off of American-made properties. Variety magazine itself has published story after story about this, and yet the summit didn’t have a single discussion on the issue.

This was a glaring omission to me, but I hope that next year there will be at least some energy devoted to taking our faith-and-family projects into China and other parts of the world.

[If you are interested in this subject, I’d invite you to read an article I wrote on this blog a few months ago, addressing this very issue. Read my analysis of the situation here.]

Unseen

War-Room_300While there were definitely many heavy-hitting super-knowledgable and experienced filmmakers at the summit (both on the panel stage and in the audience) I was surprised that there wasn’t more representation by well-known faith and family filmmakers who feel called to make films that do preach to the choir.

I would like to have seen and heard from more of the people who have released films that were aimed squarely at the faith audience over the past year, such as the Kendrick brothers, Kirk Cameron, the Erwin brothers, David A.R. White, etc. But with a few notable exceptions (Franklin, Bird, Aeillo), there weren’t many filmmakers speaking from the front who are making explicitly faith-based films.

While the event definitely supported my long-held contention that Christian filmmakers need to be making broad, accessible films, it would have been nice to have had a bit more balance with some more focus on the other side of the issue, examining questions like:

What is the vision of those who are called to make films that preach directly to the choir?

How do they see their films being used outside the church?

What are their successful business models? Are they different than those making broader films?

And it would have been nice to explore this question with folks making those films: can we make films that will both preach to the choir and also be embraced by the congregation?

[edit: an insider friend sent me the following message:

“I feel like some of the people you felt were missing from the discussion have actually been guests and even sponsors in the past.”

I responded:

“That makes sense. But having not been before, it seemed like a strange omission, especially after the big movies of the past year. And maybe it seemed even stranger because there weren’t really any discussions about (contrasting) the two ways of approaching the issue.”]

Takeaway

There were so many good things said at the summit and so many years of experience represented that I was overwhelmed to be a part of the event. I was humbled to be in the same room with people who live their lives focused on making films that will benefit and encourage and give hope, and the experience made me realize how much we folks on the outside need to be praying for wisdom and guidance for our brothers and sisters on the inside.

But folks on the outside? The problem isn’t Hollywood. The problem isn’t the filmmakers. The problem has been – and continues to be – us.

Us. You and me.

The Big Christian Audience.

This has been my contention since the beginning, and hearing all of these professionals talking about their projects, their desire to see their faith lived out in good films on the screen, their desire to be artists who happen to be Christian rather than “Christian artists”, I kept coming back to the truth that the art these folks are creating will be directly impacted by what we, the audience of faith, are willing to support.

And the problem is that we, the Big Christian Audience, tend to be overwhelmingly lacking in vision, only supporting those films that fit into our narrow interpretation of the Christian life. We are largely not interested in artistry, not interested in subtlety, and apparently not interested in films that can evangelize – considering that so many of us don’t care at all about the opinions of people outside our subculture regarding the films that are made for us. We are only interested in revelling in our status as “underserved”, demanding that Hollywood continue to service us, and we only care for those films that tickle our itching ears.

Frankly, this is something that Christian filmmakers and Hollywood simply have to deal with, and dealing with it is not an easy job, by any stretch of the imagination. But, for the fortunate few who manage to hit the right beats and press the right buttons, incredible profit awaits. And so they will keep trying.

IMG_6884It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out later this month when MGM and Paramount release it’s $100 million dollar epic remake of Ben Hur, a film that has been made for a wide audience, but which has also been made with incredible sensitivity towards the faith-based audience, even going so far as to bring on Mark Burnett and Roma Downey early in the process to help shepherd the process.

Will the Big Christian Audience turn up for Ben Hur or will they stay away? One of the things that the summit clearly demonstrated to me was that investors and studios will be watching, and the movies we will see being released in the next few years will be greatly affected by the answer to that question.


A special thank you to Variety magazine for extending me the press creds, and Hollywood, it’s been a blast! I’ll see you when the next bone has been thrown!

Thimblerig out.

IMG_6886

Thimblerig Goes Hollywood

Header_Purpose_2016-1
I’m excited to be attending the Variety Purpose Summit on Friday this week as a member of the press, and will be reporting on the summit here on the blog as well as on Twitter, which you can follow here. This summit, sponsored by Variety magazine, looks at the state of faith-based media, especially focusing on television and movies.

Look for up-to-date information about what’s going on in the world of Christian entertainment, possible interviews with industry insiders, and reports on what it feels like to be a plebe in the middle of a conference like this.

Also, if anyone else who reads this blog will be there, I’d love to meet up for a cup of coffee and say hello! Just drop me a line.

Hollywood, get ready for Thimblerig!

hollywood_618x216_big