It really makes no sense. Hollywood execs see that Bible-themed, faith-based films do well, so Hollywood execs decide to produce more of these inspirational films, reaching out to the faith-based community to come and see the new movies. But the movies they produce make a mockery of the very faith of the people they want to reach. What in the world is Hollywood thinking?
It’s one thing for a producer or director or screenwriter to have an interest in a biblical theme and to want to put his interpretation on that theme, even if it offends a faith-based audience. That’s his prerogative – and if conservative believers decide to avoid the movie, that’s their prerogative, too.
But it’s another thing for a studio to want to capitalize on faith-based ticket sales, only to put out a movie that offends that very base. Why in the world would they do that? What would motivate them?
Do they think that as long as they choose a biblical theme, like Noah, that Bible-believers will come flocking to the theaters, no matter how wildly they distort the Scriptures? Or is that they simply cannot allow the message of the Word to really come through, deeming their artistic interpretation to be superior?
Again, I have no problem with Hollywood wanting to capitalize on a large, potential audience. If they can produce a powerful movie that will speak to millions of people and make money at the same time, that’s their business. And if they want to produce unbiblical movies about biblical themes simply to make an anti-God statement, that’s their business as well.
What I don’t get is how they think they can do both at the same time.
Writing on the RejuvenateMeetings.com website, Erin Levin reported, “2014 has been dubbed the year of faith-based films. Research from a number of firms shows that family-friendly, religious films are earning more money every year. … Earlier this year, Movieguide, a Christian advocacy group, published a study that found that in the top-25 category of best-selling movies, faith-based or family-friendly films averaged $87 million at the box office, while non-Christian themed films averaged $21.6 million.”
A case in point is “God’s Not Dead,” which “cost only $2 million to make.” In contrast, “The average production budget of a major motion picture was close to $100 million in 2009, the most recent figure available, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. And as of August, ‘God’s Not Dead’ had brought in close to $61 million in domestic gross sales.”
Obviously, Hollywood execs are quite familiar with these numbers, and they have followed carefully the success of other 2014 movies like “Heaven Is for Real” and “Son of God,” along with previous movies like “Courageous” and “Fireproof.”
Why, then, would they put out a movie like “Noah,” which the gifted, atheist director Darren Aronofsky famously called “the least biblical biblical film ever made,” while at the same time reaching out aggressively to potential faith-based viewers?
Go ahead and rewrite the Bible if you like. Just don’t appeal to Bible believers at the same time.
Yet Hollywood just doesn’t seem to get it.
“Exodus: Gods and Kings” is the latest, big-production, Bible-themed Hollywood movie that clearly misses the mark, although the producers did not seem to promote the movie to faith-based leaders as aggressively as “Noah” was promoted.
Either way, the movie represents a massive miss, as even non-religious critics are pointing out.
Film critic Drew McWeeny rated it one of the 10 worst films of 2014, stating, “Only a great filmmaker could botch something as broad and archetypical as the Exodus story.” McWeeney claimed that Ridley Scott “brings no insight at all to the story he’s telling, he ladles on spectacle for the sake of it, and he manages to fumble what should have been the single most awe-inspiring sight of the year, the parting of the Red Sea. Forget about the culturally-deaf casting or the weird portrayal of God as a surly 10-year-old. This is a dud on a simple dramatic level, and proof that just because you know how to craft a remarkable image doesn’t mean that you have anything to say.”
Really now, how in the world could you take one of the most supernatural stories in world history and make it so un-supernatural? How could you take such a massive story of redemption and fail to capitalize on that very theme? And, as a filmmaker, how could you miss the parting of the Red Sea? How could you not update De Mille?
Chris Arnzen of Cruciform Media exclaimed in his email report, “A movie about Moses without the PARTING of the Red Sea??? Come on!!! Why not take FULL advantage of the amazing technological advances now available in Hollywood, stick to the true biblical account and make the BEST PARTING of the Red Sea EVER SEEN (other than the one seen by those when it actually happened, of course).”
I understand that Scott doesn’t believe that the Sea really parted, but then why dramatize the biblical story in movie form if you don’t believe it really happened?
Arnzen also raised the same issue I’ve raised here, writing, “The thing I will never understand is why people who are in an industry where one of the top priorities has always been adding millions to their already overflowing wealth would create films that upset the primary audiences most crucial to appease in order to profit more abundantly (faithful Christians and Jews). Why do they continue to grossly disappoint & offend those who would have otherwise continued to feed their wealth by their eager promotion of the films they have created, not to mention multiple viewings of them, and subsequent purchases of DVDs, T-shirts, chachkies and paraphernalia related to these films?”
Does anyone have an answer? Can anyone explain this love-hate relationship with the Bible?
