Bella: a Powerful New Pro-Life Movie; But Will Christians Accept it?
by Martin Harold | View comments |
Print This Post
Scheduled for release in August, Bella bucks the desire to provide a neat and painfully obvious Christian message in favor of a realism and moral complexity that may affect the lives of women struggling with abortion.
In Passion: Films, Faith, and Fury, a recent British documentary on the tumultuous relationship between religion and film, a Christian filmmaker was interviewed concerning his involvement in the 1979 epic film Jesus. Also known as The Jesus Project, the film has been translated into hundreds of languages and show at gigantic screenings across the globe. The filmmaker described the project as being inspired by Christ’s own example of reaching the crowds through parables. Neither the documentary or the interviewee heeded the glaring paradox: Jesus isn’t a parable at all, but a literal retelling of Luke’s Gospel.
This anecdote highlights an established trend in Christian filmmaking. Rarely do Christian filmmakers produce films which are actually parables, metaphors, or otherwise lacking in overt Christian values or agenda. The emphasis on explicit message over subtle metaphor has impoverished many Christian films; realism and moral complexity are often lost beneath the desire to provide a neat and painfully obvious Christian message. Rod Dreher summed it up best when he described the moral blandishments of the Left Behind series as “The Gospel according to Ned Flanders.”
Metanoia Films, a new production company, has bucked this trend in their debut film Bella, which is slated for release in select markets mid-August. Its artistry and depth makes it a powerful testament to the culture of life, though paradoxically it’s not clear whether it will be lauded by many pro-life Christian viewers. Starring Mexican soap opera star Eduardo Veràstegui, Bella traces a day in the life of Nina, a young waitress who contemplates having an abortion. Nina’s position is a compelling one and her suffering is real and intense. So convincingly has Metanoia rendered Nina’s existential crisis, that many of the less observant abortion advocates see it a as movie that lies within the purview of their ideology, though uncomfortably so. Their short-sightedness can be forgiven — since when has a Christian movie’s message been transmitted without fuzzy treacle?
Conflicted, alone, and steeped in a culture that lacks faith and a firm grip on natural law, Nina’s initial choice of abortion is obvious. In an age guided by the value of personal autonomy, Nina sees the birth as doubly destructive to both herself and her child. What can possibly penetrate the ideological and emotional wall that circumstances have erected within Nina’s tortured heart? The answer is clear for many pro-life activists: love, mercy, and God’s grace. The circumstances faced by many women in Nina’s position is more often than not complex, rarely alleviated by logical argument or fear of damnation, though many still try to use these to dissuade women bent on abortion.
Bella derives its power from its depiction of God’s grace working subtly and mysteriously within Nina’s troubled heart. In one particular scene, a blind man asks Nina to describe what she can see; he forces her to concentrate on the beauty she doesn’t feel like perceiving. This scene sums up the whole action of the movie: the opening of Nina’s soul and heart to grace, love, and beauty. The primary instrument of grace is Eduardo Veràstegui’s character Jose, a character rarely seen in today’s cinema: a truly virtuous and self-sacrificing soul. He is present for Nina in her hour of need and creates the haven of love and mercy that opens her heart to the possibility of life. For those women who identify with Nina, it presents a similar opportunity for grace to penetrate their desperate and hardened hearts. At the Toronto Film Festival, whose prestigious People’s Choice Award Bella won, a woman was so moved by Bella she decided to keep her child and name her Bella.
Surprisingly, many Christian pro-life advocates are not receiving Bella with open arms. At a recent screening of Bella, the MC tried to rally the Christian crowd by asking everyone who supports Metanoia Film’s efforts to stand up: barely half the crowd rose from their seats. Secondly, I received an acerbic e-mail from an intelligent Catholic film critic which lambasted me for a passing comment on my blog which identified Bella as a pro-life movie. The critic’s main objection to Bella was its ambiguity. “The film,” the critic bristled, “never mentions the life of the unborn child which seems to me inexcusable for a film made by Catholics . . . People who are pro-life see the film as being pro-life, because they are told going in that the film was made with pro-life intentions. But people who are pro-choice think it is an affirmation of a pro-choice worldview.” In other words, this critic would only be placated if the movie had had an explicit Christian message.
A truly pro-life movie then is one which resembles a logically incisive pamphlet; this approach might score some points in the perpetual political power struggle, but its doubtful that it would have any effect on the Ninas of the world. Bella is powerful because it resonates on an emotional and spiritual level, penetrating through the half-baked NARAL arguments inculcated in so many women. Ultimately, reality doesn’t reflect tidy messages, and God’s grace is a mysterious reality. This movie, by not following the trend of Christian films which double as propaganda, will affect the lives of women struggling with abortion.
mharold@JPCatholic.com
http://www.jpcatholic.com/
Read more articles by Martin Harold
As an evangelical Christian, I have been extremely disappointed with the vast majority of so-called "Christian" films. In fact, I rarely go to see them because they are embarrasingly lacking in production quality, writing quality, and communication technique. I can think of only a handful of exceptions in 20+ years (Chariots of Fire and The Passion both come to mind as excellent exceptions). The primary problem is that most miss the very element that makes Hollywood such a powerful influencer of society: indirect messaging. It isn't that Hollywood is subtle in most cases, but rather that the message is delivered indirectly rather than directly. Direct messaging generally puts people on the defensive. They don't like polemics - whether the message is global warming or eternal salvation.
Indirect is not the same as vague. The messages inherent in films such as Chariots of Fire are not vague. On the contrary, they are more powerful because the entire film is used to convey the message, rather than some hokey dialog that tries to cram a 5-point salvation sermon into a contrived scene. But it seems to me that most people out trying to make "Christian" movies today don't fully understand either the medium or the basic elements of how to communicate powerfully.
The sign of a weak script and poor story to me is when the filmaker (or writer) has to have the characters "explain" things too much - it tells me they have failed in getting their message across. If the filmaker does his/her job well, the message is obvious without being spelled out.
Comment by Steve Sabin | June 18, 2007
Color me a unsubtle simpleton, a moralistic moron, but since when is a direct, unequivical Christian message a bad thing? Look, I understand and agree with all the criticizism made about popular Christian films, like the "Left Behind" series, but because the "Jesus loves me" crowd is sadly incapable of theatrical depth and polish in no way removes the obligation of Christians and Christian media to be blunt, bold, and direct. You know, like Jesus was.
And speaking of Jesus, He always spoke the law first, before He offered grace. he told people in essence, "Turn or burn". No sugar coating, no moral ambiguity, no subtley complex plot lines that could be interpreted as the listener liked. No, He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No man shall come to the Father except by me." (believe that's John 4:16) Now I don't know if you've been keeping up on current events, but that sounds pretty "obvious", and "spelled out" to me.
Christianity is all about uncompromising, harsh, narrow morality. I couldn't care less, and neither should you, about being sophicated and worldly when talking about something so starkly moral as choosing to murder one's unborn baby for one's convenience or allowing the child to live and be raised to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
And another thing, you know why Christian filmmakers are so "obvious" in conveying the essential message? Cause people, yeah including many church-goers, don't have the first clue what's written in the Bible and only have the vaguest, most limited concept of things like moral imperatives, natural law, absolutism, and "morally complex" stuff like that. People are stupid - clueless - morally and intellectually bankrupted - corrupted by a toxic culture of Political Correctness. Piercing that armor requires "explicit message over subtle metaphor".
Would I like it if Christian filmmakers produced films that were to Christianity what "Saving Private Ryan" was for moral clarity and national pride. Hell yeah! (pun could possibly be intended) But Christendom and the rest of Western Society is a lil' weak on the basics of morality right now so we need to save the "moral complexity" (whatever that means) until people are well grounded in the idea that there really, really, really is a God, and He really, really, really is Righteous and Holy, and He really, really, really will send your sinful ass to hell if you turn your back on Him. How's that for "obvious"?
Regards,
Julian Cate
Comment by Julian Cate | June 21, 2007
I believe what the author is trying to convey is that you can make a message clear without making it preachy and bludgeoning any semblance of story, plot and nuance. An Inconvenient Truth is preachy. Fahrenheit 9/11 is preachy. And Christian movies for the most part are preachy. And (unintentionally) comical in their acting and production. They're like B-class 1950's suspense movies - they're very difficult to take seriously. Here's an example: the movie Platoon is quite obvious in its message: war is bad and destroys the human mind and soul. Yet the lead characters don't get into trite, obvious, stilted conversations where the characters swap lines about how war is bad, why it's bad, and why we should never do it. Disregarding the overly-played politics of the movie itself, it serves as a good example of how to convey a message without making it feel like cheesy propaganda. Most Christian films pull off their message with about as much finesse as an after-school public service special. When your target audience is over 5 years old, you can leave just a little bit to their imagination or use nuance and subtlety to convey the central meaning. If you've done it right, the message will be well understood without the characters having to personally explain it by weaving it into unnatural, unrealistic, stiff dialog. I cannot speak for the movie being reviewed one way or another, but I certainly understand the point the author is trying to make about Christian film making.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 21, 2007
Patrick, I've been a fan of yours since the first time I read one of your comments, and now finally an article.
You know why the message in "Platoon" is so easily grasped by audiences without being verbally preachy? Because the underlying message, that war is terrible and destructive, is already in most everyone's weltanschauung - their worldview. You don't have to spell it out for them with stilted and contrived dialogue, because people are predisposed and their opinions have largely been informed ahead of time, to accept the message. So a few gruesome war scenes is enough to get the emotional impact from what is already understood and acceded to mentally.
But just so the salient point isn't missed, the moral of the story already corresponds and reinforces a widely-held, unchallanged view. Therefore, no need to have unnatural dialogues where the basis for the worldview is explained, because the values of that worldview are already residing in the minds of the audience.
Now, if I wanted to make a pro-war film and the message I wanted to convey to the American people was the war was not evil, rather through objective standards, could not only be justified, but could even be an ennobling enterprise. Then, you'd better believe I've got some 'splainin' to do. Because of course, those value judgements about war are sadly alien to the worldview of an overwhelming majority of Americans.
As an aside, I'm disappointed that you chose "Platoon" as a good example of subtly in conveying a message. It was the most stilted and false protrayal of Americans in Vietnam ever, and was about as subtle in conveying it's lies as fireworks on the fourth of July.
Likewise, the foundational assumptions in the Christian worldview are also alien to the vast majority of people. Subtly is out of the question. How do I convince people that murdering their unborn baby is a sin and criminal when they don't even believe in the existance of God, much less that they will ever answer for their sin and must have a propitiation to excuse them? Since everyone except me seems to think the some implied morality woven ever so invisibily into emotion-driven drama is enough, explain to me how that will overcome a worldview hostile to moral absolutism, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, and recognition of the sinful nature of man.
The reason Christian films are preachy, the reason I'm preachy, is because the Christian worldview is alien. We HAVE to explain the underlying basis for our moralistic prattling because its completely foreign to most. If everyone knew the Bible and excepted it as true, do you think Christian films would have to explain every basic point and preach the obvious moral lessons to be drawn from them over and over and over again?
No, I understood what the author was saying. If you'll re-read my post, I agreed and I now officially agree once more with all that's been said in criticizism of most Christian films. What I take issue with, and what the author suggests is so great about this film, is offering people facing a moral crisis emotional support instead of the Gospel. That being emotional and ambiguous about our moral stance is better than standing on the Word. That if the Ninas of the world reject the right choice and have abortions that we're (Christians) to blame for not coddling them through. If we'd only been less preachy, and not confronted her and kept silent about Jesus on the Cross, them she might not have gone away mad. It is that sort of emotionalism and therapy-culture mentality as the right kind of Christianity that I'm rejecting.
Regards,
Julian Cate
Comment by Julian Cate | June 22, 2007
I chose Platoon as an example simply because of its ubiquity and the clarity of its message. That's why I added the line, "setting aside the overly played politics". It's realism or correctness were never in question, just the way it got its political message across.
I understanding your reasoning. Christians don't need to water down their message. But at the same time, pulpits make better pulpits than movie theatres do. A little finesse would be nice. It's okay to tackle just one issue at a time. For example, a movie with an anti-abortion message can make use of characters who've experienced the trauma of having an abortion, showing the horrifying images of fetuses after they've been mangled and discarded like so much trash, utilizing a Christian character who plays a believable part in counseling the woman, and then portraying the lead character as happy versus guilt-ridden upon her giving birth to the child. The moral of the story would be obvious and universal, and you wouldn't have to have an overly-dramatized scene with a soap opera quality actor kneeling before an open window in the middle of the night with God's light shining through it and dramatic orchestra music tensely playing as she delivers a 5 minute speech explaining why abortion is wrong and why she feels guilty and conflicted. Aside from the poor acting and production making the film impossible to take seriously, scenes such as the one I just described (and described from experience based on flicks I've actually seen from the shelves of Christian book stores) patronize the audience. You can get the exact same message across by using a variety of other methods: imagery, storyline, good acting, believable dialog, etc. Most of the Christian movies I've seen are so pathetic in their production and so aggressive with their message that no one in the secular community can be convinced to watch them anyway, so they're preaching to the choir. Most people who go to see a movie don't do so so that they can hear a lecture and have an altar call. As I mentioned before, you can tackle one issue at a time. A film about abortion doesn't have to include end-times theology, Bible passage quotations, visitation by angels, or a dramatic clincher scene where the lead character walks into church, throws herself face down at the altar and gives her life to Jesus. I'm not saying those are bad things, or that you shouldn't tell people when they are wrong and sinning or share the gospel with them, but simply that you don't have to squeeze all that into an hour and a half long movie. You can't do it without destroying the story and making the entire thing seem completely contrived and unrealistic. This is the same reason why educational films aren't popular among kids, but cable TV is.
I don't think we're really at odds on the issue of Christianity. I don't mean to say that Christians should discard a Christian message and supplant it with emotionalism. I'm speaking only of the quality of Christian movies. And I don't believe we're in disagreement about Christian movie making not quite being all that it could be. As I mentioned, I haven't seen the movie being discussed, so I couldn't say one way or another if it was any better or worse than any other movie, but I do think the author has a great point about Christian film projects.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 23, 2007