Blue Like Jazz, a brief review

I may come back and add to this review in the future, if you would like to read the original review, click the link at the bottom. 

I'm good at laying my cards on the table, so I will do so right now. I didn't like the book. I generally don't find Donald Miller's writing very compelling, save for Searching for God Knows What. That said, I loved Blue Like Jazz.

Beginning with a surreal (albeit) poorly paced opening of Donald Miller, played with reserve by Marshall Allman, Blue Like Jazz knows exactly where it needs to go. The film starts in Texas, at a fundamentalist church where Miller is content to simply exist without much rigorous thought. After a familial incident, Miller's perfect life is upended and he runs away into the godless Northwest United States to Reed College, where he experiences drinking, drugs, bi-curious girls and social justice. But, he cannot escape his background, or the Deity that seems to follow him.

Blue Like Jazz does not equate itself to being a Christian film. This does not suggest that Christians are not involved or that there is any lack of Christian themes in Blue Like Jazz, but the nature of the film is not sermonizing. Don's encounters with various students, from a dude dressed in a Pope outfit to a girl involved in Christo-centric social justice, showcase the turmoil of a man caught in the whirlpool of messy, post-conservative Christianity in a staunchly secular and hurting world. *For a discussion on "christian films."

I'll confess, I found this to be quite accurate in relation to my own spiritual journey. Having a personal conversation about God at midnight with an agnostic dressed as a beer can comes to mind. Blue Like Jazz touches on this sort of almost transcendental interaction, but also the failure of the church. Not in that the church, as a whole, has failed; rather, in the lives of some people pursuing truth, the church is very capable of providing invisible walls to run into. Blue Like Jazz is honest enough to not avoid the walls, but to show that they can be overcome. We see this in pastors, scholars and parents, both in reality and in this film. Blue Like Jazz never harshly condemns, but rather shows the linger effects of blind trust. 

The style of the film is reminiscent of Garden State, with abstract shots of astronauts in space and on earth. Director Steve Taylor, through his use of music and tone, manages to create a genuinely idiosyncratic film. However, the biggest fault of the film is the pacing, with the introduction running far too long. Not much in the way of character development, though there are attempts, until Don packs his bags for college. Once that picks up, the pacing picks up, but there are still instances that bring the film to a grinding halt. Like Don and Pope placing a giant condom on the church steeple. Funny. Necessary in regards to a certain character. But it takes far too long to set up and execute. 

Blue Like Jazz is a quirky little film that is filled with honest questions and a genuinely humble ending that is as far from an alter call as one can imagine. However, the ending is far more impactful and quiet than I anticipated, leaving me lost in thought for a long time. For a documentary that more actively engages with the idea, check out Lord, Save Us From Your Followers. Its on Netflix instant. 

In many ways, the silence and subtle shift of perspective is far more powerful than an alter call. This is where Blue Like Jazz excels. The point of it is not atonement theory or proclaiming systematic theology. This is not Wayne Grudem or Thomas Oden. This isn't even really Rob Bell or Tony Jones. In some ways, I saw a little N.T. Wright in there. However, the point overall seems to be more towards simply living as one ought to live in order for the gospel to bloom. People see the good deeds other do, and they want to know why. The point is living gospel. Helping the poor. Listening to our enemies. Empathizing with other people's failures. 

Possible spoiler:

Don's final comments about being "ashamed of Jesus" ruffled some Christian's feathers. However, the context is powerful in that Don is confessing to a person who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful man of God. Being "ashamed" is actually the most telling sign of a truly repentant heart. Shame and guilt often showcase our fears and our reaction in tune with the Spirit. Allowing God to move in most mysterious ways. 

End possible spoiler.

I'm ashamed of Jesus in that I constantly fail to live up to his perfect example. I'm ashamed of my own failure and the failure of those that profess belief in the same God I love. And that is the pinnacle of Blue Like Jazz. It recognizes the failure of humanity in response to the cross, and the example put forth by both king and servant, Jesus. 

The gospel reigns in Blue Like Jazz. 

3.5 out of 5.

TCM/Blue Like Jazz

--Nick

Jonathan Martin, "Christianity Today and Blue Like Jazz"

I'm a fan of Martin as a writer and as a pastor. His podcast is awesome. So check this out.

I did indeed read Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz.  I liked Miller’s book because I thought it was funny and honest. I found it refreshing to buy a book in a Christian bookstore that was well-written (not generally criteria for publishing “Christian” books).  It did not change my life or even my mind about anything in particular, so I am not some rabid apologist for the book (and I don’t know Don personally).  I have not yet seen the new film.  But I don’t think I need to in order to call out Christianity Today for their frankly absurd new review.

While the reviewer does not give the film a unilaterally negative review, they ultimately gave Blue Like Jazz 2 and 1/2 stars for, well, if you understand what you are reading–not being Reformed enough theologically: “Separating ‘Christian spirituality’ from the fundamentals of the gospel message means, in the case of Miller’s book, an emphasis on feelings and experience, on social justice and an individual search for truth. Little traction is given to the mortification of sin, to the atoning significance of the Cross, and so forth.”  Or later, “But Christ and the Cross don’t much factor into the story, making it seem like a big swing of the pendulum, from the legalism of the Christian Right to the social causes of the Christian Left.”

Here’s my deal: I don’t fault CT for having a more Reformed perspective. That’s their prerogative. The critic seems to find not only the film but the source material to be inadequate in its presentation of the scope of the gospel (though I don’t recall Miller’s book making any claims to define or re-define “the gospel,” only to share alternately funny and heartbreaking scenes from his own story).  What I can’t handle is the sudden doctrinal piety.  I’ve been reading the magazine since high school, and can’t recall a parallel.  In an attempt to “engage culture,” CT will generally give films even with the most difficult content generous marks if it is well-made.  Again, I don’t fault them for this per se.

What I do fault CT for is the inconsistency (I bit my tongue not to say hypocrisy) of being more generous with  say, A Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, which I have contended is a lightweight thriller posing as social commentary here.  In fairness, the critic was careful to state that Dragon Tattoo contains stark, disturbing violence.  Yet I am no less chaffed by the suggestion that a movie where the voyeuristic camera lingers on forced oral sex and anal rape of a female ultimately gets higher marks than Blue Like Jazz.  The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo is an “insightful, haunting film that successfully captures the sort of alienation and rage inherent in the abused and skeptical generation that Lisbeth represents…”  Even in all of its violence, the reviewer asks us: ” Is there anything left to cling to? Perhaps only this: the strange and persistent suspicion that goodness does exist and that justice is worth fighting for. At least this is what seems to keep Lisbeth going.”

But of course Blue Like Jazz has too much social justice and not enough atonement?  If any of Miller’s content in the book is represented accurately in the film, it surely has plenty of examples of love and forgiveness and grace that could be found without rummaging through a sewer of sexual degradation.  But of course a dark mainstream film like Dragon Tattoo has to be viewed through the lens of Christian charity in the name of cultural relevance, whereas Blue Like Jazz has to pass through the filter of Reformed theology.  We should look to find the value or “the truth” embedded in depictions of graphic sexual violence, but the lack of atonement in Blue Like Jazz is, pardon me, offensive?  Then again, I suppose The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo has enough “wrath” to “satisfy” anybody, even Reformed movie critics.

I love you, Christianity Today.  But the double standard is inexcusably stupid.  In your reviews, you can be the savvy “engage the culture intellectually publication” if you like, or you can be the orthodoxy police of culture.  I frankly don’t care which you choose, just thought you should know you don’t get to be both at the same time.

Martin/CT

--Nick

Deconstructing "Christian Films"; part I

DECONSTRUCTING "CHRISTIAN FILMS"; PART I

THE DEFINITION OF "CHRISTIAN" FILMS

The debate about "christian films" has followed me for years, ever since Biola. When I first enrolled in their film program in 2007, the debate was simmering and already at a boiling point. Conservatives had strong issues with sex and foul language, while the more liberal students continued to (sometimes unnecessarily) push the lines of good taste. At the time, I sided with my liberal friends (and I still do) and thought the entire debate was silly and unconstructive. Of course, I did very little to advance a reasonable dialogue on the topic as I was too busy being angry, chasing girls (to little effect) and supporting random libertarian causes. 

But, after hearing about the "Blue Like Jazz" controversy (1), the issue has come back to really bug me. Reading about two "christian films" duking it out over a piece of biblical terrain seemed not only futile but damaging. Imagine others watching this inner-christian spat over something as trivial as a film. This is also the same with "The Last Temptation of Christ", with christians protesting the film without having seen it. We're often very good at shooting from the hip and missing the map for the territory. 

So, I'm going to set forth some criteria about what defines a "christian film." These ideas are not set in stone, and I'm open to changing or refining my ideas. I won't be putting for any specific biblical data, but will attempt to argue in a different way.

The same difficulties in defining evangelicalism are inherent in defining really anything as Christian. Some define evangelicalism more sociologically (2) in terms of historical trends. I'm inclined to work within this framework and put forth a definition of what defines a "christian film."

VALUES & SPECIFICS

To be clear, a "christian film" and a film with christian "values" are two different things. I imagine that this discussion and the subsequent challenges will bring forth clarity, but I'm somewhat confident that "values" are different and require a different set of criteria. 

BEBBINGTON'S QUADRILATERAL

I consider Bebbington's Quadrilateral to be a great foundation for this discussion. Based on his research, Bebbington attempted to define what evangelicalism really is, and what is required of it. He defines it as follows, and I have added to his principles. My additions and clarifications are italicized. 

1. Biblicism. 

An adherence to Scripture and belief that it contains the ultimate authority. 

2. Crucicentrism.

The atonement of Christ. 

I've seen some criticism leveled at "Blue Like Jazz" (3) in regards to atonement theory, but I considered this already in my review of "Blue Like Jazz" and found the critique strongly lacking (4). 

3. Conversionism.

Believing that humans need to become converted to Christianity. 

4. Activism.

The belief that the gospel needs expressed in effort. 

Oddly enough, many christians seem to shirk this label and divorce it from social justice. I can understand the desire to be separate from possible progressive politics, but this does include ministering to the needs to non-christians, which makes this part vital and something christians seem to be lacking. All of the four premises put together seem to offer the potential for the label. Of course, this is not conclusive and more directed to stimulate more viable criteria.

I will add a final and conditional premise that can make or break the idea of a "christian film" and a film that has "christian values."

DOGMATISM; A CONDITIONAL PREMISE

5. Dogmatism.

A conditional belief that is either respectful and passionate, or condescending and antagonistic. What it adds is empathy and what it detracts is the same. 

Which brings me to my next point.

SUBJECTIVISM

The biggest issue we often miss is intention. What did the filmmakers intend to communicate and do they refer to their art as "christian?" Steve Taylor has a love affair with cheekiness and sarcasm that comes through very strongly in his film, but I haven't read anything that would lead me to believe that Taylor would label his work as "christian." In fact, in order to reach more people, it seems that it would benefit Taylor and Miller to separate from current Christendom (to avoid associated baggage) in order to get their film out there. To be taken seriously by your audience is indeed an important ideal. 

Many christians desire to be separate from the world, and will sacrifice quality for message, as if one is more important than the other. The issue becomes subjective. I went to see "Fireproof" at the dollar theater and I watched as several older people left the theater halfway through when the film paused to deliver a really poorly written sermon. I heard one of them mutter "bullshit" on their way out. I knew very little about their religious convictions, but I knew I wanted to join him and talk. I didn't. 

Simply put, a filmmaker who doesn't want to associate his film with the "christian" label is justified in doing so. In doing so, he would be fulfilling part 4 and 5 out of BQ, leaving room for parts 1-3 to be integrated however he or she chooses. 

EXAMPLE

The first four premises together make, I would argue, the potential for a christian film. Assuming that dogmatism is a negative feature (to be separated from conviction), if one is dogmatic about the above mentioned features then the resulting artistic piece will indeed be didactic and be made exclusively for those that are Christian.  People who are not christians will have little interest. The presence of dogmatism does indeed create tension with the audience and filmmakers. Consider that "Fireproof" has over 600 five-star reviews on Amazon (5). Consider that "Fireproof" strongly fulfills 1-3 very strongly, to the point where I wanted to leave the theater. It poorly applies part 4, not because it lacks integrity or a desire to promote christianity, but because it misunderstands it's audience. Was the film made for christians, or everyone? 

I think the film was made exclusively for christians, with the hopes that others would overlooks it's poor filmmaking, structure and writing in the hopes of seeing the "message." This will be looked at in another section. 

Anyone who does not buy into christianity as a whole, or even in parts, will watch this film, see all four parts (excluding the workings of the Holy Spirit and God working through whatever medium He desires of course) and given the conditional nature of 5 in a dogmatic manner, its unsurprising how many if not most non-christians react. They leave. 

"Blue Like Jazz", as an opposite example, fulfills all 4 points as well as the conditional nature of part 5. It understands that dogmatism works against the point of the film, and the conditional nature of part 5 allows the film to be understood by those who would otherwise ignore it. Because of this, I do think "Blue Like Jazz" rejects the potential to be labeled a "christian film" and instead prefers the label "film." Again, this does not assume that films cannot have christian values. 

For a "secular" film that fits very well within this paradigm, see "The Grey" and my thoughts on it.(6)

This brings me to another point.

LABELS

The baggage that comes with the label "christian" is enough for me to disassociate my writings with the label entirely. I will use myself as an example here. Of course, anyone with theological training can pick up specific themes in my writing. However, I do wonder if disassociating myself with the label actually solves anything.

Kierkegaard mentioned that once a label is placed, the argument is negated. I don't know if I agree entirely, but the concept of lumping all similarities into a specific camp strikes me more as a camp mentality than an honest exploration. Just making a note of this. 

FAILURE & "THE MESSAGE"

The biggest objection I've heard to my thoughts (in other avenues) is that "the film was bad, but the message was good." I have several things to say to this.

1) This is based on a misunderstanding. if one believes that there is some sort of standard in art in terms of quality, then every film must be understood and looked at in that way. No partiality.

2) Partiality may be shown, but one must admit that they are showing it as such, and their opinion is based more on personal preference against a set standard. 

3) What is the standard for good films? I offer several thoughts below:

3a) The technical quality. "Memento" was made for cheap, and it turned out to be a classic. "The Dark Knight" required over 185 million to make, but it was flawless. 

3b) The efficiency of the narrative. Does the film work as a whole? Pacing, acting, writing, direction. Anything involving the requirement of interaction in terms of narrative. 

3c) The strength of the message. The message can be entirely fatalistic, but does it communicate it well? Does it remain true to it's worldview? Does it challenge it? Is it dogmatic?

3d) The personal element. This is where the presuppositions and experiences of the viewer come into the equation. They make up a quarter of it, and one is allowed to reject the film as personally repulsive or in disagreement with the worldview expressed. I think "Watchmen" fulfills A-C very well, but the overall worldview is something I would reject. It is a great film in the first 3 points, but fails for me on a personal level. Subjectivism. 

4) Finally, the message is only part of the entire film. I'm not convinced that accepting a bad film just because of the "message" is valid. 

CONCLUSION

I'll confess, I don't think I've really settled the issue at all. At most, all I hope I've done is provide some possible rabbit trails we can all follow in the hopes of finding the truth. This debate is not settled nor is this article conclusive. 

I will also confess that I'm not certain this discussion will ever end. As with Bebbington's Quadrilateral, it has it's fair share of detractors (D.A. Carson is one). So, here's to the truth and that it may be found.

If it doesn't, we can still argue less important things like jelly beans and dark beer. 

--Nick

Footnotes:

(1) DailyBeast/Blue Like Jazz.

(2) Bebbington's Quadrilateral. 
-- biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all essential spiritual truth is to be found in its pages).
-- crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross.
-- conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted.
-- activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort.

(3) Christianity Today/ Blue Like Jazz

(4) TMC, Blue Like Jazz review. Also, Split/Frame review.

(5) Fireproof/Amazon Reviews

(6) Split Frame/The Grey

The Daily Beast, "Blue Like Jazz and the Christian Movie War"

I'm planning on seeing BLJ this weekend. We'll see if it deserves the controversy. But, just in case others are interested:

It was arguably the most boneheaded thing erstwhile presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said.

 

Back in February, while addressing a group of supporters at the Americans for Prosperity forum in Michigan, Santorum quipped, “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.” He then proceeded to rant about “liberal college professors” trying to “indoctrinate” students. His audience of acolytes gave him a standing ovation.

According to filmmaker Steve Taylor, a similar closed-minded crusade has been unleashed within the “calcified” Christian movie industry.

On March 21, Taylor wrote a blog post entitled “The Christian Movie Establishment vs. Blue Like Jazz,” which is the title of his upcoming film centering on an impressionable young evangelical who flees his Baptist community and enrolls in left-leaning Reed College. There, his experiences befriending gay and liberal college students open his mind, granting him a different perspective on his Christian faith. The independent film, which opens in theaters on April 13, is based on Donald Miller’s popular, semi-autobiographical tome of the same name that’s sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide.

In the post, Taylor rails against the artlessness and—as Captain Louis Renault would put it—rank sentimentality of the “Christian Movie” genre, such as the popular oeuvre of the Kendrick brothers, who are responsible for the Kirk Cameron-starring Christian film, Fireproof. Then, the bombshell: the irate filmmaker alleges that Jim McBride, the executive pastor of Sherwood Baptist Church, where the Kendrick Bros. films are distributed via his company, Sherwood Pictures, “issued what amounts to afatwa against Blue Like Jazz when he made it known that nobody who worked on our movie would be allowed to work with them in the future.”

Marshall Allman as "Don" and Justin Welborn as "The Pope" in Blue Like Jazz directed by Steve Taylor. , Jonathan Frazier / Roadside Attractions

“There was an email that was seen by two people [from McBride], so I put the blog together very carefully and vetted it,” said Taylor, who is a Christian, in an interview with The Daily Beast. “When you’re doing something like that, people are afraid for their jobs and other people’s jobs, so they’re afraid to go on the record. But before I put it out there I confirmed it with the two witnesses.”

Furthermore, Taylor reprinted an email he obtained from Kris Fuhr, the vice president of Provident Films, which co-distributed each of the Kendrick Brothers’ movies, and is currently distributing the pro-life film October Baby. It read:

“I think exhibitors  are going to try to play the Blue Like Jazz trailer with october baby this can not happen - the trailer actually has the words “I hate Jesus” in the voiceover along with a number of images that will be very offensive to catholics it is in the best interest of theaters to not run the trailer because they are going to have a lot of angry patrons if they do thanks for your help here.”

Fuhr confirmed the authenticity of the email to Christianity Today, claiming it was sent to Michael Silberman, co-president of Samuel Goldwyn Films, which is distributing October Baby, and acknowledged she misquoted the voiceover in the trailer (the character actually says, “I’m ashamed of Jesus.”) Both Fuhr and McBride refused to comment to The Daily Beast.

For their part, Samuel Goldwyn Films released an exclusive statement to The Daily Beast through their representative, saying, “We believe from past experience that the faith-based audience is easily offended by trailers (playing ahead of our faith films) in which they find language and/or other scenes and expressions to be controversial. We have also been advised by our faith marketing partners that some audience members feel that placement of a trailer ahead of a faith film implies an endorsement of that film by the distributor and producer. In an attempt to avoid negative situations, we passed our concerns along to some of our exhibitors. The placement of trailers was and continues to be under the control of exhibitors.  Compatibility of audiences is an important factor in trailer placement and it’s possible that for these two films, the audiences may not be compatible. The Blue Like Jazz trailer did in fact play ahead of October Baby in a number of theaters and we have been advised by some theater managers that they received complaints about the trailer fromOctober Baby movie goers.”

Howard Cohen, the co-president of Roadside Attractions, which is distributingBlue Like Jazz, says he believes that Samuel Goldwyn Films is exaggerating the number of complaints received from October Baby filmgoers that prompted the distributor to allegedly remove the trailer from many of its prints.

“We heard about one or two complaints, literally,” Cohen told The Daily Beast, adding, “[Sherwood] movies are limited in their scope and hermetically sealed. They don’t really allow real life to enter into the story. The interesting thing about Blue Like Jazz is it doesn’t hew to a storyline that is purely instructional. Those movies are more dogmatic, but this one is more experiential.”

And it’s this lack of scope within the “Christian Movie” genre that seems to be the issue at the heart of the Blue Like Jazz controversy.

“It frankly infuriates me—the degree to which people who make media for fellow Christians assume the audience isn’t that smart,” says Taylor.

While Blue Like Jazz isn’t the most boundary-pushing entry in the “Christian Movie” genre—it’s rated PG-13 and is sex-free—the film also doesn’t shamelessly pander to Christians. It’s a bildungsroman that follows a young man who turns his back on his Baptist community when he discovers his mother is sleeping with a young, televangelist preacher. After enrolling at Reed College, he befriends a group of radical liberal protesters, including the most radical of them all—a young, drugged-out wild child who parades around in a Pope costume and, it’s later revealed, was molested by a priest as a youngster. The film’s climax is a 9-plus minute conversation between the protagonist and the wild one, where both characters make peace with their troubled pasts, as well as their faith.

October Baby, on the other hand, is a dogmatic film with an extreme pro-life agenda. It tells the story of an emotionally troubled 19-year-old who realizes she is adopted, and that her birth mother tried to abort her. She sets off on a journey to meet her birth mother, and when she does, she’s consumed by anger. However, after seeking consolation from a Catholic priest, she errs on the side of forgiveness.

“I think the difference between our movie and their movie is the climactic scene,” Blue Like Jazz author Donald Miller told The Daily Beast. “From the Christian movies that I’ve seen, they don’t seem to be based in reality. They present this idea that Jesus makes everything better here and now. That’s not the story of Jesus. The story of Jesus is that if you’re a Christian, ‘life continues to be very hard, and I have hope that someday I’ll be reunited with Him.’”

According to Taylor, Blue Like Jazz doesn’t jive with other “Christian Movie” fare—like October Baby or the Kendrick Brothers’ films—because it’s not crafted like a sermon being preached to the choir, and forces Christian viewers to leave their comfort zones. By having it’s young protagonist not only befriend liberals and gays, but also be taught valuable life lessons from them, it also seems to clash with the political zeitgeist. Since, as Newsweek’s Andrew Sullivan so succinctly put it, “the Republican base is made up of evangelical Protestants who believe that religion must consume and influence every aspect of public life,” by challenging certain tenets of conservative Christianity and embracing aspects of leftist politics, Taylor’s film may be seen by the Jim McBrides of the world as an affront to both evangelism and the GOP.

“It’s certainly reflective of a younger generation of evangelical Christians who just weren’t buying the menu that seemed to be going along with declaring yourself a Christian—particularly the fusion of Christianity with right-wing politics,” says Taylor, adding, “I think part of it was a rebellion against the fact that declaring yourself a Christian means you’re de facto declaring yourself a right-wing Republican.”

Daily Beast/ Blue Like Jazz

--Nick