Adventist Film School?

[MIke]

I understand that Southern, PUC (I attended both schools for a short period of time) and maybe other schools have film, media production, or whatever you want to call it programs. One of the major reasons that I left Adventist schools was that I didn't feel they were fostering an environment where ideas could be exchanged freely. I understand that the practical side of filmmaking could be taught without that, but I don't know how you could study theory or even film history properly at an Adventist institution. I can't imagine the administration of any Adventist school saying, sure go ahead and screen "A Clockwork Orange" or "Natural Born Killers". It'd be interesting to hear some thoughts from those who did go to school at some of these places. Did you feel as though you were missing something when studying theory or film history? And if any of you have taught at an Adventist institution did you feel that your hands were tied?

[Kent Kingston]

I purposely chose to study at an Adventist institution (Avondale College, Australia). This was because I want my media products to glorify God. I thought I'd be more likely to discover opportunities and create networks with like-minded people at Avondale (and I was right!).

I also chose Avondale because I was aware we wouldn't be spending time viewing films that I find morally dubious. If I wanted to watch "Natural Born Killers" I could rent it out from Video Ezy. But I don't and I'm glad not to be put in a position where I feel pressured to watch movies I'm uncomfortable with for educational purposes.

The amoral aspects of film theory worry me. There's polite discussion of the cultural significance of films such as "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club" - even some Christian film theorists seem to feel quite comfortable with the ethos of these films. But if people behave that way in real life - like at Columbine High or Virginia Tech - then we suddenly get our morality back.

I heard (or read) something a Christian film director said that made me think, and troubled me a bit: he said, "I wouldn't ask an actor to do anything on screen that I wouldn't ask Jesus to do if He were an actor." Would you ask Jesus to dress up in leather and Raybans and sneer as He blows away His enemies with an M-60 under each arm? Would you ask Jesus to do a nude love scene?

There is a place for violence on the screen. There is a place for nudity or sexual content. "Schindler's List", for example, would have lost both its historicity and its impact if it had been made "family safe". Many of Time Life's attempts at Bible stories are M-rated (in Australia), simply because the Biblical account requires it. But a lot of sex and violence in the movies is simply gratuitous. Sometimes the distributors demand a nude scene or more graphic violence simply to ensure that the classification goes higher. They're afraid critics won't take a G or PG movie seriously, even though the public overwhelmingly supports these movies over more "adult" fare via the box office.

I think film theorists (and students) often fall into the same trap of thinking that a movie has to be visually shocking and confronting in order to be taken seriously as a work of art or a legitimate social comment. I respectfully disagree.

If you want to make "Christian Tarantino movies", I guess you'll have to watch a lot of Tarantino. But is there really such a thing?

[MIke]

Kent,

First off I can understand and respect your position.

I spent three years at Adventist institutions of higher learning my experience was that most of the people were somewhat close minded and they really didn't understand what I was doing (or more appropriately, what I was trying to do). Now there were exceptions, I had a few teachers who were very open minded and supportive. I would have to say that in general I did not find like-minded people (I'm not saying this is good or bad, just my experience, probably more a reflection of my odd mind).

We actually studied "Natural Born Killers" in one of my film classes at an Adventist college, of course we were given the option to leave and knew that we were watching this without approval from the upper ups and we were all basically sworn to secrecy. It was unbelievably refreshing to be able to watch this film and discuss among other things the juxtaposition of images from childhood with the very adult subject matter and the very comic book like violence. In fact later in my academic career at a public university I had a teacher, a video artist, who dealt with very much the same ideas in her work.

"But if people behave that way in real life - like at Columbine High or Virginia Tech - then we suddenly get our morality back."

Film, art, music etc. is a reflection of our society. It's not a question of if people behave this way in real life, they do behave this way in real life. The difference is that in film it's cleaned up, if we saw the things that happen for real then people might have to start thinking about things that are uncomfortable, and we all know that the guy driving down the street in his big SUV doesn't want to feel uncomfortable, at least not in real life. I mean just recently five or six severed feet have washed up on the shores of British Columbia, Tarantino on his best day couldn't come up with a more grotesque story line than what happens every day in real life. I live very close to one of the poorest and most dangerous cities in the US and just driving through that city makes me much more morally repulsed than any film I've ever seen.

In order to get our morality back, we would have had to have some to begin with. It's hard to say we/society has much morality when people are murdering each other every day in the name of god.

As a Christian I personally believe that one should be involved in our society, should try and understand it and through film, music, literature, etc. I'm taken to places that I might otherwise not be exposed to and that helps me to better understand other people and society in general.

I think that "Triumph of the Will" is a much more morally reprehensible film than any that have been mentioned in this post. Yet, I'm sure that there would be no problem showing that in an Adventist School (to get somewhat back to the point of this post).

I agree with you that sex and violence that are simply there to bring in viewers is unnecessary. However, we might disagree on what is gratuitous and what is not. If Jesus were an actor and I lucky enough to direct him and I felt that violence or a nude love scene were not only appropriate for the film but necessary for the story, and I felt that it was a story that needed to be told then I would have no problem asking Jesus to do that, he might turn me down but I wouldn't have a problem asking.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "Christian Tarantino movies" (I wonder if there's some guy out there who's real name is Christian Tarantino). I think that because I believe that it is wrong to spend that amount of money on a film when tens of thousands of children are dying every day from completely preventable disease, not necessarily because of the content of the film.

Hopefully some of that makes sense. I hope this discussion continues and we're able to have more like it here at Adventist Filmmaker.

[Celeste Thoms]

We can be in the world but not of the world. I have to agree with you. Sometimes life is ugly and we can't sweep that dirt under the rug. It doesn't have to be as graphic as most films, but I think to be truthful to world we live in we can't sugar coat it. I think it's dishonest to pretend sex and violence doesn't exist. Would I ask Jesus to do these scenes. Yes I would, and if He says, "Celeste that's not the kind of image I want to portray", then I know it ain't right. My point is that you have to ask God what He wants you to say and you have to ask Him what you should watch.

[Celeste Thoms]

Truthfully I didn't learn film theory or history at an Adventist school. I won't mention what school I go to, but they have one class in film studies. Honestly not enough, USC has a few film studies classes. I also graduated from a non-Adventist school and studied film arts there. It was a great experience to study Frank Capra, Hitchcock, Ford, and right down to Tarantino. Also to look at foreign films. What was cool was at the end of the class our professor told he was a pastor.
Honestly I didn't get to study these films at an Adventist school. I'm not knocking the education an Adventist school can offer, but I don't think they have that yet at the level of other schools. Some of these programs are still young, but I hope they have them one day because aspiring filmmakers need to study these films. I was watching the Frank Capra collection last night and he made films with great values that were also entertaining.
I believe that these films can teach us pacing, editing, dialogue, camera shots/angles, and simply the meaning of cinema.
I just don't think we have the people to really teach this yet like other schools. Maybe one day we will.

[MIke]

I agree with you 100%. I find myself always going back to Hitchcock, John Ford, John Huston, the Maysels Bros., etc. for inspiration and just to study these great films.

I wasn't trying to berate Adventist schools (hopefully it didn't come off that way), but from my experience I'm just not convinced that in general an environment of truly free discussion is there. For example, I work for an Adventist school and a few years back there was a forum that had to be held off campus because the subject wasn't a "comfortable" one in the SDA world.

[Celeste Thoms]

I do feel that way to. I'm actually transferring out of my school because there are too many restrictions on the movies I want to make and how I want to make them. Our schools have a long way to go, but I think they'll get there. I think in our church we are opening ourselves up to this more, but it will be a long time before anyone will admit these films have any value.
I remember growing in the day when we couldn't go to movie theaters, Hitchcock was a dirty man who made dirty horror movies, comic book characters were not that much better, and Star Wars was evil. When I got older and watched Hitchcock he didn't even make horror films. I was like, "were's the blood and guts?"
Star Wars and comic book characters are the only movies with any moral fiber to them these days. I get the greatest messages from movies like Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars than any other film out there right now. We can learn a great deal as Christian filmmakers from these movies in how to put our message out there. They should be studied. I study them all the time.

[Celeste Thoms]

By the way, I love this discussion because me and my friends are studying film at an Adventist school and we talk about this a lot.

[Kent Kingston]

Good to see some discussion going!

I read something yesterday about burying your head in the sand - not only does it restrict your vision, but it also makes your backside a huge target! I guess some Christians are like that when they refuse to engage with "the world" in any way.

I guess my concern with making discerning media choices comes down to my personal weaknesses. The sexualised way in which women are repeatedly portrayed in the movies, on TV (on billboards! for crying out loud!) feeds into an area of weakness for me. I just don't need any more of that kind of content floating around in my memory banks. So I choose to avoid - not always easy.

You may not be personally susceptible in the same way that I am - you may be able to be "adult" and "objective" about the movies you watch, whether for personal entertainment or for academic study. I can't.

I also worry about the desensitising effect that cinema violence has on me - that I can get used to images of dozens of people being mowed down by machine gun fire as simply a special effects side product of the plot, just another barrier Our Hero must overcome on his way to accomplishing his goal. I don't want to get used to it - I want to remain shocked and horrified by images of people dying.

And the omnipresent values of materialism and serial monogamy that are presented to us again and again. Kids in developing countries all over the world are watching American movies and just wishing they could have a car like that, clothes like that, an attitude like that, a casual fling like that.

Look, if what was on the screen didn't affect our attitudes and behaviour, why would advertisers bother? But they do bother, and I saw the effect yesterday when my kids suddenly started pestering me for a Nerf Gun. When I saw the TV ad this morning, I suddenly understood.

I'm aware I'm coming across like a crotchety old killjoy here - I'm normally the radical protagonist in any discussion. But on this point, I've got to say I sympathise with the caution shown by Christian colleges and universities in making decisions about appropriate media content. Yes, it's a bit paternalistic, but it's the protection of "vulnerable young minds" that is their concern, I think.

And if the vulnerable young minds want to pop off to the DVD hire shop or check out Amazon.com for a movie they feel they really need to see for educational or other purposes, there's nothing stopping them.

[MIke]

I understand where you're coming from and myself try to avoid many things because of personal weakness. I don't know about other people but for me my film history and theory classes were of immense importance, and because I tend to question most everything (in my own mind if nowhere else), I would wonder where an Adventist college would draw the line and why they would draw it there. Would they show Vertigo, even though when it comes down to it it's really a film about necrophilia? Or would they show it and not discuss that aspect? I think that you can put limits on what you show, but I think those limits should be on the liberal side. Perhaps screening Deep Throat wouldn't be appropriate, but perhaps screening Inside Deep Throat would be relevant and discussing how porn films became mainstream and how that has led to porn being generally accepted in society, and what the impact has been on film and society, of course that could be tied into a sociology class etc.

I've also thought about desensitization, and speaking only for myself, I don't know how desensitized I have become, but today there was a car accident right in front of me and I've got to tell you that seeing a car crash every 5 seconds on the TV has not desensitized me much. It freaked me out, my hands were shaking for at least 15 minutes afterward. I wonder if any studies have been done on film/tv desensitizing us, I think that would be fascinating.

Celeste, I'd be interested to know if you discuss these things with any of your professors? By the way what Adventist school do/did you attend if you don't mind me asking.

I'm glad that some discussion is getting going on this site.

[Celeste Thoms]

I go to SAU and my friends and I do discuss these issues with professors. I'm currently in a screenwriting class and we discuss these issues in great detail. The professors at Southern are quite open, but they must abide by the rules of the school. Which you can image hinders the movies they can show as well as the kind we can make. Being at a christian institution, studying film has been a great value in the sense that I can really discover how God wants me to use this medium.

[MIke]

Where do the professors have to draw the line? What is it about a film, script, etc. that would make it unacceptable for them to show it in class? I wonder how those standards have changed in the last 10, 20 or 40 years. Why have the standards changed? I bet 30 years ago you'd get fired or kicked out for showing I don't know 'Reefer Madness' or something like that, which would be no big deal today of course.

I would think that studying video art and video artists might be limited as well. Not that I'm an expert in video art/artists, but what I have been exposed to has been very provocative in a way that I view as good and thought provoking, but my guess would be an institution like SAU would view in a negative way.

If I were a teacher limits on what I could screen would be something that would frustrate me greatly.

On a side note, the year that I attended Southern I took a video journalism class by Volker Henning. I think it was the only video class they offered at that point (only 10 years ago or so). I tried to recreate 'Bringing it All Back Home', one of the first goes at a music "video". Other people in the class were doing news packages and stuff like that, I don't think anyone quite knew what to make of it when I showed it in class. It was fun anyway, I think he gave me a C.

[Celeste Thoms]

I think they would have to draw the line with extreme sexual content,violence, and language. They warn you if it's going to be bad. You have the option of leaving the room. But I've never been in a class where they would show anything inappropriate. I don't consider it too bad of a thing. I'm fine with whatever they show, but even if it wasn't a Christian institution you have to consider that some people have different taste and might be uncomfortable. I think that's largely the reason they have the limits they do. Especially if you come across some Christians raised in an Adventist home, they were not raised on movies (and there are some in film students like this), esp. rated R movies that they might feel uncomfortable.

I think now more students are wigged out by the content than the teachers to be honest. I've been at SAU for a year now and some of the biggest protest I've seen was from students. Most of the teachers in the school have shown some pretty cool stuff and recommend a wide range of stuff.

I think the standards have probably changed in the past few years. I'm 25 years old and I think it was just 15 years ago that I couldn't go to the movie theaters. When I used to go I would have to sneak it and hope not to get caught. And God forbid I get caught coming out of a theater and a church member see me. Now I go with my parents and we're all fine with it.

So yeah I think standards all across the board have changed. It will be interesting to see how far back the line of standards will go.