The End Of The Spear
They say that living well is the best revenge.
Where to begin....
Okay. End Of The Spear: Several oddities in one. A mass-market Hollywood film, all about missionaries, containing almost no overt Christian content, directed like an art-house sleeper...and advertised from the pulpit.
From the start, given the genre, i assumed this would be a typically crappy movie. I was surprised to discover the opposite. Conversely, i took for granted that production on the recent Narnia film would be high-quality and predictably professional. I was wrong there too. What made the difference?
To me, Narnia felt halfhearted. Where Lord of the Rings was lavish down to the last detail of production, Narnia felt like someone had a deadline to meet. Not in the big picture, maybe, but in the details. There was just an overall feeling of cheapness to it - the faint aroma of condescension, the thumprints of handlers certain their intended audience will never know the difference. I couldn't point to anything specific, really, but that's how it felt.
The End Of The Spear, on the other hand, managed to win me over, and in doing so, it had to overcome a number of notable obstacles. For one, it had a very large cred problem from the start, in that it was being pimped on the James Dobson circuit. Then, too, it couldn't have had much of a budget, and the actors were unknowns. But it knew its limits, and knowing those, it set its goals and met them. To me, that's the difference between a crappy film and a decent one. The step from decent to really good is something else, but that's another story. In any case, i think what surprised me most was that this movie's goals were set as high as they were. I hate to say this, but this is the reason: It was not designed for a Christian audience. I regret this not because i wish it had been aimed at evangelicals, but rather because if it had been, it would have been crap. There are enough examples of that. If the producers were smart, they knew they could count on the proven knee-jerk Christian grassroots market to fill its share of seats.
But finally, i think what intrigued me most about these two movies was what the critics had to say. For Narnia, they apologized away the "Christian content" as a bit of dreck in an otherwise nice film. One month later, they took End Of The Spear - which had a comparable amount of such material, but presented it more naturally - and slaughtered it as hamfisted religious tripe. Aside from the typical liberal snobbery ingredient, i think they just saw in Narnia an established (and popular) genre, following Tolkien and Harry Potter as it did, and they just didn't have a pigeonhole ready for End Of The Spear. I didn't either. Was it hamfisted? Certainly. But with a remarkably light touch, considering. It wasn't Kristof Kieslowski, but it wasn't trying to be. Subtlety may be the essence of art, but it's still relative.
I do wonder what the director and producers envisioned for this film when they set out to make it. If i had to guess, i'd say they were very intentional about making it accessible to the average moviegoer - but at the same time, they included gentle reminders of what it was all about. Box-office receipts will be modest at best, certainly, but the recurring thread of "living well" - while hardly the most novel of themes - probably accomplished its purpose.
One of the Waodani said of the finished product that he "saw it very well." If one considers the true story behind the film, this is perhaps its highest achievement - that everyone involved is not only "living well," but is pleased with the movie about their collective life story of conflict and forgiveness. Will the average (unchurched) moviegoer connect the dots and see how remarkable this is - and wonder why? I don't know. But when i watched it, i was surprised to be refreshed. Don't expect too much, but do go see it.
Where to begin....
Okay. End Of The Spear: Several oddities in one. A mass-market Hollywood film, all about missionaries, containing almost no overt Christian content, directed like an art-house sleeper...and advertised from the pulpit.
From the start, given the genre, i assumed this would be a typically crappy movie. I was surprised to discover the opposite. Conversely, i took for granted that production on the recent Narnia film would be high-quality and predictably professional. I was wrong there too. What made the difference?
To me, Narnia felt halfhearted. Where Lord of the Rings was lavish down to the last detail of production, Narnia felt like someone had a deadline to meet. Not in the big picture, maybe, but in the details. There was just an overall feeling of cheapness to it - the faint aroma of condescension, the thumprints of handlers certain their intended audience will never know the difference. I couldn't point to anything specific, really, but that's how it felt.
The End Of The Spear, on the other hand, managed to win me over, and in doing so, it had to overcome a number of notable obstacles. For one, it had a very large cred problem from the start, in that it was being pimped on the James Dobson circuit. Then, too, it couldn't have had much of a budget, and the actors were unknowns. But it knew its limits, and knowing those, it set its goals and met them. To me, that's the difference between a crappy film and a decent one. The step from decent to really good is something else, but that's another story. In any case, i think what surprised me most was that this movie's goals were set as high as they were. I hate to say this, but this is the reason: It was not designed for a Christian audience. I regret this not because i wish it had been aimed at evangelicals, but rather because if it had been, it would have been crap. There are enough examples of that. If the producers were smart, they knew they could count on the proven knee-jerk Christian grassroots market to fill its share of seats.
But finally, i think what intrigued me most about these two movies was what the critics had to say. For Narnia, they apologized away the "Christian content" as a bit of dreck in an otherwise nice film. One month later, they took End Of The Spear - which had a comparable amount of such material, but presented it more naturally - and slaughtered it as hamfisted religious tripe. Aside from the typical liberal snobbery ingredient, i think they just saw in Narnia an established (and popular) genre, following Tolkien and Harry Potter as it did, and they just didn't have a pigeonhole ready for End Of The Spear. I didn't either. Was it hamfisted? Certainly. But with a remarkably light touch, considering. It wasn't Kristof Kieslowski, but it wasn't trying to be. Subtlety may be the essence of art, but it's still relative.
I do wonder what the director and producers envisioned for this film when they set out to make it. If i had to guess, i'd say they were very intentional about making it accessible to the average moviegoer - but at the same time, they included gentle reminders of what it was all about. Box-office receipts will be modest at best, certainly, but the recurring thread of "living well" - while hardly the most novel of themes - probably accomplished its purpose.
One of the Waodani said of the finished product that he "saw it very well." If one considers the true story behind the film, this is perhaps its highest achievement - that everyone involved is not only "living well," but is pleased with the movie about their collective life story of conflict and forgiveness. Will the average (unchurched) moviegoer connect the dots and see how remarkable this is - and wonder why? I don't know. But when i watched it, i was surprised to be refreshed. Don't expect too much, but do go see it.
<< Home