Courageous (Kendrick,2011)

Last updated on: July 26, 2014 at 8:18 pm by Kenneth R. Morefield

Courageous (Kendrick,2011) 2014-07-26T20:18:28-05:00 Kenneth R. Morefield

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I thought I was going to get away without having to write anything about Alex Kendrick’s Courageous, a film which is admittedly hard for me to be fair to at least in part because I’m not really the intended audience.

Warning: there are plot spoilers in this essay.

I find myself wanting to say something, however, not so much about the film but about responses to it. Courageous clearly has a market niche and within its niche it is clearly scratching where some people itch. (It has a 29% to 93% approval rating split amongst critics and audience members respectively at Rotten Tomatoes.) As is the case with any thing that is successful, its success has engendered almost immediate push back from those seemingly anxious to comment (usually negatively) about what the success means and what it says about the people whose critical tastes are apparently so different from the naysayers’ own.

I don’t want to come across as a defender of the film (really I don’t)–which I’ve equated (only half tongue-in-cheek) to a cinematic equivalent of a fall harvest party in the church basement where all the kids get apple slices and Chick tracts because we don’t believe in Halloween–but I’ve really found it odd (and mostly pointless) how many of the reviews/critiques/comments about the film may be masquerading as (or wrapped in a thin veneer of) “we wish it had been better” but are (or strike me as being) at their core statements of “What it is cannot be good [or done well] and so we wish it had not been done at all [perhaps followed by ‘or wish they had done x instead.’]”

Earlier this week I saw a horror film (which shall for the time being remain nameless). There is (or would be) a difference between my saying “It’s a bad horror movie” and “It’s bad because it is a horror movie.” Most professional reviews aren’t usually that bald, but many so called critiques could be reduced to that–it has no “story” (denies the power of narrative), it is full of shocking and horrific CGI images, it doesn’t adequately reflect life as it really is, in elevating the role of the female hero it diminishes the role of men, by presenting a scientist (Russian) who makes a mistake it offers an implicit critique of science that paints all scientists with the same brush. In other words, it’s a horror movie, and the very reasons one person might not like it are the exact reasons someone else does.

Alternately, if I were to watch Pocohantas or The Lion King and say, “I prefer movies to be more subtle…gee, they are laying it on a bit thick, aren’t they?” it would be worth asking if I were really criticizing the film(s) as work(s) of art or whether I was instead expressing a taste preference or, even, simply denigrating a particular kind of art for being what it is.

Now if a person uses these critiques of particular films in a descriptive manner in order to explain or contextualize a personal judgment (here’s what I didn’t like about the film and why I think others might not either) that is one thing. If a person uses them in a prescriptive manner in order to make a universal judgment (here’s why everyone should hate it or why it is objectively not as good as something else) then that is something else entirely. The latter seems to me to be making (sub)cultural critiques in the guise of literary (or cinematic) criticism, rejecting the work of art because of the worldview it represents. (And hey, it’s not that I think evangelicalism is above critique or someone can’t reject it because of that reason, but then own that is what you are doing.)

I think it was Roger Ebert who is credited with popularizing the notion that he tried to approach genre films on their own terms, trying to forestall a judgment about whether a horror movie was inherently inferior to a romantic comedy which was better than a science-fiction odyssey, which was better than an action shoot-em-up, and instead tried to approach the film from a standpoint of something like “within the context of horror movies and what they are trying to do, how well does this one succeed; within the contexts of romantic-comedies and what they are, does this one work?”

I think there is plenty of room to analyze dispassionately (or even criticize) Courageous within the context of shibboleth films (or evangelifilms or whatever genre term you prefer; I don’t want to use the label Christian films because that’s a non-starter and gets us nowhere). I think the editing (and hence pacing) is off. (See for example the scene where a wife thinks her husband is going to be fired and stares at a phone ringing—it goes on way too long and we already know the outcome so there is neither surprise nor tension nor insight, there is simply waiting for the characters on screen to catch up with the meaning we’ve already gleaned.) The multiple narratives hinders development making transitions abrupt and choppy (such as at the death of the daughter) and retarding any kind of character development. But I could say the same thing about Crash and it won an Academy Award (God knoweth how). Point being that artistic flaws are not the same thing has having socially distasteful beliefs (and expressing them), and whatever artistic flaws Courageous has (and it does have some) are not necessarily a function of the subcultural belief system that produced it. Nor is saying that such beliefs could not be articulated in a way that I (as a hypothetical critic) find entertaining, appealing, or praiseworthy, the same thing as saying that they presented incompetently in any particular instance.

I think a lot of people’s beefs are with the culture whose beliefs the film is mirroring back to them rather than with the film itself. Did I find it creepy when the black cop takes his daughter out on a date and gives her a promise ring to be worn until it is replaced by her wedding ring? Umm…yeah, I sure did. But you know what? I also found it a bit creepy when Knightley tells Emma Woodhouse that he has been secretly in love with her since she was thirteen. The fact that this creeps me out doesn’t mean that Emma is a bad book or that Jane Austen is a bad writer. Does it?

Previous Post

October 7, 2011

Real Steel (Levy, 2011)

Next Post

October 14, 2011 The Thing ( van Heijningen, Jr., 2011)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 10 Years Later 1999 Top 5 2007 Top 10 2008 Favorite Discoveries 2008 Top 10 2009 Favorite Discoveries 2009 Top 10 2010 Favorite Discoveries 2010 Top 10 2011 Top 10 2012 Top Ten 2013 Top Ten 2014 Top Ten Best Picture Winners Christian Spotlight on Entertainment Christianity Today Coming Soon Disclosure Disclosure--AS Disclosure--Book Disclosure--DVDS Disclosure--SEOL Disclosure--Travel Dissenting Opinion Elsewhere Emergenetics Essays Featured Film Fest DC--2014 Film Festivals Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2010 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2011 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2012 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2013 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival 2014 Headline Interviews Laura on the Oscar Winners Podcasts Quick Impressions Reviews RiverRun Film Festival 2014 Television The Criterion Collection The Thin Place To Stream or Not to Stream? Top 10s and Other Lists Toronto International Film Festival 2009 Toronto International Film Festival 2010 Toronto International Film Festival 2011 Toronto International Film Festival 2012 Toronto International Film Festival 2013 Toronto International Film Festival 2014 Uncategorized Video Virginia Film Festival 2011 Virginia Film Festival 2013 Women's Film Festival 2012

Select a Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: James states that the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE