catapult magazine

I can now chime in on this movie. I was very disappointed. It’s way too self-indulgent. I don’t care if the screenwriter knows he’s being self-indulgent, it’s still “shame on him” for being so.

The message of Adaptation is very similar to that of Signs, in my opinion. It seems like Hollywood people are so hung-up these days on finding personal meaning in life, as if that is the great end for mankind. What matters for Charlie Kaufman is that he has discovered himself in what he loves and it doesn’t matter who loves or doesn’t love him. And this is the great conclusion to his two hour struggle?

I also have a problem with the film’s perspective concerning what films are good for. Blah, I need to get the taste of this one out of my mouth!

I’ve been looking at some of the discussion on this topic, and I think that some of the problem here stems from a misunderstanding of what this film “Adaptation” is really all about. Some seem to think that the film was fundementally un-Christian. I disagree.

It’s true that the film does exclude God, choosing to focus instead on a much smaller human world. But the film also contains some profound truths, and all truth is God’s truth. It’s also true that the film is quite post-modern. But “Adaptation” defies postmodernism, too.

Allow me to explain. The main idea of the film can be summed up in one word: story. And the idea of story is a Christian one. When we tell stories, what we’re doing is taking the elements of life and making them go somewhere, making the seemingly random events move toward a conclusion, finding meaning in everyday life. Now, why should we be able to do that, to create order out of the chaos? The Christian knows that we can do that because we have a God who unites all things in heaven and earth in his own story, that is, the story of Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

In the beginning of the film, Charlie was trapped in decidedly non-Christian view of storytelling. Sure, he didn’t want to make The Orchid Thief into “A Hollywood thing” and that’s good, but he also didn’t want to make it a movie where people “learn profound life lessons or change their lives” (I’m paraphrasing here). In essence, what he wanted to do was tell a non-story story, something where events have no significance. It’s a post-modern view of storytelling, in my view—films and literature that cloak themselves in so much irony that they become almost meaningless. And, as Charlie admits to McKee later in the film, this is not just a problem in the way he approaches storytelling, it’s a problem in the way he lives his life. It’s a non-Christian way of looking at the world, thinking that events are essentially meaningless, life just a collection of random events and humans just trapped in the middle of it all.

Charlie’s redemption, however, comes when he goes to the McKee seminar and has his world turned upside down. Things do happen in real life, he realizes, and events do have significance. Although God isn’t mentioned this is definitely, in my eyes, a Christian view of storytelling, for who gives events significance if not God? And when Charlie tells a story, giving meaning to everyday life, sending characters toward a resolution, is he not imaging the God who tells the greatest story of all.

And I loved the last shot. I thought immediately of Jesus’ words: “Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these.” We, like the flowers and trees and animals and all other things in creation, are constantly Adapting under God’s watchful eye, moving forward in this great story to a glorious ending, when Christ returns and makes the crooked straight.

I would like to speak to the general art discussion of Grant and Dan rather than the specific movie Adaptation:
What does art appeal to? I would say in no particular order
1) Emotions
2) Mind
3) Spirit

So when something “speaks to us”, to understand it, we should ask what is it speaking to and what is it saying. Pornography may “speak to me”, but I know I don’t want to expose myself to that. One may say that pornography may be good if it’s true— if it gives an accurate portrayal of sexual immorality—because truth is from God.

We have to be careful with that idea. The Bible instructs us to speak the truth in love, otherwise it is twisted and not from God. Eg. Satan told Adam and Eve that they would be like God, which was true, but it was a twisted and demonic truth. Something may be true, but if it is not uplifting, we should not expose our minds and emotions to it.
Our primary purpose for existing is to glorify God and enjoy him. We are called to crucify our “flesh”, or sinful nature. We need to ask ourselves if the art is appealing to our sinful nature or whether we are being transformed in the likeness of Christ.

There’s a fear that holding art up to God’s standard will result in boring art. That we need some sin and self-indulgence in there to spice things up. God himself is not boring, he’s a wild God. His creation is infinitely more magnificent than any piece of art. So why wouldn’t we want to look to the source of truth and beauty?

But art IS his creation! I think it’s a little off the mark to say that God’s creation is infinitely more beautiful than any art. In the beginning God created art and said art was good! It’s part of his plan that sculptors, painters, actors, filmmakers and the rest should make wonderful, thoughtful, interesting things for no utilitarian purpose at all. I think it’s helpful to think about making art that fulfills its role as a part of God’s creation rather than just applying moral/immoral value judgements.

I appreciate this discussion. It opens up some looming questions I’ve been avoiding. Having entered into the world of art and theatre, it’s become much more important to me to find some consistent way to view art. Even apart from Christianity, the entire idea of good/bad art is a hard one to talk about. I myself tend towards a very relativistic view of art, but I can’t bring myself to say that absolutely anything can be art and that there are no bases for judging it. There must be. Otherwise why do I even try to do “good” art? So there’s a line there that I believe is there, but can’t establish where it is. I shrink from making any bold statements here, but I’d like everyone to know that I appreciate the brainwork going on (I find Jason’s last statement particularly helpful).

Something that often helps me is to think about how we bear the image of God as we create art. At the end of each of God’s creative works, he paused and declared them “very good.”

God didn’t create junk, and if we use the tools He has given us to create junk, it is an insult to Him and His creation. As we image the Creator, we too must create works of art that are “very good.” This means, I think, works of art that are both technically good and serve to guide people to the truth. And as we approach the art of others, we must ask ourselves, “Is this ‘very good’? Did the artist adequately fulfill his duty as an imagebearer of the Creator?”

Jasonvb,

My intention is not to disparage the arts, it’s to put them in their rightful place in God’s kingdom. Some have a tendency to compartmentalize disciplines (science, art, philosophy, etc.) as being ends to themselves, only judged in the context of themselves (Grant could give a good explanation about how Enlightenment thought led to compartmentalizing of the disciplines).

Because we are imperfect, we “prophesy in part” according to I Corinthians. In the same way we can only present a part of the beauty, truth and love of God in art or any other form. But the more we get to know God, the larger that “part” becomes.

Our desire should be to give God the most possible glory through all parts of our lives, including art.

For example, when I watched the movie “Seven”, I was convicted of my apathy toward sin. This was a response the film provoked in me. Many people who watched the movie probably did not feel that way. So some good came out of me watching the movie. Of course, a much better and much truer movie would have been a movie about confronting people biblically and with love about their sin, leading them into repentance and restoration, and if they did not repent, showing God’s wrath (as opposed to man’s self-righteous wrath). That would have been more true, more beneficial, more challenging. The Boondock Saints would be an even more perverted, less true movie about a proper way to confront sin (at least I think, I couldn’t watch the whole thing).

I hope I’m not the only one here who would hate to live in a world where all movies ended with “confronting people biblically and with love about their sin, leading them into repentance and restoration, and if they did not repent, showing God’s wrath.” Sure that might be true in some cases, how boring to live in a world where all art says the same thing.

I love living in a society that permits artists to say different things. Contrary to what grant was saying earlier, I feel that artists today are saying many different things. And I like it that way. If enough people find a movie boring or untrue, it will flop. If a movie resonates with a lot of people, it will be a box office success. If a film-maker has an obscure or unpopular point of view that he is trying to get across, then he will have to search for creative ways to reach people who will appreciate what he has to say.

Adaptation resonates with me. The ending, full of uncertainty and references to the vanity of vanities, might ring true to Solomon as well.

I admit that my intellectual capacity is lacking to be able to contribute any useful insights to this discussion. It is good to read, though. Getting back to Grant’s mention of God’s kindom, isn’t that what we should be seeking singlemindedly? This discussion has seemed to be dominated alot by a “higher knowledge” type attitude that I think gives too much freedom and credence to our ability to figure things out.

The last post was full of personal preferences, likes and dislikes. It told me what kind of world you want to live in, what you think is boring, what kind of society you love living in, how you feel, what way you like it, and what resonates with you. God’s call to Christians is not contingent on what kind of world you want to live in.

My experience with God’s demands so far has been that alot of times it’s not the way I like it and that it doesn’t cater to my feeling good or stimulated or the formation of a what I think is a chill society.

We need to tie these discussions in more closely with God’s Word or we are on dangerous ground if we call them anything other than gross speculation.

“Whatever is true. . .noble. . .right. . .pure. . .lovely. . .admirable. . .excellent or praisworthy – think about such things”.

I think we are tying these discussions in with our understanding of God’s word, as a whole. There may not be a lot of proof texts flying around, but I know this discussion is certainly informed by a belief in and respect for God’s word. Your comment about our ability to figure things out is right on, Dave. I keep thinking we’re mistaking ideas for art. Not that art doesn’t sometimes contain ideas, but I think its essence is definitely something other than lessons to be learned, things to be taught, or ideas to be grasped. We almost never get into discussions about a painting or piece of instrumental music on this site. I wonder why that is. Are painting and music not art?

dave,

here’s an article related to philippians 4:8 that was published on *cino last march: ../issues/article.cfm?issue=13&article=131