A Brief Review of Fireproof
Michael Brown
in Films
|
28 Comments
|
2 References
OK, I will admit it publicly: I saw the film Fireproof. That's right, the one starring...(pause to wince)...Kirk Cameron. There, I said it.
Those of you who know me may be a little shocked and wonder why a creation-affirming, film-loving Reformed minister would want to see a "Christian" film, especially one with the former Growing Pains star and made by the Kendrick brothers (who made, hands down, the worst movie I have ever seen, one that thoroughly misrepresented Christianity with a prosperity gospel and gross theology of glory: Facing the Giants). Well, first, I was interested in seeing Fireproof because it actually did quite well in the box-office. This piqued my interest; I want to know a) what evangelicals are calling a good movie, and b) what our culture is viewing as a representation of Christianity.
Secondly, I was particularly interested to see it because of the subject matter: marriage. This is unquestionably the reason for the film's popularity. People - believers or unbelievers - are desperate to gain wisdom and any spiritual secrets to improve their marriages (which, as we all know, can often be pretty messy).
In brief, my thoughts on the film are as follows:
THE CONS:
- Bad acting. I mean, really bad. Actually, Cameron is not that bad (believe it or not), but most of the cast is painfully awful. Then again, most of these people are not professional actors, but volunteers from an evangelical church associated with the film makers. If the viewer knows that up front, a lot of the poor acting can be forgiven. Then it's sort of like watching Keanu Reeves play every role, and without pay.
- Unrealistic characters. The main character's Christian parents look like they stepped out of a Thomas Kinkade painting. They have that sort of "different beings" flavor to them, which evangelicals seem to love. Moreover, while I realize that evangelicals want to make movies that are "clean" and have virtually no swearing, this simply does not depict reality. It's hard to believe that violent arguments between two unbelievers frustrated in their marriage would not be peppered with colorful language. It doesn't have to be a machine gun firing the F-bomb, but make it believable. And overweight firefighters? C'mon. Don't tell me the South is THAT much different than California. I have never seen an overweight firefighter in my life.
- Presents Christianity as the solution to a bad marriage.The reality is that there are plenty of unbelievers who are happily married (relatively speaking). This is because marriage is a creational, pre-Fall institution that belongs to the realm of common grace, not redemption. Marriage (that is, a lifelong, monogomous covenant between one man and one woman) is for all people, not merely Christians. Chances are there is an unbelieving married couple on your street who have a pretty good marriage, due to their relationship being marked with mutual service, love and devotion. Conversely, there are plenty of Christian marriages that look like the one depicted at the beginning of the movie (i.e. characterized by selfishness, unforgiveness, anger, and bitterness), due to the Christian couple refusing to get over themselves and grow up. So, this is very misleading. And unbelievers are not so stupid that they can't pick up on this. Just read the reviews of this film.
- Presents a theology of glory. More of the above. Unfortunately, the message preached (and I mean preached) in this movie inevitably comes across to say, "Become a Christian and the circumstances of your life will improve." Well, that is a) not true and b) not a valid reason for becoming a Christian. Read 1 Corinthians 15. The only valid reason for becoming a Christian is that the message of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is TRUE, not that it offers the spiritual magic to have your best life right now.
- Presents a "40-day plan" as the fix-it to marriage. The father of "Caleb," who strangely looks a lot like a thinner version of "Pastor Chuck" of Calvary Chapel fame, urges his son to take the "Love Dare," that is, 40 days of law-keeping designed to transform his life and marriage. While there is a lot of wisdom in the challenge, this misrepresents Christianity; a married couple does not need a bloody Savior on a cross in order to apply law-principles to their relationship.
- The role of the local church is altogether absent. For preaching Christianity in a film, the role of the local church, the means of grace, discipleship, church discipline, is mysteriously absent. Well, mysteriously absent, I suppose, to Reformational Christians. For most evangelicals, ecclesiology is the mystery. Christianity often comes down to you and your personal God-expereince.
THE PROS:
- It presents marriage as a lifelong covenant. Despite the theology of glory stuff, this film got a few things right about marriage and said some things that people desperately need to hear, namely, that marriage is a lifelong covenant. Of course, the film didn't take the time to explain what a covenant is (!), which is rather typical of evangelical assumption of theology, but it did, at least, make very clear the fact that marriage and the vows taken in the ceremony are for life. People - Christian or non-Christian - are hungry to hear this. We know that this is right by nature. Why else is divorce so painful?
- It points out a lot of wisdom for marriage. Forgiveness, love, devotion, service, holding one's tongue, etc. These are the basic principles of any good marriage, and it is helpful to watch two actors struggling through this in a movie. But again, these aren't strictly Christian principles; they are creational and stamped on the conscience. To love one's spouse is law. To love is to do. Granted, the difference for the Christian is that law-keeping is motivated by the Gospel and enpowered by the Holy Spirit who is renewing the believer in the image of God. But the principles themselves apply to everyone. The wisdom presented in the film (i.e. Caleb learns to stop being a selfish jerk to his wife, and begins to look outside of himself to serve her) is great stuff for which all human beings are hard-wired by nature.
- Shows the sin and failure in both the husband and wife. The film not only depicts "Caleb," the main character, as being a moral failure by viewing internet porn and thereby deeply hurting his wife, but it also shows her moral failure by accepting advances from a co-worker and being flirtatious. In fairness, though, the writers could have done a better job in showing how the latter is as much a violation of the covenant of marriage as the former, if not far more.
- It actually preached the first use of the law at one point. Perhaps this was due to Cameron's association with Ray Comfort, but the film, at one point, actually pointed out that God requires a perfect keeping of the law, of which no one is able. Unfortunately, this was not followed up with a robust explanation of Christ's work. Again, the worn-out, seldomly understood phrase, "Jesus died for your sins," was tossed out there without explanation. Next thing you know, Caleb tells a Christian co-worker, "Hey, I'm in." So, his conversion begins Protestant, but quickly shifts to the Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism with which our culture is so familar. But, hey, what can we expect from a "Christian" movie, or anything that tries to redeem the arts for that matter?
Is it worth watching? IMO, not really. In all honesty, I was motivated to be a faithful and honorable husband to my wife far more watching Russell Crowe's character "Maximus" in Ridley Scott's Gladiator. And it is a lot easier watching a first-century Roman general pray pagan prayers in his synchretist religion of ancestor worship than watching Christianity get presented as a theology of glory by people who profess to be Christians. While there is a lot of practical wisdom regarding marriage in this movie, you can get the same thing (and sometimes a lot better) from films that do what the arts are designed to do: depict life and entertain.
References (2)
-
Response: eltcnatchitac -
Response: boys speedoboys speedo boys speedo boys speedo
Reader Comments (28)
After you finish your Th.M., Mike, if you find you need something else to occupy your time, perhaps you can do movie reviews! Seriously, I found #2 of “THE CONS” (unrealistic characters) especially funny; particularly the first line, “The main character's Christian parents look like they stepped out of a Thomas Kinkade painting.” lol... Touché Mike! As assumed in your post, this self-styled “painter of light” (Plato redivivus!) Mr. Thomas Kinkade’s “art” sadly captures the essence of much American religion: dishonestly idealistic, blindly self-centered, and having more in common with Plato than Peter and Paul. “Painter of light” indeed: more like “Christianity lite,” which usually translates into “law lite.” Be that as it may, thanks for the chuckle…
Alex G
Yeah, I've always found that parents are way better marital references than movies and parents really bad at dipiction and entertainment. (If film was supposed to do what some think then I should be able to pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn in front of my parents and be thoroughly entertained.) Funny how the rules in creational ordination actually work.
I finally started Da Vinci Code the other night. It wasn't quite as B-grade as Golden Compass or those lame Narnia movies. But it became clear when my wife started reading her book (always a clue) that we'd wasted two bits, so I turned it off and watched Kirk and Ray on the street followed by some Harry Potter, which I found way more entertaining than any of the former.
Mike,
I am glad you saw this movie, and reviewed it so comprehensively that I will not feel any need to go see it for myself! It sounds from your review like the creators followed the typical model for "christian" movie making, first come up with your message and then attempt to fit a story around it. This is essentially a recipe for artistic disaster, usually resulting in a poorly articulated message and a lousy story to boot!
From looking at the movies website, it actually appears that this movie is nothing more than a huge advertisement for marriage bible study resources put out by this church. They have a whole host of resources ranging from internet protection software to inspirational cards to "Fireproof Your Life".
I must however point out that you are being far to forgiving of the bad acting! Volunteer actors are no excuse (actually in my opinion, there is NO excuse)!
Hillary,
You nailed it: it's a message with a low-budget movie built around it. I guess that makes it rather Platonist and world-fleeing. But then, the Platonism strangely gets set aside in order to market all the merchandise.
And you are right, that was a rather low blow to Keanu Reeves.
was surprised to see that you had watched it but I am thankful due to the in depth review. I agree with AG, you should be a movie critic, "They have that sort of 'different flavors' being to them." classic!
My sister's church had been giving away tickets for this movie awhile back (they had flayers, posters, refrigerator magnets), I think they called it evangelism. Was there any Gospel in the film?
As for Gladiator– I must confess, till this day, I think about naming my first born "Maximus Decimus Meridius" after the commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Now thats– one bad dude.
Pastor Brown you're funny! Thanks for the great review. I agree...you definitely have what it takes to start your own Reformed movie critique website or business. I had been thinking about seeing the film because of all the hype, but was pretty sure that it wouldn't be much different than Facing the Giants. I remember watching Facing the Giants in my Arminian bible study last year. A few people started crying and were so moved by the movie. I couldn't understand it, the acting was horrible, and the movie so unrealistic, the message was partially good but very straight forward and superficial. The theology that my brothers and sisters have in my old church is so that they don’t know better. So sad! all I can do is pray for them and try to point them in the right direction. May the Lord help us all as we try!!
Huh, I never heard of "Facing the Giants" until just now. Does that mean I need to get out more?
No, it means you're Reformed. ;-)
Mark,
I feel like I'm facing the giants each week when I see you and the other tall folk in church:)
RE Megan’s “Facing the Giants” post: like Mark I have not yet viewed this movie either but I have a hunch I know the theme from the title… it’s about conquering the “giants” in your life!!… right? I knew it!!!… whew, that was a tough one… sooo much depth to American pop film!!! :)
Alex G
Michael, I read your review, and I think you make some really solid points, many of which had not occurred to me at all (save for the overweight firefighters). There was also a very small "captain."
Anyways, I still found the film moving and thought provoking, particularly regarding my own marriage. Does this mean that I am a sap? For me, watching the trailers for the other films (Facing, and Flywheel) has generated interest in seeing, possibly purchasing them. As a recent regular Reformed Church attendee (who is considering membership), am I invited to cast off all "evangelical" attempts at making a difference? And, does God abhor to "use" films like this, and "evangelicals," for that matter, to bring about His will? I have so much to learn. Please reply to my email.
Hi Jeffrey,
Well, you ask several questions, so I will respond to them in brief:
1. I still found the film moving and thought provoking, particularly regarding my own marriage. Does this mean that I am a sap? Not at all. I too found the film moving and thought provoking regarding marriage, which is why I listed some pros to the movie (it wasn't all cons. But we can also be moved and provoked to thought (regarding marriage or other topics) by lots of movies and other types of art. It doesn't require a "Christian" version of film, especially one poorly done, to do that.
2. [A]m I invited to cast off all "evangelical" attempts at making a difference? It depends what you mean by "evangelical" and what you mean by "making a difference."
3. And, does God abhor to "use" films like this[?] It depends what you mean by "use." God has not appointed the arts as a means of grace. He has appointed the preaching of his Word and the use of his sacraments in the local church as the primary means of grace to sanctify us. The mission of the church is to make disciples through those means, and to worship him on his terms. The mission of the church is not to make films. The kingdom of God advances not through the arts, sciences, or politics, but through Word and sacrament - things that appear weak before the world. If by "use" you mean (iin this case) an instrument to point out how to be a better husband and a better wife, well, sure, in a common grace/providential way it can. But so can the movie Gladiator, or a good novel, or a lot of things. Marriage is a creational institution. As one unbeliever said of Fireproof, "I don't need Bible verses to teach me not to be a jerk to my wife."
4. [A]nd "evangelicals," for that matter, to bring about His will? Again, it depends what you mean. God can use anything and anyone to bring about his will. He used Pharaoh, as Paul points out in Romans 9.
Hope that helps a little...
Thank you Michael; your reply does help me better understand your review of the movie. I still have lots of thinking to do. I liked the movie, possibly because I looked past its weaknesses, and was drawn to seek God more fervently in prayer and in His Word to help me submit to His will for my marriage, which has been rocky for 14 years. But, after I read your review, I felt as though I was wrong to have gained something from such a movie. And I feel as though I would be wrong to look for some insight through viewing the other films. I guess, what I am trying to say, is I percieved gentleness and respect in the movie review to be lacking. Similarly, even though much of the time I believe myself to be right in my relationship with my wife, I have learned that accurately pointing out her flaws in reasoning and method actually do more damage to our relationship than listening and asking questions. Granted, I still have miles, perhaps light-years, to go in being a good husband, but, lately I have been trying to prioritize patience, kindness, and gentleness. In short, I agree that your points in the review are necessary, but I was taken aback by the tone.
Jeffrey,
I am truly pleased to hear that you were provoked to submit to God in your marriage after watching this film. As I pointed out in the 'pros' of the movie, there are some great wisdom principles brought out. Nevertheless, the wisdom found in the message of the film does not excuse its flaws, beginning with the serious flaw of attempting to redeem art.
I realize that my tone may sound critical and rather harsh, but it is a film review after all. Moreover, I think Christians should be far more taken aback by the tone of the makers of this film who are now marketing a full range of Fireproof Bible study materials and other merchandise: http://www.fireproofmymarriage.com/products.php
I found your review negative and disappointing. Why not be a little positive, when there are so many smutty movies out there. Maybe you should go to "www.fireproofyourmarriage.com" and see what the makers of this film are trying to achieve with this movie. Making marriages stick, with God. It's to bad you may be the reason someone doesn't watch this movie. It might have really spoke to them, in a moment they may have really needed it.
Lennie,
I was a little positive; I pointed out what I considered to be some pros to the movie. I went to "fireproofyourmarriage.com" and I think I understand quite well what the makers of the movie are trying to accomplish. I also saw the "Love Challenge Study Bible" and all sorts of other merchandise being marketed by them. The point is that, irrespective of the common grace wisdom principles in the film, it had some things that were misleading.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making marriages stick and helping people understand that marriage is a lifelong covenant with vows that must be taken with the utmost solemnity. But the film still presented a theology of glory that, quite frankly, I don't want people to embrace. For what its worth, while I am not in favor of "Christian movies," I think it would have been much more honest and powerful to show a Christian married couple struggling through their own issues of bitterness, unforgiveness, frigidity, and anger, rather than two unbelievers coming to Christ in order to solve their marriage.
As we look at this movie through our reformed glasses we certainly have some doctrinal differences. In a world full of calls to break down the marriage bond I was overjoyed to see this movie actually make it to theatres and do fairly well! Anytime there is a call for people to turn to His word it can be used to their salvation and perhaps the saving of their marriage in the process! Yes there's some faults in the movie but compared to most movies that hit the theatres I view this one as gem!
Does this mean that I'm going to be visited by my elder and pastor for having a rather large Thomas Kinkade painting on my dining room wall? Sorry if this comes as rather shocking news, but this Dutch Reformed gal just couldn't resist the lure of the inviting gazebo and the majestic castle shining in all of its brilliant glory against the glow of the evening sky. Perhaps I'm just an incurable romantic, but I have an appreciation for Mr. Kinkade's work with regard to his use of light and color...nothing more, nothing less. (BTW, didn't see the movie...)
LOL! Jane, God has given you the liberty to enjoy and appreciate art to his glory, and that can certainly include a Thomas Kinkade painting! My quip about two of the characters in the film appearing as if they stepped out of a Kinkade was only meant to say that they appeared a little too idealistic to portray real people. By all means, you may enjoy your painting in good conscience and free from concern about the elders nosing around! ;-)