I love metal.

I love the genre which is defined by unintelligible scream, ridiculously loud guitars and drums and ferocity. While some would argue that this genre, this musical world is dark, satanic, or even stupid since you can’t understand it they misunderstand. Some Christians would argue against those who try and redeem it because they figure that to praise God one must actually be able to understand the lyrics (anybody ever try listening to Gregorian chants?). But, again, they misunderstand.

Yes, some metal is satanic. Yes, much of it is offensive. But I would argue that good and true metal (not necessarily the same as old school metal) is important. Maybe you don’t want to listen to it per se but it is still important.

Metal is the epitome of that which is not right with the world. Even the best metal is simply hammering at high speeds on the drums, shrieking or growling, all this talented but at some level it just shows what’s wrong the world. A world where grace is not shown in form, where beauty must be masked behind the growls. But, be careful, because to simply say that it epitomizes what is wrong with the world is not to deny its merits nor to defend those who deem it satanic.

Now, with lyrics:

Truth hidden in a talented, though, very acquired style. As I Lay Dying (AILD) is declaring their hope in Christ. Despite the pain of doubts, the shame they feel about this, despite their piety and devotion they hold to a hope. But let’s not dwell on Christian metal only. This next video is not graphic but the lyrics are blunt, raw and does contain some language, so be warned.

This video deals honestly with how Christian have turned the metal scene off. We have declared it satanic and left it, then we give it the dignity of seeing us protest and whine. Motionless in White do mock Christianity to some extent, but maybe we need to ask ourselves: is this what we’ve done? “You stand for nothing and your heart is untrue,” how do these lyrics not depict depth? How do they not show the pain we’ve caused by not loving one scene of music and people because of how they dress and the brutality of their art?

“I am who I am, this is what we are,
I don’t care if this offends you, or your worthless god
To all the kids who’s letters I receive
The broken hearted, the damaged just like me

I will be your voice to let the world know we stand as one
We’re standing right here so come and f***** get us

Open your mind before your mouth
Or come and f***** get us.”

This is the depth you find, the heart you find, in metal today. I’m not saying all metal is good, some is satanic and evil, but to make blanket statements is to cause this. Motionless in White is declaring their allegiance against God but for those broken kids who find solace in this music, those broken kids we should love. Truth in ugliness? I say absolutely yes.

This is why I love metal. Because it stands up and gives the broken a place to come, to vent their anger in a musical form appropriate for it. But it’s important because the truth in it can be seen despite the “ugliness.” These last few videos are some of my favorites.

Christian band:

Not Christian:

Finally, just realize that because you dislike a genre does not make it evil or wrong. Christ calls us to redeem.

Everyone tends to love action movies. Everywhere another action movie is released. It’s so frequent that weekly there is a new action movie, a new thriller, so on and so forth. In 2012 alone we have had some “major” films. The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, The Amazing Spiderman etc. And then we have thrillers/spy movies. The two movies which tail end each other are The Bourne Legacy and Skyfall,  the latest Bond flick. And between those two Skyfall wins.

The problem with many thrillers today is that they lack a sense of story if you will. And by this I mean simply a sense of the simple and relatively clear. The Bourne Legacy, for all its perks, was too concerned with making an extravagant story line about “super” soldiers with drugs and this is its downfall. But Skyfall is different. While Skyfall requires the viewer to have seen the previous two of the Daniel Criag Era Bond movies it is a far simpler plot. You have an evil computer terrorist, you have James Bond, you have multiple babes, and you have multiple actions sequences, not too complex, just your basic save the world plot. The simplicity is one of its benefits.

But unlike most modern thrillers Skyfall doesn’t try to be somewhat “smart.” Heck, it could even be called dumb. But it’s a good thing to be dumb sometimes. All one needs is a man in a suit (multiple styles throughout the film), a gun, and multiple babes to bed and you have a Bond film – oh and add some delicious foreign villain and you’re off to a great start. Skyfall doesn’t care that there is no deeper message, no ethics raised, nothing, it just is a movie. And, unlike, Bourne Legacy, its dumbness lies in simplicity whereas Bourne’s was found in a purely idiotic plot.

As a movie Skyfall  succeeds and stands as one of the better Craig Era Bond movies. Nothing more need be said about it because it really is just a simple action movie which happened to be executed extremely well.

In Time:

A future world where you stop aging at twenty five and unless you get more time you’ll die a year later. It’s a rather original idea that turns sour with it’s overtly political message. And politics in movies aren’t bad but in this case it takes the Occupy Wall Street mentality to an extreme. “For a few to be immortal some must die,” is a line repeated through the movie. It’s too preachy, the action is rather dull, and there’s no nuance to it. Cillian Murphy is really the only decent part of this movie. Ignore.

The Beaver:

A man is depressed. He has tried everything, reading the books, taking pills, and finally he is about to kill himself but then…the puppet beaver he found in a dumpster talks to him. Rather, he talks to himself as the beaver. In a rather darkly humorous movie about depression and how serious it is and what the mind is capable of. For most of the movie it’s almost like what the heck is this. But by the end of the movie there is reconciliation and hope, and not some false “find yourself” crap, but rather a need for people. Recommended.

Man on a Ledge:

Former cop breaks out of jail to clear his name in a supposed diamond theft. A decent movie till the man comes off the ledge which causes it to turn into a cliché movie. The only truly redeemable thing about this movie is the family honor and the emphasis on it. Ignore.

Tower Heist:

Comedic robbery movie. Rather pointless and not as humorous as it could have been. Ignore.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Decent action, generally decent acting. Very over-wrought and melodramatic. Storyline was poor for the most part and felt rushed. Ignore.

Everyone has a method of viewing film. Everyone goes through evolution to reach a point that is the final determination of how you look and treat film. For me, at sixteen, I’m still searching, still struggling with the nuances of grace in films and with objectionable content .vs. the let’s count cusswords mentality. I’m still evolving; I think I’ve hit land though, now I just need to stand. This second part is going to be sort of long, sort of boring, but extremely important.

________________

My previous essay explained that “The Two Towers” started me on my love for film. But more importantly it started me on a desire to look at film and I wanted to make a movie. I started digging up everything I could on how to make a movie. I can’t say exactly when, probably at my birthday or Christmas, I started to realize that I couldn’t make film without an ethic for what is acceptable and not, and an ethic for viewing film. My parents gave me a set of Vision Forum CD’s on how to view film and make it. They gave me a book called Outside Hollywood, also from Vision Forum. While I probably do not agree currently with Vision Forum’s view of film it caused me to care about how I think about film.

So, what exactly did Vision Forum put in my mind? Basically the premise of Outside Hollywood is that Christians are too effected by ideals from Hollywood, which was founded Marxists to destroy the family, and that Christians needs to stay out of Hollywood and be extremely critical of films made there. That we need to take back film for Christ and that we need to refocus how we make films. Oddly, this rather narrow view that seems to focus on the bad and not the good in film made me realize something: film is important. It’s too important a medium for Christians to leave behind and ignore. This actually led me to a more fundamental question:  What is art and what is acceptable within a piece of art?

I started to bash Hollywood. Saying that they were evil and were out to pollute us and corrupt families. I started asking questions and bashing on portrayals of sex, violence or cussing. I became a cussword counter. Then I started to encounter the other side: those films with sex or cussing are more than those things. These movies can be rich beautiful pictures. Like a painting there is the ugly in it, there may be some nudity and some grotesqueness, but ultimately if it is of any worth then it will still teach and rise above. I slowly learned, though, as I walked in this field that it can become justification for watching movies with loads of sex or swearing. I was back in a dilemma: where is the line? What determines good and evil in a film? Can a film still be good if the characters sleep together or if one character swears a lot?

I needed to start answering these. Eventually Philippians 4:8 started to occupy my mind. If we’re supposed to pursue the good and beautiful then what’s good about Ezekiel 23- where Ezekiel gives a graphic allegory of adultery and prostitution. Am I supposed to meditate on that? Same question is applicable to film. Take a film like “The White Ribbon”, extremely graphic (not so much in WHAT it portrays but rather it HOW it goes about these things and the simplicity with which Haneke (the director) uses the camera), am I supposed to meditate on it? It is aesthetically pleasing; it deals with important issues that Christians should ask themselves. But but but, I asked, it has masturbation so it’s evil. This is a conflict I had to resolve. Or take the film Paths of Glory, it is not that graphic in violence or sex or language (it’s a fifties film), but it is one of the most disturbing films ever. Three men are accused of not obeying orders and are to be executed. But the disturbing part is that one is on a stretcher injured and he is still shot by the firing squad anyways. Is that wrong? Where is grace and mercy? I was stuck.

In between this period and my total abandon to the other side I was on a teeter-totter swinging one way and back. I’d say counting cusswords can detract but then I’d read about a movie with over 200 “F”- bombs. And then I would be back to the other side. I was pretty darn confused but then…

I received the book “Through a Screen Darkly” (which everyone who is serious about film should read). Overstreet (the author) takes us on his journey in film. He takes us through dark bleak films and then ends in the light. That light is what we as serious viewers of film should pursue. He doesn’t say there is a one-size-fits-all mold to making film, he does not even talk about it all that much. He is more concerned with the ideas and themes. He states that counting cusswords can lead us to miss the point of the film. Sometimes the films that have more swearing or more offensive content that we object to, those films can be the most redemptive.  Though Overstreet did not intend this it happened. I took it to mean that content is not that big a deal and that film is more about the themes.

I’m not sure if it is reflected in my reviews but it came out in my conversations with Eli and Joe. I would basically say that the content of the film does not matter. But this is not what Overstreet claimed. Re-reading it recently I realized he was saying: pursue the light in films, films which show light and grace and beauty and redemption. This means watching the films that we may object to on the level of content. This means that you cannot ignore the seemingly “simple” films. The light is everywhere.

So where am I now? I said I’m out of the water in my evolution and that I just need to stand. What does that mean? I am still on the side of pursuing the light in film, beyond the objectionable content, but I am also at a point where I am free to say: That movie has terrible content but it shows the beauty that is redemption and grace. Or: that movie is squeaky clean but has the worst themes you’ll ever see (I’m talking to you Lion king, circle of life psshhh). The thing is I am still conflicted. I will constantly be conflicted but let me paraphrase something from Francis Schaeffer’s “Art and the Bible”: “You need the evil but if you focus solely on that than you miss the point. You need redemption. Evil is a miniscule part of the story of reality, redemption is the majority.” Search for the light, search for it wherever you may find it in film.

To be continued….