Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Blog (via Mowser)

One edit away.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

::Previous Jesus Camp posts can be found here and here. This is the last I intend to post on it.::

I have, at last, seen the movie Jesus Camp. I found myself tempted to begin an item by item critique and discussion of it now that I've seen it fully. I was going to make a case refuting those who say kids are being exploited for a cause by pointing out that the filmmakers also chose to exploit children for their own needs. But...

...frankly, I decided it would be a waste of time. There is no way to put the film in any kind of context that could be understood by someone who doesn't understand, a rather sticky catch-22. I don't even know where to start. And secondly, Rich Tatum has said all that needs to be said regarding the specifics of the film. Read his post if that's what you are looking for. This post is more a rumination on documentaries. [UPDATE: Rob at Say Anything also has a critique of the film.]

Fahrenheit 9/11 inspired conservative filmmakers to create documentaries to refute its claims. All these documentaries ended up doing was proving one thing and one thing only: there is more than one way to look at an issue. Was that something that was ever in question? Did any of them document anything, really?

As I watched Jesus Camp, I found myself trying to make sense of how it was all strung together, trying to figure out where it was leading the audience. The film has a liberal radio talk show host mixed in with the Supreme Court nomination of Alito mixed in with voice-overs from Dobson and other Christian leaders mixed in with clips from NAE president Ted Haggard mixed in with clips of a Pentecostal-specific kids' ministry mixed in with excessive focus on two very un-average kids mixed in with broad statements about Evangelical beliefs.

These elements do not make sense mixed together; they do not lead logically into each other. If you think that they do, then this is why the film can't be put into any context that would help you understand what you saw and heard outside of what you assume you saw, of what you assume you heard.

Only an outsider would ever attempt to use a very specific Pentecostal kids' ministry as a stand-in for the Evangelical movement. Evangelicals are not all Pentecostals and there are going to be some of them, in watching this film, that will be as confused as non-Evangelicals. How the film found a way to tie together and insinuate a connection between many unconnected things is an example of the propagandistic leanings of documentaries.

Pick the extremes, because they make for better film. And then pick the extremes of the extremes. Edit wisely, juxtaposing soundbites with conflicting visuals for greater punch. Pick the message you want to get out and then go find the film and sound to support it.

The questions I need to ask myself are not just those posed by the filmmaker, but something beyond. Did the filmmaker head into the project with an agenda or did the film develop on its own? Did the filmmaker need to add extra elements in to "balance" it because it seemed unbalanced as far as his or her own opinion was concerned? Is it really possible to document something accurately if you already know what you want to find? And most importantly, what still sits on the editing room floor? What didn't make it into the film, and what does that say about the message of the film itself? What did that person say after the camera was shut off?

A documentary is merely one clever edit from being propaganda. That's all it takes. I'm not sure what Jesus Camp was about, but it wasn't about Jesus, and it wasn't about a camp. It seemed more like the traditional pre-November 2nd documentary that I am growing weary of.

UPDATE: In the comments section below, I made mention of how Ted Haggard did not impress me. Now, with the latest scandal, an article reiterates the problem I had with the flippant advice he gave one of the children in the Jesus Camp movie.

[image]

tag: jesus camp

Labels: religion

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

8 Comments:

So what didn't you like about the movie?

By Anonymous, at 30/9/06 00:01

Excellent post, Julie, sums up some thoughts I've had about documentaries so perfectly I'm just going to point to you instead. While you point to me.

And we do all this pointing back and forth, is there any chance others will stop pointing at the film while gloating, "Aha! Caught ya red-handed, you evil-varmint-gelicals!"

Not a chance.

I'm about ready to call "Uncle!" myself.

Rich
BlogRodent

By Rich Tatum, at 30/9/06 05:44

Julie,
You are right that there is more than one way to look at an issue and these kids are being trained to see everything from one perspective. They will try to see different aspects only if the story being told hurts their ideals.

Which is worse? Criticizing this school from what you saw on the documentary or defending it with the things you haven't seen. You might have been there but it does not explain why most evangelicals are defensive about it. I think it is a religious thing to defend what you have never seen.

To tell you the truth I have only seen the ABC clip and the trailer and I think I have seen enough. If you tell me that those kids were crying because they had lost their toys and the director cut the scene where the kid was looking for his toy before he started to cry then I'd correct myself. But if you try to explain why it is ok for a kid to cry because of a religious idea then I am not interested in that side of the story -was it what you were referring when you said there we were dmore than one way to look at it?

By Anonymous, at 30/9/06 10:27

"...I have only seen the ABC clip and the trailer and I think I have seen enough."

[...]

"...I am not interested in that side of the story."

This is why I said what I did at the start of the post: there's no point in trying to explain and that's why I didn't. But thank you for joining in the discussion with your comment; it's good to have a variety of thoughts on the matter.

By Julie, at 30/9/06 10:55

I'd nip that toy-cryin' business in the bud, if I were you. What are we raising, capitalists?

Rich
BlogRodent

By Rich Tatum, at 30/9/06 22:39

Julie
I still plan on catching the movie, but hearing your review brought down my blood pressure a little bit. I, like you, am a Lakewood Park Bible Camp alumn, and I hate to see a place that was such a part of my formative years be placed in a bad light. But you are right - unless someone has been previously introduced to the Pentacostal experience, they won't get it. Catholics won't get it, Lutherans won't get it. Pentacostalism has so much focus on emotion and connecting to the Holy Spirit through emotion. And someone from a dry, spiritless faith will never understand that. But to those that think these kids are being warped -- I mean come on people. Do you really think that this camp is the ONLY influence on these kids lives? While some are home schooled, msst are not. They will go on to a myriad of life expereinces.

I can't count the number of times at kids camp, and tween camp, and teen camp, and CA convention, and youth group nights, and other church get-togethers, that I sat at the altar, crying my eyes out. Because dad hit us, because mom was inneffectual. Because my first boyfriend treated me like crap. Because the spirit moved and it felt right to cry. There is so much more going on in a kids heart at the altar than blind crying for the sake of crying. I was seeking solice from somewhere - and I got that from that emotional connection to God.

And, again, to those of you who think these kids will grow up warped - I went to camps much like this. I went to a Christian college. I live in the Chicago burbs, I consider myself a Christian liberal feminist. A handful of those I went to camp with are in the ministry now. A couple had kids out of wedlock. I ran into one on a plane a few years ago -- she was in recovery for an eating disorder. A few are probably even Democrats, too.

By Anonymous, at 1/10/06 20:57

Sorry to take so long to answer you, Anonymous.

"So what didn't you like about the movie?"

1) I didn't like the homeschooling mother who said something like "Science doesn't prove anything", having to listen to her ramble to the camera in a manner of rote talking-points that made me cringe. It was a nightmare homeschooling situation. I'm not sure why Christians, who truly believe God is who He says He is, trash science. I don't buy the theory of evolution, but I also don't junk all science because of that. I believe that science points back to God because He is a God of order and made all things, including the science that reveals this. How we interpret science is another matter. Frankly, I'm mortified by the thought of a child being taught that science doesn't prove anything. I love science. I don't run from it scared. I'm naturally curious, just as kids are, and that mother did no one any great service. At least, according to what was captured on camera and allowed through the editing process.

2) I was fully unimpressed by Ted Haggard's performance. A key lesson here to any future people being filmed for a documentary would be to ignore the camera and not direct inside jokes to it for the laughter of the immediate crowd and the horror of the later film audience. He really made a fool of himself to the camera. I think his advice to that young boy, Levi, was terrible, essentially telling him to ride the wave of youthful cuteness to hold an audience's attention while giving a sermon until he got older and his sermons could catch up with him. That was the advice from the head NEA guy to a young boy interested in preaching? I also think that for him to insinuate that all Evangelicals vote in a non-thinking block is ludicrous and crass. "It's a good life!" he said rather smugly, thinking in these political-religious terms; horrific.

By Julie, at 2/10/06 23:51

Julie, I agree that Haggard made a mistake in playing camp to the camera. I suspect he was trying to either "aw shucks" his way into likeability, or he was taken in by the directors' likeability. Or he just can't control himself.

As for his advice to Levi, the only other thing he could have said that would have been better would have been, "Lay off the pulpit until you really have something to say." Which, really, was his subtext. Levi is too young to be preaching, frankly, and short of saying, "Stop that!" he did about the most polite thing he could: "I say use your cute kid thing until you're thirty and by then you'll have good content."

In other words, don't take yourself too seriously.

I really can't fault him for saying that to Levi while on camera.

I found the homeschooling scenes interesting. I don't know how they do it, but I've read studies that have shown homeschoolers score higher than their public counterparts in all subject areas. That's hard to believe, but on the other hand, one filmed exchange between mom and son doesn't really paint the whole picture.

I personally believe children need to be taught the theory of evolution if only so they can at least discourse on the subject without resorting to creationism bullet-points. And if a Christian student ever hopes to enter the sciences, they'll need to master the material, regardless. Let the schools teach their theories, and let the parents and churches counter with solid teaching from the Word.

Yeah. Like that's going to happen.

Regards,

Rich
BlogRodent