Mixed Feelings


I have a lot of mixed feelings about this film.

I come from a Christian background (Protestant, conservative, fundamental, evangelical) although I'm not part of the group now. Back when I was a teenager, I was super into my youth group and Rachel was a Christian role model to me. I liked her idea of a prayer journal and I especially was compelled by habit of treating others with friendship and compassion. Her devoutness to her faith, her kindness to others, and her desire to make a difference were all things that resonated with me at the time.

But I have a lot of reservations to actually seeing the trailer to the film.

(1)It makes me nervous to hear that PureFlix is behind this. I absolutely abhor their God’s Not Dead series. Both movies were set up with this paranoia of persecution, strawmanning of atheists and non-Christians (like Muslims in the first film), and the whole thing struck me as very mean-spirited, especially (spoiler alert) the first film which seemed to have this awful glee in killing the atheist professor. I was just sickened.

(2) I wish it was a story that was more loosely based on Rachel but set apart from the actual events of Columbine. If they want to write a movie about a high school girl who wants to change the world for God at her school and sentimental things ensue, I’m fine with that. But putting it in the context of the Columbine shooting makes me uneasy because there were other victims, other family members and friends who suffered a loss, and how are they supposed to feel when all this gets dragged out again? The feeling of it seems exploitative, even if the people behind the film didn’t intend for it to be that way.

(3) The movie looks like it is going to push the myth that Rachel was targeted for her faith and died affirming it and I just don’t think it’s true. Their only source for the claim isn’t reliable and I don’t know why anybody feels the need to keep pushing it. The idea that she died for her faith was never what I liked about Rachel. I liked how she lived, the people she affected, and the legacy that she left behind because I do believe that she was generally a loving, compassionate, tolerant girl.

(4) I am worried that Rachel is going to be sanitized from a complex person into a Christian Good Girl image. I’ve only seen the trailer and so I might be totally wrong. But I always liked the idea that Rachel was someone who befriended people different from her, used to smoke cigarettes, harbored doubts, felt dark feelings, and who lived as someone searching for the answers, not as someone who had them all.

(5) I’m worried that this movie is going to conflate Eric and Dylan with atheism and then school shootings and the death of nice Christian girls with atheism. It especially seems likely because PureFlix is at the helm. I can’t for the life of me figure out what that is supposed to accomplish. It doesn’t make atheists more open to hearing their message and it seems to make Christians judge atheists based on these stereotypes more than it opens them up to love them. It also doesn’t sound like something that Rachel would have wanted because many accounts say that she was friends of people who were atheists, agnostics, and of different religions. I always liked that she was open and could be close to people who had opposite beliefs from her.

Those reasons really dilute was otherwise would be more nostalgic for my fifteen-year-old self. I think Rachel had admirable ideals in seeking truth, living with integrity,
caring, and compassion. I think those are admirable things. But when I see the promotions, I just wonder "How is this going to go?"

reply

I actually wouldn't mind seeing it even though I know a lot of it has to be taken with a (HUGE) grain of salt. I think based on the trailer they are at least attempting to show a little perspective from Eric & Dylan's point-of-view but I don't expect them to be portrayed in a sympathetic light very long.

reply

I saw it yesterday.

1) It's way better than God's Not Dead.

2) It mainly focuses on Rachel's life. In the end all the victims of the shooting are named. If we're going to complain, like someone trolls are doing, about a film based on a diary of a teenage girl who died in a tragic event that affected millions of people, then we might as well complian about adaptations of The Diary of Anne Frank.

4) Rachel is shown as your typical free spirited, fragile, conflicted, confused teenage girl. In no way do they paint her as a Christian Good Girl.

5) The shooters are portrayed as confuse, hurting young men influenced by Hitler's writings and video games. The bullying that occurred at Columbine is clearly shown and connected to the shooting. David Errigo Jr's performance is outstanding and it's almost easy to sympathize with his characterization of a hurting young man who sees violence as the answer to life's injustices.

I highly recommend you catch I'm Not Ashamed in theaters this weekend.

reply

I literally thought of all of these, thanks!

yea where was the outrage to Diary of Anne Frank?

If Rachel Scott, had been "secular" and movie done by "secular" company, there woulfdve been no complaints.

it's very telling about the anti Chrstian sentiment, dont u think?

reply

I will clarify my feelings about PureFlix:

The idea that anti-Christian sentiment is behind the mixed feelings is a misunderstanding. It wasn’t because I don’t like films to mention faith, but rather that, as a person faith (former evangelical, now Catholic), I care deeply about how I see faith presented.

My concern was less that a Christian filmmaking company was working on the film than that Pureflix in particular had the job. My opinion has been that they do poor characterization. I want to see real, complex three-dimensional human beings who are Muslim and atheist and Christian, all of them with their virtues and flaws and doubts and everything that colors in our humanity. Not stock people. That’s not what I see when I go out into the real world and so it feels to me like characters like that are written to make life’s narrative simpler.

A lot of these beliefs also come because Rachel Joy Scott deeply inspired me during my high school years. At the time, I had never known another Christian who simply befriend people and tried to understand them, not as potentials for conversion, but as actual people. I am heartened to hear from other reviewers that the film is more akin to a “film about a Christian girl” than a “Christian film” and that her struggles and darker moments are indeed portrayed (as I had worried they would be sanitized out of the film).

For example, PureFlix was behind the film God’s Not Dead and I had a lot of problems with the film.

For instance, I did not like it’s treatment of Muslims. The father character was said to mention how, to paraphrase, “nobody worships God the way he demands” which struck me as something very similar to how conservative Christians feel and we have so much in common with being monotheistic religions that revere God the Creator and Abraham as their father in faith; Jesus is considered a great prophet in the Qur’an; Mary, his Mother, as the mother of a prophet. When I think of the Muslim people, I think of people who sincerely seek God and follow the voice of their conscience. But the film had this stereotypical view of a Muslim father kicking his daughter out of their home after she admits to converting to Christianity. The father is shown to grieve his decision, though not relent, but it struck me as odd because I know that most parents raising their children in the Christian faith wouldn’t respond well. I had a coworker and friend of mine whose parents kicked him out when he came out to them as gay and it was their Christian faith that compelled them to do so. Any faith or viewpoint be can be used to drive a wedge between people. So I felt curious as why the filmmakers felt the need to perpetuate Islamophobic stereotypes. After all, these characters were the only representations of Muslims in the film and only the converted Christian is painted in a positive light.

I also felt disquieted in how the atheist characters were treated. Something that I enjoy is reading the writings of atheists who used to be Christian and their explaining why they deconverted, what their problems with the church are, and so forth. (Godless in Dixie is one of my favorite blogs and the author felt near exactly the same way I did about God’s Not Dead and while we obviously come to different conclusions about the existence of God, I think he has many insights worth wrestling with and we have a lot of the same attitudes toward life, such as the belief that atheists and Christians are really more alike than different and that we could be allies in terms of wanting to good in the world, having positive friendships, and so forth, de-emphasizing that sense of “otherness.” I also like talking to my friends who are atheists and they talk about why they don’t believe, what teachings they may have problems with, or whatever. One of such friends is remarkably intuitive and eloquent. None of them are people like the Professor who just want to argue people out of faith or the reporter who seem to pick on religious people for gratification. As the film continued, it bothered me how the atheist characters were treated. The reporter had cancer and no support and my personal impression was that the film seemed to be all “That’s what you get.” I didn’t feel like the film had real empathy for her character and it seemed more like a way to convert her and then we all get to pat ourselves on the back like we were proven right. The professor was just killed and his death was shown from four different camera angles like it was supposed to be a cool action sequences. Others apparently perceived it differently, but I did not sense like the filmmakers had any actual sympathy for the professor at his death. Nor do I believe that Christians would accept it if a film presented a judgmental holier than thou Christian who died at the end of the film, even if they learned a valuable life lesson right before they croaked. I also know that if I were an atheist and this is how I saw myself represented in Christian media, I would be deeply frustrated. I would feel caricatured and like these people who want to convert me don’t even really know me or, apparently, care to.

But I don’t believe in that. My conviction is that the main virtue and goal of a Christian is to love. I think it is a disservice to my faith to make a group “other” because they are atheist, Muslim, gay, or any other label. I think it is a disservice to Jesus Christ if I don’t’ see the dignity and humanity in every single person. I believe that when you encounter God you feel *seen* and loved. My feelings at the time was that God’s Not Dead was not a movie that taught us how to love our neighbor. It didn’t encourage us to have a dialogue and love each other. It was just another movie about how Christians have to worry about godless people who want to persecute us.

This concerned me about PureFlix doing Rachel’s movie because Rachel was someone who professed to virtues of friendship and compassion, forgiveness, love, helping others and doing acts of kindness, standing up for what is right, showing mercy, seeing the best in others. I believe you cannot promote these values while also holding up the common bogeymen that haunt Christian movies (atheists, liberals, etc) and I wasn’t convinced that PureFlix wouldn’t find a way to work it in somehow.

My belief is just the culture war is dead (if you want it). We don’t need to be red state vs. blue state, Christian vs atheist, etc. I feel like there are people in both camps who benefit from seeing that war narrative continue, but as I am in the Christian camp, that is the one that I speak up about. And so I challenge what stories we tell ourselves. And I feel deep concern that the stories PureFlix tell (possibly not I’m Not Ashamed from reviews) can make us fear instead of love and that isn’t the heart of my faith.

reply

"I want to see real, complex three-dimensional human beings who are Muslim and atheist and Christian, all of them with their virtues and flaws and doubts and everything that colors in our humanity"

Really, because that's exactly what I saw them doing in God's not Dead.

reply

It isn't very telling of the anti Christian sentiment. Anne Frank was targeted because she was Jewish, the Diary of Anne Frank's portrayal of persecution against Jews is accurate. Rachel Scott wasn't targeted because she was Christian and to portray otherwise (which is what the outrage over this film that I have seen looks to be based on) would be exploiting a tragedy and disrespectful to the memory of Rachel Scott.

Outrage/complaints is inevitable when or if it looks like a religious based film (based on trailers, how a production company has portrayed Christians and non Christians in past films etc) is exploiting a tragedy to push an agenda. Having an issue with how a Christian film is written does not make a person anti Christian.

reply

It's not exploitative to show exactly what happened. Rachel was challenged and it doesn't matter if they would have shot her anyway, many people would have denied God when pressed like that and she didn't. More than that though, she'd been a living example of love for long beforehand.

reply

I'm not sure how you got a sense of "glee" out of the atheist professor's death in God's Not Dead...he was met with compassion and glee was expressed over his acceptance of Christ in his final moments.

No one was jubilant that he was fatally wounded.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++


reply