8 Christian Movies That Could Be Made (Including A Few That Shouldn't Be)

Now presenting...

With this week's premiere of The Bible on the History Channel, along with last year's Blue Like Jazz movie and the upcoming film based on the Noah story by Darren Aronofsky, I thought it might be time to explore some other Christian classics (using the word loosely) that are due for the cinematic treatment.

Confessions

Director:
Xavier Beauvois (Of Gods and Men)

Starring:
Ben Barnes (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian) as Young Augustine
Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men) as Old Augustine
Monica Bellucci (The Passion of the Christ) as Monica
Michael Lonsdale (Of Gods and Men) as Ambrose

Synopsis: The acclaimed director of Of Gods and Men brings to life one of history's first autobiographies. The narrative focuses on Augustine (Javier Bardem) re-telling his life story to a young protege. He explores his youth, his conversion and his relationship with his mother, all while interweaving them into the development of his relationship with God.

Thoughts: I would totally see this movie. I'm excited to see this movie. I'm disappointed this movie isn't being made right now.

I Kissed Dating Goodbye

Director:
RomComDirect-O-Bot 2.0 (Meh: The Movie)

Starring:
An Assortment of Non-Threatening Pretty People (Various CW Shows)
That One Guy (Random Episode of House) as Joshua Harris

Synopsis: A group of predominantly white and indiscriminately pretty people struggle with the basic tenants of human interaction which have been in place for thousands of years. In despair, the group of teenage youths turn to a twenty-something "expert" who does his best to solve problems that don't actually exist. The "expert's" advice ultimately proves fruitless, but no one notices since the film ends abruptly before the final scene, presumably because the screenwriter had something better to do.

Thoughts: They can't all be winners.

Could Andrew Garfield pull this off?

Irresistible Revolution

Director:
Cameron Crowe (Almost Famous)

Starring:
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Shane Claiborne
James Gandolfini (The Sopranos) as Tony Campolo
Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) as Mother Theresa

Synopsis: The film follows our hero Shane as he begins to come to terms with the injustice of the world. Led by his mentor Tony, Shane begins to experience the rich and vibrant life of the inner-city and seeks to reclaim beauty in this broken place, eventually dedicating himself to live among those who he has come to love.

Thoughts: A coming of age tale with a strong element of social justice thrown in could make a good movie. However, it would take some skill to walk the line between heavy-handed and removing the content that made the book meaningful.

The Epistles of Paul

Director:
Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood)

Starring:
Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) as Paul

Synopsis: The entire film was shot in one take and is comprised of Paul (Day-Lewis) reading a letter to himself, pondering the questions contained therein as he goes about his daily business of making a tent, then writing out a lengthy response. There was no screenplay and Day-Lewis improvised the very small monologues seen in the movie.

Thoughts: If you really like the silent parts of Cast Away, you might find this mesmerizing.

Revelations of Divine Love

Director:
Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream)

Starring:
Carey Mulligan (An Education) as Julian of Norwich
Michael Caine (The Dark Knight) as The Priest
Christian Bale (The Dark Knight) as Jesus

Synopsis: When young Julian falls deathly ill, she experiences sixteen visual revelations of Christ. Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, Black Swan) adds his beautifully dark visual style to this hallucinatory Christian classic.

Thoughts: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Yes!

Banksy

On First Principles

Director:
Banksy (Exit Through the Gift Shop)

Starring:
Robin Williams
Cuba Gooding Jr.

Synopsis: In this avant garde take on the early church philosopher Origen's beliefs on the pre-existence of the soul, Banksy brings us a shot for shot remake of What Dreams May Come with Cuba Gooding Jr. and Robin Williams switching roles for no good reason. The film plays on an infinite loop until everyone in theater comes to a full realization of self, dies, or leaves crying with their universe shattered.

Thoughts: This would show at SXSW. I think I would love it.

Wild At Heart

Director:
Steven Brill (The Mighty Ducks)

Starring:
Will Ferrell (Anchorman) as Stereotypical Cubicle Worker
Danny McBride (Pineapple Express) as Stereotypical Slacker

Synopsis: Disillusioned with their lives of relative normality, two friends embark on a week-long adventure in the wilderness of British Columbia. In the course of their adventure they sleep outside, jump off of cliffs into crystal-clear lakes, and fight a bear with nothing but their bare hands and their wits. As their time together comes to a close they begin to recognize the importance of manhood and friendship and make a pact to pretend that this week actually bears any resemblance to reality.

Thoughts: I just realized that this movie exists and it's called Without A Paddle.

Left Behind

Director:
Vic Armstrong (The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones)

Starring:
Nicholas Cage (awesomeness, Drive Angry) as Ray Steele
Chad Michael Murray (One Tree Hill) as Buck Williams
Ashley Tisdale (High School Musical) as Chloe Steele

Synopsis: In this remake of the 2001 Kirk Cameron film, a group of people struggle to survive in the aftermath of a "Rapture" that has removed people of the Christian faith from Earth.

Thoughts: This is real. You're welcome.

What are your thoughts? What movies would you like to see made? What casting/directorial changes should be made to the above? Leave your thoughts in the comments!

Peace,
Ben

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

Contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.

Theology Trade Deadline

Best. Pope. Ever.

by Ben Howard

In honor of the NBA’s trade deadline, I bring you three anachronistic theology trades I’d like to see.

TRADE #1

Gregory the Great, 2 bishops (not Augustine of Canterbury), and the 1^st pick of the 605 A.D. Priest Draft (there should totally be a Priest Draft, if only for the outfits) for N.T. Wright

What the 6^th Century Gets: A great theologian who can help a relatively young church to understand Paul and Judaism. Perhaps this understanding will be able to derail some of the anti-Semitic sentiment that built up in Europe during this time and in the long-run even may lead to the prevention of the Holocaust. That would be an MVP level performance by itself, but Wright also brings the ability to help a society understand the concepts of the afterlife and the sacraments before they completely devolve into mythologized legend.

What the 21^st Century Gets: One of the greatest popes of all time to fill a clear hole on the team, as well one of the great pastoral thinkers. I love Gregory the Great (I wrote my undergrad thesis on him), so I may be overrating him a bit, but let me tell you his story. Gregory was a wealthy young Roman who inherited his Father’s estate as a young man. Instead of living a life of luxury he gave away all the families money, turned the family home into a convent and became a monk. Eventually, he would become a hero in the city through his work during an epidemic of disease. When the disease in question brought about the death of the reigning pope, Gregory was elected by popular acclaim. As a rather humble man, Gregory attempted to have his election invalidated by the Emperor in Constantinople, who refused his request. Also, we’re getting two awesome bishops, and a pretty good draft pick. I think this trade is a win-win.

TRADE #2

Mark Driscoll, the Gospel Coalition and theory of Intelligent Design for Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe

"All shall be well and all shall be well
and all manner of things shall be well."

What the 14^th Century Gets: I think it’s pretty clear that Driscoll, the Gospel Coalition and the theory of Intelligent Design all need a change of scenery and what better place than the Dark Ages. Okay, okay, settle down, this isn’t as insulting as it sounds. Driscoll and the neo-Calvinists of the Gospel Coalition would look absolutely loving and revolutionary in the context of the 14^th century church. Additionally, the deep patriarchy of the time would cloak some of their more evident flaws. The flaws would still exist, but they wouldn’t be the focus of so much attention. Same for intelligent design, removed from the scientific era in which it was birthed, intelligent design might be an excellent way to bridge the coming divide between science and the church, perhaps even clearing the way for a church that can accept evolution for the actual science that it is.

What the 21^st Century Gets: Two of the most underrated mystic theologians of all-time, and powerful female mystic theologians to boot. If you know me even a little, it’s no secret that Julian is one of my favorite theologians. Seriously, go buy a copy of Revelations of Divine Love right now! Mysticism has made a bit of return of late and I think these two thinkers would do a lot to direct that conversation down the paths it needs to go. Also, it might be interesting to challenge the theological status quo with a woman who has ecstatic visions of Christ. That doesn’t fit real well into an intellectually elite mindset. I’m excited.

TRADE #3

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and H. Richard Niebuhr for Shane Claiborne, Peter Rollins and Stanley Hauerwas

What the 21^st Century Gets: Two great theologians who were victims of their times. Bonhoeffer’s life was cut short after it was discovered that he was involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. James McClendon explores the ethical dilemma of Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the assassination plot in depth in his book Ethics, but that isn’t even the point I want to make. Bonhoeffer was only 39 years old when he died and much of his theology was crafted in the turmoil of war. What would Bonhoeffer have been able to do with 40 more years of writing? What beauty did we miss out on?

Niebuhr is similar, yet altogether different. His magnum opus, Christ and Culture, was written in the wake of World War II and belies the anger and cynicism of the time. Niebuhr is obviously a fantastic theologian, but one wonders what he could have written had he lived in a time that viewed World War II as past and not present.

Peter Rollins

What the 20^th Century Gets: Pacifists in the United States and a thoughtful, philosophical creative conflict resolver in Northern Ireland. Additionally, all of these people understand the mechanisms of power that influence politics more than the single intentions of one man. So what happens when you place some of the most creative non-violent minds of the modern age into the fire of the greatest example of why non-violence wouldn’t work? I honestly don’t know, but I’d be very intrigued to find out.

I know I write a lot of weird things, sometime for a point and sometimes just for the sake of weirdness. This one has a point. I think it’s important for us to realize how much our context shapes who we are, who we become, what we think about, the problems we attempt to solve, and what we view as important. What happens if Julian of Norwich is located in the United States of today? Does she become Rachel Held Evans? Does she become a pastor at a church plant in Portland? Does she become irrelevant entirely?

Who would I be if I lived during WWII? Or during the 14^th century? Or in the future? I’m not certain.

What are your thoughts on this weird little thought experiment? Helpful? Useless? Any trades you’d want to see?

Peace,

Ben

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology. 

Contact us at onpoptheology [at] gmail.com.

Alex Rodriguez, Jealousy and Hate

by Ben Howard

Alex Rodriguez is good at playing baseball.

I have no idea how many of you follow sports, but for those of you that do, you know this is an incredibly controversial statement.

Alex Rodriguez is one of the greatest baseball players in the history of the sport. There's no rational argument that can make a case against this statement. He's easily the greatest player of his generation and has been since he was about 16 years old.

Alex Rodriguez is also probably one of the most hated baseball players in history. To be clear, this isn't that kind of friendly-rivalry-hate or that love-to-hate-'em phenomenon that some people have with athletes. There is nothing fun involved in the hatred of Alex Rodriguez and that's probably because people don't hate Alex Rodriguez: The Person, they hate Alex Rodriguez: The Idea.

Rodriguez is hated because he's always been good. He's hated because being good has always looked easy. He's hated even more because that talent that looked so effortless made him the highest played player in professional sports. Jealousy plus a perception of easy money? Yeah, that's a recipe for deep-seated hatred.

It doesn't help that Rodriguez comes off as stilted and awkward during interviews. Something that in a lesser player might be interpreted as a distaste for the limelight is interpreted as Rodriguez being cold and corporate, unable to relate to the common man.

This hatred has nearly boiled over several times including when Rodriguez was nearly traded to the Boston Red Sox, but eventually went to the Yankees instead and several years after that when it came to light that he had used steroids for a short period of time in Texas.

Jealousy + easy money + corporate facade + steroids? That's a recipe for sports fan hell.

This has bubbled up again during the recent postseason. The Yankees have been struggling offensively up and down the lineup. No one is playing well, but most of the hatred has been pointed at Rodriguez. Fans don't want it to be a slump, they want it to be the end of the line. There is this widespread believe, or maybe hope is the better word, that two bad weeks in October mean that he'll be forced to retire in shame.

Even the Yankees manager seems to have bought into this weird, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately mentality replacing Rodriguez with the far less adept Eric Chavez for the two of the last three games.

Why do we do this? Why does this happen?

I don't think any of us is immune to this kind of jealous hate. I know for certain that I'm not. I do it all the time with writers. Some author becomes wildly successful and my immediate reaction is that he must be a sell-out. All of his ideas must be empty and baseless, because no one becomes popular based on substance in the religion and theology racket. Christian best-seller is just another phrase for "Book I won't be reading soon."

This type of thinking is so stupid. I know that I've gone through this very scenario with Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, the list goes on. But when I think about it, when I think about what they're actually saying, they're right. It's true and it's authentic and they didn't change. I did, or at least my perception of them did.

So I want to apologize to Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Shane Claiborne and any other author that I've secretly felt resentful towards because of their success. I'm sorry, you guys are really awesome, I was wrong. I also want to apologize to Alex Rodriguez. I hope things get better for you.

Take this as a call to reconsider why you hate the things you hate and love the things you love. Are they actually as bad as you think or are you possibly jealous? And as for the things you love, are they actually true or do they just reinforce what you already believe? Those are simply two sides of the same coin.

I hope we all find the freedom to say we're wrong and change our minds.

Peace,
Ben

You can follow Ben on Twitter @BenHoward87 or email him at benjamin.howard87 [at] gmail.com.

Also, you can subscribe to On Pop Theology via RSS feed or email on the top right corner of the main page.