Suzanne's Second Estate

A web log of my thoughts, activities, life....

Friday, February 10, 2006

Blog Homework

Blog school was very informative. Ben from Red State briefed us on the history, methods, tools and proper etiquette of the blogosphere (a new word, too!). My blog homework allowed me to put into words several thoughts I've had on the movie "End of the Spear." If you haven't seen this movie, go see it! It helps to know the back story as the film leaves out some important details (such as the gospel), but it's impression on my heart has lasted all week. OK, here's the test blog (please excuse generalizations):

Last weekend I finally went to see "End of the Spear," a film depicting the deaths of five Christian missionaries to the Waodani tribe in Ecuador's jungle. Since the film's release on January 20, I have heard varying opinions on the film. Among Christians, two opinions seem prevalent. One praises the film for having a quality that lives up to that of typical Hollywood fare. The other condemns is for utilizing the talents of those who do not believe in Christ to tell a blantantly Christian story.

Though the film is written and produced by evangelical Christians including Steve Saint, son of one of the missionaries slain, it stars actors who do not claim to have a relationship with Christ. Notably, the lead role of Nate Saint and Steve Saint is played by Chad Allen, who is openly homosexual.

Al Mohler, though he acknowledges the prevalent involvement of homosexuals in quality art, criticizes this film for casting a homosexual in the lead role, claiming that it is distracting:

The real problem when it comes to Chad Allen [is] Every Tribe Entertainment has chosen an actor — perhaps even the actor — least likely to be able to make us forget him and see Nate Saint. Chad Allen's activism is what many audience members will see, not Nate and Steve Saint.


I, personally, did not find myself distracted by the fact that the actor is a known homosexual. I believe I would have been more distracted had a mediocre Christian actor played the role. While I understand Mohler's point that Allen may have been the actor that would most detract from a Christian story, I have a feeling this would pertain mainly to the Christian community.

As I read about the production of the movie and how the unbelieving actors were impacted by working with Christians, I felt deeply that more good than harm was done through this combining of talent and efforts. The end result was a powerful film to which I would not hesitate taking an unsaved friend. Not to mention, the example of grace and cooperation in the very production of the film reinforces its message that Christ died for all people and even the worst of sinners is worth reaching with love.

2 Comments:

At 9:44 AM, Blogger Danielle said...

I agree with you here. Although I still haven't seen the movie, I wouldn't NOT see it because of Chad Allen being in it, anymore than I wouldn't watch "Chariot's of Fire" (who's leading actor died of AIDS) or Anthony Hopkins as C.S. Lewis in Shadowlands. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie soon, so I can't comment on the quality of the movie yet.

 
At 9:49 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Suz, this is a great blog post. :-) And I'm so thankful that Focus stuck behind Chad Allen (whom I always enjoyed from the old show "Our House") as an actor -- I think the point that they made in a story to NYT was that they don't ask the actors to be sinless. Homosexuality is wrong, and they were clear on that -- but it would also be hypocritical to fire Allen for homosexuality when they're not asking the other actors with other struggles to be sinless. They don't ask who has a DUI, who was ever caught shoplifting or evading their taxes, or even speeding (all sins, perhaps of varying degrees or consequences, but still sin). I hope and pray that the love they showed Chad Allen has been used by the Holy Spirit to move his heart, and the hearts of many others. It's certainly moved mine.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home