Watching "Fireproof"
by Ted Slater on 09/25/2008 at 12:28 PM
Last night we watched the movie for the second time. And though we tried to engage with the story, a number of production "artifacts" were a bit distracting.
On numerous occasions, I noticed errors of "continuity" -- within the same scene, for example, when a camera angle changed, actors had magically changed position. That can be kind of jarring, but I did my best not to let that keep me from enjoying the film.
And there were problems with the audio. Dialog would cut off abruptly, though the ambient sound of a hallway or chamber would remain. The very quality of audio was less than I've come to expect from modern movies. Maybe they were using microphones developed in the 1930s.
The music wasn't what I'd consider "distracting," but don't look for the soundtrack in a Wal-mart near you. Mediocre, to be blunt.
The quality of the actual picture on the screen, though pretty good considering the equipment used to film the movie, left something to be desired. I noticed some "noise" throughout the film, but again, I tried not to let that derail my engagement with the story.
And the movie ended too abruptly. Just as the action climaxed, before any loose ends could be satisfactorily resolved, the closing credits began scrolling up the screen. What's with that? Hm. Perhaps the director just figured that'd be the best way to make the audience wrestle with what they'd just witnessed.
The story was what kept our attention. The theme was a lofty one, one that everyone can relate to. We also loved seeing character development -- the leading lady whose heart was softened by the leading man's pursuit of admirable ideals, the senator who wrestled with his conscience, which finally got the best of him.
Senator? Oh, right. The film we watched last night was "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Frank Capra's classic featuring Jimmy Stewart, Claude Rains (who played Captain Renault in Casablanca), and Jean Arthur.
You know what? Despite the film's "poor production values," I found my heart elevated by the story. I adjusted my expectations based on the limitations placed on the film crew because of the available expertise and technology, and was able to engage the story to my benefit.
Maybe a few more of us could hold such a reasonable and humble attitude toward "Fireproof." Just as I was encouraged by Capra's "Mr. Smith," they will find themselves appreciating "Fireproof" who take into account the innate limitations imposed on those who brought us "Fireproof."
1. Jennifer DuBois said the following at 1:40 PM on Sep 25:
Well done. You got me, and I've been preemptively defending "Fireproof" from just such attacks for weeks now.
I sincerely hope that we, as a culture, can get beyond our desire to be a-mused and seriously engage this film.
2. Paula said the following at 1:42 PM on Sep 25:
I think we should be careful. Unless we are willing to donate funds to the church that made this movie and specify that it is for equipment upgrades...we need to recognize this as the ministry that it is. Only one camera to make this film? That's unheard of. Just a thought :)
3. Natalie Jost said the following at 2:03 PM on Sep 25:
I've noticed pretty much the same level of quality with all Christian-themed films, so I guess I just let that slide. I just keep praying for Christ-centered media to someday get the big bucks that pours into Hollywood everyday so that the technical quality will match the content.
And I agree, it can be distracting, but if we weren't so used to wildly creative, high-budget, high-tech films from the mainstream, would we even notice the shortcomings like you describe?
4. Racquel said the following at 2:23 PM on Sep 25:
Ted. Awesome. You accomplished exactly what you needed to with this! I myself was appalled at the attacks unleashed on Fireproof in a previous article. I'm all for Fireproof. If we don't support the kingdom in this earth, who will?
5. Dr. Ransom said the following at 3:13 PM on Sep 25:
Ha ha, Ted! I fell for it all the way, and somewhat willingly so, and I was glad I did.
As for Fireproof, I plan to see it tomorrow, not because it's A Christian Movie (I have not seen Bella or Facing the Giants, which were similarly marketed) but because I like what I've heard of the story, I liked the trailer, and despite the Left Behind stuff (I may be the only Calvinist who has a fondness for the Left Behind novel series, anyway), I have a lot of appreciation and respect for Kirk Cameron. (Just consider "Way of the Master" and the Deep Evangelism Magic it has wrought.)
Church and culture historians can debate the errors of Western Christendom in either ignoring or shunning Hollywood since the 1960s on -- which, if I remember correctly, brought the end of the previously-more-conservative churches' involvement in upholding filmmaking moral codes.
But this is the now: Christ-followers are trying to engage the culture better than they have been. And this little church, apparently, is doing this the best way it knows how.
I for one am glad they're making films for a broader audience instead of just bringing-it-up-for-a-climactic-altar-call-moment movies, while (apparently) not watering down the Christian elements at all.
Meanwhile, as for the notion that "wooden" dialogue about doctrine and Life Issues and such isn't realistic: To be sure, some movies can overdo the dialogue or be much too heavy-handed, and that goes for "Christian" films and secular films. For instance, this week I re-watched Spider-Man 3, and while it had its moments, it was actually heavy-handed in an almost "Christian movie" sense in the way Peter Parker focused on himself when his girlfriend needed him to listen to her instead.
I don't know whether Fireproof will be the same way. But I know that, as author Randy Ingermanson said in an article that unfortunately seems no longer available online, real Christians do talk about Doctrinal and Life Issues. That's part of realistic Christian living.
Ergo, regardless of any "wooden" delivery, Christians talking about Christian stuff in a book or movie is true-to-life. Whereas if you're a Christian, and not talking about such things ... what does that say about you? ;-)
6. composer girl said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 25:
I have started and deleted this comment so many times. All I have to say is this: I want to make quality Christian films. And I think it might be possible if we can connect the amazing talent from all over the world that I know is out there using the internet. I want to start networking with other aspiring Christian filmmakers who want to make quality Christian films, and to see if we can take strides toward making that happen. Please, if you're interested, visit me here:
http://gallimaufryfilms.blogspot.com/
7. PiperGal said the following at 4:44 PM on Sep 25:
LOL!!!! I was totally taken in by your opening paragraphs, and about ready to pounce with a defensive comment. Point well made! I'm a HUGE classic movie lover, and you really hit this nail on the head -- precisely what makes them classics is because they are story/character-driven. And Capra was one of the best in that department. Two enthusiastic thumbs up for this post, and for both movies mentioned! Can't wait to go see FIREPROOF on the big screen tomorrow! :-)
8. Joseph Abraham said the following at 4:52 PM on Sep 25:
I don't think their is anything wrong with not liking a christian film. I'm talking in a hypothetical sense and not about Fireproof specifically. Just because I don't like the delivery of a film doesn't mean I don't like the message. There have been bad sermons, bad songs, etc that were christian. Putting christian in front of something doesn't make it an obligation to enjoy or like it.
I have no musical talent whatsoever and if I wrote a song I have no expectation of people liking it even if I were to make it christian themed. Its just not my talent. On the other blog about Kirk Cameroon it seemed like those that enjoyed the film felt those that didn't like it were consumed with being amused and those that didn't like it were just being honest about what they felt about the delivery. None of them disagreed or disliked the central message though.
9. Michele said the following at 4:53 PM on Sep 25:
It's easy to forgive Capra - he was working within the technology of the day.
It's far more difficult to forgive "Fireproof," which, from what you described (and I haven't seen) suffers from the same low production value that too many Christian films do.
I know the reason for this problem - Hollywood production values can't necessarily be applied to under-funded, non-corporate films - but some things are just good filmmaking techniques (especially regarding editing).
I find all of this extremely sad.
10. Jenny said the following at 5:08 PM on Sep 25:
I echo Jennifer's thoughts. Very good points.
11. Leah said the following at 6:23 PM on Sep 25:
Paula hit it on the head. We need to recognise this film for what it is. I think, however, that Boundless has not been conducive towards readers doing this. From what I've been reading on here about Fireproof, I was not expecting a low-grade amateur movie. I would have been extremely disappointed if I had gone to see it thinking that way. However, now that I've been advised not to approach it that way, I'm sure I'll enjoy it more.
12. Kathleen said the following at 7:03 PM on Sep 25:
It's not like Facing the Giants was that great, technically speaking, and that went over well enough. I hear this one is a step up, so I think people should keep in mind where the production has come from before voicing complaints.
13. cn said the following at 7:05 PM on Sep 25:
haha! This was sneaky, Ted!
14. SarahJane said the following at 8:53 PM on Sep 25:
I love "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!" I'm glad that you took time to watch it twice!
I'm hoping that "Fireproof" will arrive here soon, but I may have to wait until my church purchases it. I look forward to seeing it after hearing so much about it!
15. Jonathan said the following at 10:13 PM on Sep 25:
I too was fooled. You had me worriedly thinking, "ix-nay" on criticizing "ireproof-F"
Very clever way of putting things in perspective. I'll go to bat for classics from Hollywood's Golden Era any day. I hope to be part of Fireproof's opening weekend audience.
16. Brian said the following at 8:51 AM on Sep 26:
Sherwood Baptist did have more professional gear and crew this time around. They used some of their portion of the money from Facing the Giants to hire some experienced technical crew for Fireproof and rent some better equipment.
17. Shaun Groves said the following at 9:20 AM on Sep 26:
Mr. Smith is a great film...for it's time period. And when we watch it today we're not considering the limitations of the film makers but the limitations of the entire period in which it was made. Mr. Smith was on par, was it not, with it's peers at it's time of release? Fireproof simply and obviously is not.
And then, beyond production value woes, which you're admitting to, there is the unenjoyable and unforgivable (by a contemporary audience) experience of being preached to instead of entertained, told instead of shown. I'm judging only by the preview and a few scenes I've watched on-line, admittedly, but the film seems to be preaching a sermon with actors instead of telling a story that has perceivable spiritual and real world implications. It's condescending, as if we won't get the point unless dad spells it out for us. It's forced...and it doesn't have to be.
Remember all those violent movies Christians have decried for their powerful sinister messages? Did any of them come out and say "The solution to your conflict is to kill your neighbor and commit adultery?" No. They told stories in which individuals killed their neighbors and cheated on their spouses. The message was implied strongly enough with story to scare Christians. Couldn't the same tactic be used to inspire them?
The production values bug me. But the method of conveying the message is a much bigger misfire.
18. Jen from CO said the following at 9:44 AM on Sep 26:
Ooo! Just last night I was discussing "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", as I had rented it from the library a few weeks ago. It was the first time I had watched it, and I distinctly remember bemoaning "they just don't make 'em like they used to." The poor production quality didn't phase me, as I am an old movie junkie and am accustomed to it.
I generally am willing to give a film (especially indies) the benefit of the doubt technically so long as the story is engaging. Even so, I will likely pass on watching this film for no other reason than a pesky phobia of structural fire. (Although I will happily hear the reviews and be willing to encourage others to see it.)
19. Lisa Anderson said the following at 10:39 AM on Sep 26:
I'm taking a bunch of friends to see the movie tomorrow night. When I screened it here at Focus, there were scenes that reminded me of the old-school Billy Graham films (anyone remember Cry from the Mountain or The Ride?
Regardless, the story is great, and the call to action even greater. Plus, did anyone see Kirk on Today? I was thrilled to hear that the film is the #1 ticket seller on Fandango, and the book (The Love Dare) has already pre-sold 500,000 copies. Go Sherwood Baptist!
20. BDB said the following at 12:34 PM on Sep 26:
Yes, I started watching some of the classic movies to understand why they had four stars, and so many modern movies less. It's clear that the dialog and characters of classic movies are much better developed - so many modern movies rely on their technology instead of the story.
My professor for "Teaching the Bible" kept focusing on how you touch people. If they're crying, you know you reached their heart. So, it sounds like Fireproof met that standard.
Perhaps their next movie can include an epic battle sequence...
21. Michelle F. said the following at 2:00 PM on Sep 26:
I think it's very possible for Christians to make a visually-appealing film on a low budget. Have you seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Northfork? Low budgets but beautiful camerawork and editing.
I have college friends who are extremely talented filmmakers and create well-done and engaging short films.
I'm not saying I won't see Fireproof, but it bothers me that Christians seem to value the message over the means. God is the Supreme artist, so why can't we be up to par with non-believers in the realm of art? Greater culture simply won't listen to us if we don't engage them on their level.
Ted, you said you can forgive the filmmakers for their less-than-great work because the message was good. Christians need to stop "forgiving" Christian filmmakers and start raising the bar on Christian films.
22. David said the following at 2:07 PM on Sep 26:
As someone who saw the film a couple of weeks ago, I can tell you with full conviction that Fireproof will not be nominated for an Oscar...and that's ok. With a volunteer cast, I don't think the intention was ever to attain that goal. What it will do is challenge you and your commitment to your marriage. It will strike close to home for many who fight the urge to confront their spouses about their shortcomings. Above all, it will demonstrate the awesome power of restoration and forgiveness that can be found in the Word.
I would encourage you to avoid measuring the success of this picture with a traditional movie industry ruler. Instead, if success must be measured, think of the number of lives that will be changed, relationships restored and renewed commitments to family that will be made. In the end, I think Fireproof, judged by those criteria, will surpassed everyone's expectations.
23. Shandra said the following at 8:03 PM on Sep 26:
This topic reminds me of how I can listen to Christian rap, Christian alternative rock, Gospel as well as Southern Gospel. I know the spirit behind each one.
I don't even like talking about movies pertaining to the way it was made (not concerned about the quality, though quality of a film is of interest to me). If it's a Christian movie, I only like talking about how it highlighted the gospel.
I don't want to diss such a movie, especially when in this day and time it stands out not only for the low quality, but also for it's message. I especially enjoyed the way Fireproof didn't beat around the bush when it came to the gospel. In order for Caleb to truly love his wife, he had to receive the love of Christ and he didn't skip the part where his wife needed to know the forgiveness and love of God.
I'm not married, but I'm glad that it didn't make things cheesy. It showed that married couples really do have things that they have to work through. What I took away from it is that any relationship that we have whether or not we are married...we must know the love of God and extend that to those who are hard to like or love. I'm a teacher in an inner-city public school...so please understand what I've just said.
24. Josh said the following at 8:49 PM on Sep 26:
Just saw it.
Bottom line, this film is lengths and strides better than their last film, Facing the Giants. These guys have tightened up the plot and the dialogue. Places where I was worried they were going to hammer me, they were subtle instead.
Sure there's room for growth, but they had me crying and I went in cynical, as is my bent. The pacing of the change in their marriage is perfect, and you don't get the payoff until near the end.
Worth seeing.
25. Ken said the following at 7:48 AM on Sep 27:
As someone alluded to before, we need to take into account that this movie was made with $500,000, not $5,000,000 or $50,000,000, or if you are the Dark Knight, $180,000,000.
Technical limitations aside, it was an admirable effort.
What I appreciated the most was the ending credits, where you saw everyone who helped out. It was quite the community effort.
Will it win, Oscars? Doubtful. But will it win admiration for the story and the effort? Yes.
26. mary kate said the following at 8:19 AM on Sep 27:
bdb: It's clear that the dialog and characters of classic movies are much better developed
ok true, but from the trailer of 'fireproof', i'm not getting 'well-developed dialogue."
i will have to go see this film, i guess, and then decide. but am i the only one who struggles to make an emotional connection to characters who speak flat, unbelievable dialogue?
for example; many of my friends loved the shack and were moved to tears by it. i am a highly emotional, empathetic person. commercials for health services organizations that show people helping kids with down syndrome make me cry! but i thought the shack was so terribly written that i couldn't connect to it.
maybe i'm alone in this... if the movie is working for so many other people, than it's probably just me. but i still find it frustrating.
27. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:55 AM on Sep 27:
I saw the movie last night at a church function. Here is my assessment, edited for Boundless:
Alex and Stephen Kendrick’s latest film–Fireproof–will make a lot of money. It will promote some very important realities dear to Christians and vital to the Christian message: the persevering work of Jesus Christ, demonstrated on the cross; the sanctity of the marriage covenant; that tough marriages are–more often than not–salvageable. For those reasons alone, it is worth the viewing. For the Christian considering marriage, it is recommended for reasons on which I will elaborate.
Fireproof is about a couple–Caleb and Catherine Holt–whose marriage, in spite of a well-to-do economic situation, is self-destructing rapidly.
Caleb, a firefighter, is a stereotypical materialistic, narcissist, porn-addicted male who pays no attention–other than economic and sexual–to his wife. He packs away money for an expensive boat while his mother-in-law wallows in paralysis from a stroke, in need of a hospital bed and wheelchair that his boat savings would cost. He wonders why his wife doesn’t respect him.
Catherine, who works at the local hospital, uses her income to take care of her and Caleb’s monthly expenses, struggles to cope with her mother’s health, and has fallen out of love with her husband, who humiliates her with his porn addiction and fails to help her emotionally and shows little regard for her. She is further discouraged by the busybodies with whom she works–as she shares her dirty laundry with them–and is finding herself charmed by an opportunistic physician–Gavin–who has romantic designs on her.
After a monumental blowup, Catherine decides she wants out of the marriage.
Caleb’s father, a Christian whose marriage was saved in no small part by his conversion to the faith–challenges his son to do the 40-day “Love Dare”, a product of the Kendricks that will also be published commercially as a book for marriage restoration. The heart of the movie focuses on Caleb’s going on the “love dare” in a last-ditch effort to save his marriage.
Does it get a little cheesy? At times. It is difficult to work Christian pilgrimmage events–such as receiving Jesus Christ–into a movie without having that effect.
Even then, Fireproof does get a very important point home on that front: receiving Jesus Christ does not necessarily guarantee that everything will be peaches and cream and then suddenly everyone starts getting kissy-kissy/huggy-huggy. A broken marriage may become less broken when one–or both–partners get saved, but there are no guarantees of immediate turnaround. It is possible, but there are no guarantees. When Caleb receives Christ, his problems do not end, and in fact get even more excruciating.
Do I have gripes with the movie? You bet:
(1) While Fireproof does not dismiss the faults of the wife, one can get the faulty impression from this movie that her depravity would not exist but for his. Caleb is portrayed in far less favorable terms than his wife.
He is the one with 95% of the problems. He is the one who is porn-addicted and materialistic, caring not that his mother-in-law rots in paralysis while he saves for a boat. He is the one who is insensitive to her needs. Even her faults are construed against the backdrop of his, which minimizes hers.
On my blog pages, equality in depravity is very important. Our regular contributors include a gal whose husband of 20 years cavorted with prostitutes, and a guy whose wife of nearly 20 years left him for another man.
The Kendricks, sadly, seem to have fallen for the mistaken notion that it’s the men with all the problems and that if the men were lighting up the world for Jesus, then the women would all be these wonderful, angelic near-sinless beings.
It doesn’t work that way: total depravity is no respecter of sexes.
(2) I know some firefighters. They are fitness nuts–probably my biggest fitness competitors in the gym–and, as far as lifestyles go, they are not dirt-poor. But still, they do not have the high lifestyle that the Holts enjoy in Fireproof. This detail may sound petty, but it detracts from the reality faced by most Christians I know.
(3) While it would be difficult to address all the complexities of marital situations, the couple in Fireproof were both non-believers. What about the case of both husband and wife as believers? How do those play out? What about the case of a believing wife (husband) and a nonbelieving husband (wife)? In the Church, you are more likely to address the latter two scenarios, and not the first.
Still, there are themes that make the movie worth watching: (a) the Gospel is well-represented, especially against the backdrop of a husband’s heartfelt attempt to woo his wife, and her rejection of him; and (b) the sanctity and permanence of the marriage covenant. Those items alone make the movie a good one to see before you get married.
My score: 6 out of 10.
28. Ceres said the following at 6:10 PM on Sep 27:
I just watch it and I loved it!
Much better than I anticipated and not as cheesy as I expected either.
Great movie!
29. Boston Matt said the following at 8:43 PM on Sep 27:
Dude,
You totally just ruined Mr. Smith goes to washington for me!
Hahaha! Well done man this was awesome!
30. Tami said the following at 10:12 PM on Sep 27:
Boston Matt (27)... I'm laughing... who ever thought we'd have to do a spoiler alert on a 69-year-old movie? :)
P.S. Rosebud is PEOPLE! It's PEOPLE!
Oh... wait... I think I just got two movies confused...
31. Rachael said the following at 3:41 PM on Sep 28:
I appreciate that Amir shared his opinion about how the depravity of one spouse seemed to be more salient than that of the other.
The trailer was quite interesting, and I sent the link to my boyfriend. If we do see it, I hope I'd remember my own depravity and its negative impact on others.
32. Jeff Brown said the following at 3:37 AM on Sep 29:
You know what? Despite the film's "poor production values," I found my heart elevated by the story. I adjusted my expectations based on the limitations placed on the film crew because of the available expertise and technology, and was able to engage the story to my benefit."
I realize that this reference to the production values of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" is at least partly ironic, but there seems to be no irony in the patronizing words, in some of the comments, like "low" or "poor" in reference to those values in this film.
To argue otherwise: There is nothing inherently inferior, for example, in black-and-white photography. I personally prefer it because it has a mysterious quality and allows for more use of the imagination.
The sound recording of dialogue in today's movies is generally inferior to that in films of the late thirties through the early sixties. How many words do you miss in today's movies compared to the ones of that period?
I like the wide screen, but, again, it is not in itself "better" than the old 1:33 ratio (used even in "spectaculars" like "Gone With The Wind.")
Images are sharper in today's films, but the images themselves are, too often, close-ups, so the movie will look better on TV. Rarely do you see carefully composed long-shots today.
As for special effects - no contest, today's movies are vastly superior in that category, although there is a charm and magic to those of, for instance, the original "King Kong" that has never been surpassed.
I'll get off the soapbox soon, but it's particularly ironic that "Mr. Smith" is used as the example, since Capra was one of the greatest technicians of his time. For instance, the editing in "Mr. Smith," and, for that matter, "It's A Wonderful Life," puts to shame that of most films today.
Children groan when they're about to watch old b&w movies. When we praise their dialogue and storytelling, we don't need to apologize for their production values.
33. Holly (the single, non-parent one) said the following at 7:02 AM on Sep 29:
OK, now I've seen it. My low expectations were based on the last movies that I saw Kirk Cameron in, the "Left Behind" cheese factory. (And I suspect the same can be said of most commenters with low expectations.)
It exceeded all my expectations. The Plugged in Review nailed it. Some of the dialogue was kind of wooden. And they did go a little overboard in fitting in an explicit Gospel message, resulting in some preachy moments. However, the overall story was powerful enough that I really didn't care, by the end.
It's not going to win many awards, but it's definitely better than I expected. It's NOT, emphatically NOT, "Left Behind 4." WAY better than that franchise.
34. Adam said the following at 10:22 AM on Sep 29:
Quick question to anyone who has actually seen the movie: What genre movie is it?
Is it a romantic comedy?
Is it a straight drama?
Is it an action movie?
Is it a "message movie (where the story is merely window dressing)?
35. Victoria said the following at 10:45 AM on Sep 29:
Wow, some people are so critical. I almost didn't see this movie because of some of the negative comments about it, but my husband and I had already purchased tickets. Going in we both had really low expectations about the quality of this film. However, we both thought it was not just a great Christian movie, it was a great movie, period. Maybe I'm not as sophisticated as some of you, but I thought it was incredibly well-done, made me laugh in some places and cry in others, and the story kept my attention. Not to mention that although my husband and I are definitely not emotional and almost never cry in movies, we were both BAWLING at the end. Shame on any Christian who pretentiosly dismisses it or is needlesly critical. We should be encouraging others to see this film, not talking it down so much that others would think it is awful and won't see it (as I almost did).
36. Geneva said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 29:
Dude, I love Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!
Christians bashing other Christians' efforts is grating on my nerves these days.
And for the record, I saw Fireproof and thought it was a great movie.
37. Bethany said the following at 3:07 PM on Oct 3:
In disagreement with Amir, I thought the wife's faults were portrayed well, actually. She was selfish about housework issue, she was definitely crossing the line with the doctor, she was petty and fight-picking a lot. When he shares about the pressures he faces at work (only too real for those in the emergency services) it is clear that she has no understanding or support for this side of him: although she is in a hospital, she works in a business suit talking to the press all day!!
However, even if it is true that her faults were minimized, I have to say that that is biblical. It *is* the man who has the responsibility to love as Christ did, to be the head.
38. IMO said the following at 3:13 PM on Oct 3:
#37
I agree. I was more mad at the wife than the husband...
And I'm not really sure why,
just sayin' that the wife gets plenty of fault too.