(Though I have written the review
itself, the content represents the perspective and strong opinions
that I share with my husband who screened the film with me at the
request of the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition and helped to
craft this response.)
At the outset, let me say that from
personal experience, I have the utmost respect for Sheriffs in
particular. I also never fully appreciated the dangerous nature of
their job when patrolling highways until I discussed the topic with a
couple of medical examiners about a decade ago. I had never before
considered what it must be like to perform autopsy after autopsy on
law enforcement officers who are killed when they approach a vehicle
at the roadside. I want to make clear that my review of this film
should not be considered a poor reflection on the courage of men who
undertake such dangerous work, performing it with both valor and
compassion. Aspects of this movie did give me cause to consider my
appreciation for the true kindness of law enforcement officers.
Significant Factors of Distraction
I found that I did not have as many
kind things to say about the movie as did my friends who were
critical of messages in the film, and my husband was far more
critical of the film than I was. It lacked some of the elements that
better funded studios feature such as more consistent incidental
sound and music, though I suppose one should consider that Sherwood
Productions lacks access to the resources of larger film producers.
During the scenes that did not crescendo to a particular point of
drama, I found the total absence of incidental background noise and
music disconcerting. The film also featured many of the scenes where
character's heads were cut off at the top by the field of view and
were followed with camera angles that were too tight, so much so that
I found myself actually hunching down and holding my own head in an
odd position.
I found that all of these factors
presented notable distractions from the story of the film. I
actually took a class in cinematography with a
delightful, fascinating, and eccentric playwright professor in
college wherein I studied the powerful yet subtle implications of
camera angles, framing, and other factors such as depth of field.
I'm certainly no expert from a single class as an undergraduate, but
I don't recall studying the implications of subtly conveyed meaning
of the camera angles used in Courageous, especially early in
the film. Having heard good things about the film from some tough
critics, perhaps I held too high of an expectation for the flow its
technical aspects?
I also found the law enforcement
characters' propensity to speak on the phone and read phone displays
while driving to be problematic, considering the many state laws
banning such activity and the data showing the distraction potential
of talking on the phone while driving, even while using a hands-free
device. My husband also noted some procedural problems including the
use of a taser device without first warning the suspect. At another
point of climax in the film, the sheriffs took refuge behind a
civilian's car (with him in it) during a gun fight which put him in
the way of fatal harm. (The film did not note whether this civilian
survived.) The officers also took personal cell phone calls in the
midst of very critical duties on the job, something I hope is not a
common practice. Considering the source of the film as well as my
own experience in a profession managing life and death situations, I
found these factors to be inconsistent. I make note of them here
because their degree of irresponsibility seemed retrograde to the
film's focused concern with ethics and duty.
Plot and Character Development
Rather than identifying a primary
protagonist with whom the audience could identify, the early phase of
the film introduced several different, primary characters, and I was
confused about the plot because those characters didn't relate well
to one another within a cohesive storyline. I suppose that if I was
not as distracted by the aforementioned factors, I may have been less
disoriented by the numerous shallow profiles of too many people with
whom I did not emotionally connect, especially in the first forty
minutes of the film. Within the first first twenty minutes into a
good film, the director should clearly communicate the identity of
the primary protagonist(s), providing some insight into the dilemma
faced within the unfolding storyline.
Not until the pivotal event of the
death of a child which occurred well into the film was I able to
identify strongly with any one character in a way that fostered my
interest in the rather arcane plot. This emotional hook was also
superficial because of the competing, various, and somewhat abstract
themes that were suggested for this character, all of which I found
lacking in continuity. In fact, I didn't really learn the name of
the primary protagonist until a third of the way into the film, and I
was not sure how his family members were related until the funeral
scene The director gave no salient clues to foreshadow the film's
most significant elements, as everything
(and therefore nothing) seemed central until the midpoint of the
film. I did quite a bit of this type of “catching up” throughout
the film because the director did not make clear these central and
essential elements. Even the relationship between the eventually
emerging protagonist and his children seemed weak to me and far too
short in duration, an odd element considering the film's slowly
emerging theme of dutiful fatherhood.
Storyline and Primary Message
Essentially, Courageous
consisted of a string of somewhat thematically related moralistic
vignettes and discussions that the writers and director attempted to
knit together rather poorly. This made the many characters and what
seemed like too numerous, peripheral dilemmas of equal significance
seem very abstract because of their lack of clear progression towards
a final conclusion which had to be stated overtly in
the film's final scene. At one point, my husband postulated
that perhaps the film sought to demonstrate to relationships among
Christian men. At another point, he asked again whether it was meant
as a “how to film” which displayed “proper behavior
demonstrating the way
'real' and 'manly
men' should talk to one
another “for the sake of moralizing.”
Another rather superficial aspect of
the film involved it's shallow and predictable storyline and
dialogue. In real life, even intimate friends experience conflict,
yet the story featured little to no interpersonal conflict within
relationships, save for the character Javier's dilemma with an
employer who set out to test is integrity. (I found that
troubling, as he was “tempted with evil” by his employer. If the
film sought to send a pure, Christian message, the writer should note
the Book of James which states that God tempts no man with evil
through deception.)
Even the more intimate personal
conversations largely lacked the natural friction and tension that
exists in all relationships, like an old episode of the Donna Reed
Show. This lack also added to the burden created by the lack of
critical engagement resulting from the unclear plot and character
identity. Especially concerning the scenes which dealt with
bereavement, as my husband and I deal professionally with the
bereaved, we found this dialogue to be disappointingly unrealistic
and disturbingly short. My husband stated, “The characters
exist in abstraction. They say all of the things that you're
'supposed' to say, but it isn't the way people really talk in
genuine, real life conversations.”
We both also noted the use of the loaded
language used within these limited Christian circles which would
have little meaning to those outside of those subcultures. This
created another distraction, giving cause to again question the
target audience for the film.
Introduction of Too Many Interesting
Themes Which Were Abruptly Dropped Without Development
Perhaps if the film had focused on only
one or two of the twenty or so potential plot lines with which it
flirted, it would have made for a more cohesive plot that could have
served to support the primary moral message. The early contrast
between “good” Christian bonding among the deputies versus the
“bad” bonding among gang members would have made for a very
dynamic central plot. The character with a daughter that he had
abandoned and other references to the negative outcomes associated
with fatherlessness could have strongly dovetailed with this bonding
theme in interesting ways, but most of these themes remained
significantly undeveloped or were abandoned. Even the issue of
bereavement was completely dropped at a certain point to follow the
new theme of the “Resolution” of ethics and conduct which the men
pledged and signed. The potential for tension between father and
daughter which was complicated by the relationship triangle created
by the daughter's new suitor could have also been developed in
greater depth in a realistic way to clearly support the primary plot
and moral.
The film seemed to develop into an
“accountability group” theme that focused on relationships among
men, but even that developing emotional intimacy and interpersonal
connection fell to the wayside in favor of the new, emerging theme of
the “Resolution” document. The Resolution took the film into
another divergent path instead of weaving all of the themes together
into a the film's potential for a single converging moral message.
They had great material for several subplots which could have worked
towards a central theme over the course of the movie or could have
served as plots for several other single films. Instead, I feel that
the writer and director just threw all of their favorite ideas
together but didn't artfully connect them in a way that supported a
consolidated the moral message which had to be conveyed directly at
the end in a sermon. The film lacked that type of mastery of the art
of storytelling which is necessary for all really great films.
Religious Themes
Many of the single ideas which the film
proposed in droves spoke to true, insightful and beneficial tenets of
the Christian Faith, including dutiful parenting on the part of a
father, and responsible behavior in terms of ethics. These were
admirable qualities for which the film was notable, but they were
directed into more specific concepts that I often found less than
praiseworthy.
Intimacy Issues.
Probably the greatest difficulty with the film revolved around the
overall lack of believable intimacy among the characters, even though
it attempted to portray and emphasize relationships.. None of the
male characters modeled an appropriate level of intimacy with their
wives, and I was disappointed to see the film abandon the developing
story of the relationship between the bereaved parents. We see only
one conversation of any depth between them. Javier's wife in
particular (the strongest marriage in the lot) and the other wives
seem to be portrayed as cheerleaders on the sideline of the real game
of life, but the interactions didn't connote any degree of honest
intimacy, especially between the characters who lost a child in the
film. I wonder if this accurately reflects the nature of marital
intimacy among the complementarians who foster this lifestyle and
ideology?
In terms of emotional self-disclosure,
respect, and dialogue, the group of men were far closer to
their male companions within the group than
they seemed to be
with their wives, but even the level of intimacy among the
men proved disappointingly superficial to me. I found that the two
strongest emotional bonds between characters in the film were forged
by a single character. Rather than showing deeper intimacy through
marriage, I found that the relationship between the father and his
teen daughter to be the most developed, intimate relationship
portrayed in the film, followed by this same father character's
relationship with his deadbeat, absent dad coworker whom he
compassionately encourages to repent. Did the film really intend to
communicate to the audience an ideal that men's closest relationships
should be those with other men and those shared their daughters as
opposed to their wives? (Read
more HERE about Voddie Baucham's telling statement concerning how
attention from daughters basically keeps a man from committing adultery because of his yearnings.) 17Feb12 ADDENDUM: Listen to the comment directly in the video clip posted below.
Dating Daddy and his Proposal.
I found the daddy-daughter date scene to be disturbing.
Essentially, the father proposes to his daughter, using language
which indicates that he considers himself to be on equal footing and
of the same order of person with his daughter's potential mates.
Consistent with the belief within this subculture that young women
remain married to the father through ownership until they marry
another father-vetted and approved man, the father in the film uses
the language of Vision Forum to reinforce the ideology of courtship.
Such a system which Vision Forum promotes as Biblical was not even
demanded under Judaism, a concept that they filter through their
distorted
version of Covenant Theology. (Read more HERE.)
So to adapt and cope with the inherent risks of trusting a daughter
to conduct herself with dignity, grace and chastity, the father
overcorrects for his legitimate concerns and fears through an
extra-Biblical ritual which signifies ownership. I felt sick at the
close of the father-daughter date scene as the daughter gazed at the
father's heart-shaped ring that he actually places on her finger
after his proposal – a proposal that she was duty bound to
accept as an obedient daughter.
(With
a suitor, she presumably has the liberty to decline such a proposal,
that is, if her
father decides to allow her that liberty.
Not all do in patriarchy.)
Winning Hearts and Guarding
Souls. The last scene of the film finally states the
primary purpose of lauding the duties of fatherhood through a formal
homily. The “winning hearts” concept, a theme within Vision
Forum circles, relates to their teaching of parents to turn
their children's hearts toward home, a
system that often proves to be oppressive for women. As a
general statement, it isn't such a terrible concept, but in
consideration of the culture's loaded
language, this encoded and covert terminology masks the
spiritually abusive nature of their teachings. It conceals the meat
of their doctrine wherein father's govern, direct, and micromanage
family members to ensure their service to the “father's vision”
and family objectives. Fathers require their families to serve his
primary vision, requiring his prior approval and blessing of all of
their personal endeavors as individuals. (Please also note
HERE and in the archives of the San Antonio Christian Film
Festival that Sherwood and Kirk Cameron have an established
relationship with Vision Forum.)
Andrew
Sandlin once astutely noted that this hegemonic system has little
to do with a Biblical concept and more in common with the pagan Roman
Paterfamilias. Father overlords in Vision Forum's system require
their “obsequious sons” to submit to all of their wishes, even if
that son is a fully grown adult, a concept also criticized strongly
by counter cult apologist, Don Veinot (pdf
file). The misleading language concerning hearts sounds like a
mere reference to loving relationships, but under the veneer, it
speaks to their doctrine of the father as a family despot.
The Father as Spiritual
Intermediary Priest for his Children. Though it is
subtle and because I am familiar with the doctrines taught within the
subculture, I note the subtly conveyed concept that fathers also act
as intermediary priests for their children which the film implies.
In the homily at the end of the film, the character named Adam first
uses the language of “God's design for families.” The veneer
looks quite appealing, but the underbelly of the concept is a pagan Paterfamilia
snare created by language which manipulates thought. In terms of
Vision Forum's system, this is not God's design for families, but
rather exemplifies the traditions of men. We then hear fathers noted
as primary models of integrity for their children, but nothing is
said of the contribution of mothers. Not to downplay the commitment
to integrity that fathers should model, but take note that within
this ideology, women are seen as a type of child whom her husband
must chastise and rule, arguing Hebrews 12 and Ephesians 5 as a proof
texts. She is not a mutual, co-equal partner in parenting. The
husband parents her along with their children.
The protagonist makes the true
statement that fathers must be accountable for their responsibilities
as fathers, but in the next sentence, talk of the souls of children
implies more than just parental guidance and spiritual training. It
refers to the spiritualizing of the role of fathers, as
it is believed within this system that each father serves his family
as an intermediary
spiritual priest for which Voddie
Baucham in particular is most notable. These men within Vision
Forum's system believe that they intercede for their children's souls
through their home-centered ecclesiocentric system, and their concept
exceeds mere training and guidance. They teach that the father
sanctifies the family, suggesting that marriage itself is a something
of a sacrament. (Baucham claims falsely on page 39 of What
Must He Be If He Wants To Marry My Daughter that Martin
Luther teaches about the “sanctifying works wrought by the marriage
covenant,” an excellent example of the type of misleading, fuzzy
logic used by the group to propagate this concept which they tend to
convey indirectly to avoid criticism.) Confused seminary students at
MBTS asked
me about this very idea after a presentation I once gave there,
as they believed that they would stand before God to make spiritual
intercession for the sins of their wives. Please note this
statement of the Owner/Publisher of a homeschooling magazine
affiliated with this group (emphasis mine), a
pragmatic example of what earnest people understand about this
doctrine:
He has served as a regional support group board member leading the charge to exhort homeschooling fathers and husbands to assume their God-given duty to be the leaders of their homes, including sanctifying their wives. . .
This is not a Protestant teaching, and
it
isn't even consistent with Judaism. It is something more akin to
a distortion of Roman Catholic Theology, something that should be
disturbing to Reformed Protestants. I had to laugh about the
“Resolution” ceremony in the film as my husband said, “They
should be repeating this in Latin, and then they should be sprinkled
with holy water.” Scripture lends no support to the idea that
a father becomes a type of demigod to his children or a spiritual
intermediary who pleads before God for mercy because of the sins of
his children or his wife. A father can intercede for his children
through prayer, model behavior, train them in ethics and truth, teach
them to be wise and discerning, but he neither governs nor stands as
a mediator for the souls of his children. He will be held
accountable for his behavior as a father, but not for his children's
own sins. An element of this
idea prevails within the
teachings of many
Baptists who maintain that corporal
punishment holds the power to purify
the soul. Only God can do that, and only the Blood can wash away
our sins. No man holds that power for another human being. Sinful
flesh cannot sanctify sinful flesh.
Overcorrection and Extremism
as a Mindset. I do realize that men often do not feel
honored or encouraged in these aspects of life, either because they
were raised without fathers or had fathers that were absent,
uninvolved, or unprepared. Sadly, I believe that the film models an
overcorrection and unnecessary extreme for these problems as it is
practiced in the patriarchal lifestyle it seeks to chronicle. Rather
than seeking a balance of mature Christian living in balanced
moderation, the solution becomes an overcorrection to the problem
which I believe results in a new and different error.
Prevalent within the Vision Forum
practices of the father-centered home wherein his children and wife
exist to serve his vision, a propensity to create histrionic ritual
flourishes. The group will jump at any chance to dress up in period
costumes of some variety and have events “Reformation
Fairs” that prove to themselves and the rest of the world that
they are more special to God than everyone else. (At three points
during the film, my husband said “Oh, no! Here's another excuse
for them to play 'dress up'.”)
They are obsessed with outward appearance, and though they would be
the first to decry ritual in the Catholic and Emergent Churches, they
will be the first to create their own odd rituals. Marriage
ceremonies among the Vision Forum elite include knighting
the groom with a sword, the transfer
of the father's authority to the groom, the washing
of the groom's feet by the bride as an act of submission,
presentation of a
quiver for arrows to groom and bride, the payment of a gold coin
to the father of the bride which had been dubbed the “bride price”
(actually
a compensation paid to a father if his daughter's sexual purity has
been defiled or defamed under the Mosaic Law), or the payment of
some dowry.
Some groups even withhold the time of the ceremony from the bride as
a reference to Matthew
25 (Select “Biblical
Betrothal,” and make sure to watch the bizarre “training
videos” noted in the sidebar, particularly the two that reference
wedding ceremonies which include some of these noted
rituals).
This group of people needs a parade for
everything that they do because of the conformity and uniformity
demanded of followers as an show of spirituality. As others have
pointed out, why do the men in this film and in the homeschooling
patriarchy movement need a celebration for those tasks that they knew
were their duty when they married and had children? Why do they need
a resolution to follow when Scripture spells out their
responsibilities? From their character and the transformation that
takes place in them through the Word and the Spirit as they mature in
Christ come the abilities that they will need to parent through the
full counsel of the Word. Why is a resolution necessary? They
replace the Word with their resolutions, the traditions of men,
following them instead of the simple truths that are noted in
Scripture. They replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit with a new
type of legalism which they bind to themselves and write on their
hearts instead of the Word. It allows them to maintain control
through the arm of the flesh instead of trusting God like the rest of
us. This speaks of love, not control.
Reasons behind the extremism.
I believe that this impetus to make overcorrections that we see
portrayed in Courageous results from two causes. First, many
follow a pattern of perspective and a system of thought which prefers
conspiracy, scapegoating, catastrophe, and legalism. Chip Berlet
dubs this as Right
Wing Populism, and the group follows from long
“multigenerational” tradition in this system of elitism and
survival of the spiritually fittest. (To fully understand the
ugliness beneath the kitsch of the group's odd terminology, consider
devoting time to reading
this material.)
I believe that the second influence
which drives the group to extremes to overcompensate for problems
that arise from concerns like fatherlessness that we see in the film,
they turn to formulas to guard against their own unresolved personal
pain under the guise of protecting their families. (We see this in
the resolution and church ceremonies followed by the band of Sheriff
brothers in the film.) When parents raise children without
appropriately respecting their naivete and the limitations of their
age, they tend to raise those children to become adults who are
uncomfortable with imperfection and immaturity in themselves. As
adults, they then work to drive imperfection out of their children or
at least guard against experiences that they find painful through
formulaic solutions (e.g., the Resolution and the father-daughter
ring ritual). In real life, these formulaic practices tend to
degrade into extremes of legalism which compete with balanced
Christian living over time. As Vyckie Garrison notes, because the
father-centered ideology redefines balance as sinful mediocrity and
compromise to be resisted at all costs under most all circumstances,
her family “did
NOT want to be balanced.” This is a core symptom of
dysfunction found in families affected by addiction, a pattern of
behavior that
Vision Forum teaches as God's ordained plan for godly living.
These adults have difficulty with the routine experience and expression of mature, adult behavior, understanding balance as lack of passion or lack of life because the chaos and drama in their family of origin raises the bar on the level of stimulation they need. . .The over-mature and controlling adult children of dysfunctional homes tend to erect walls as boundaries in relationships, and the relationships that they do foster tend to be very non-spontaneous. They've never been allowed to embrace their immaturity, and that is how they perceive appropriate playful behavior in adulthood. I believe that these individuals tend to gravitate towards legalistic religions and fringe Christianity, believing that their extremes demonstrate greater faith. Plain, old mainstream religion just doesn't seem like quite enough for them. They don't want to follow "dead Christianity," so they choose extreme versions of it.
In many of these individuals who
continue to suffer as adults from the unhealed wounds and the
dysfunctional patterns from their own family of origin, the drama and
the extremes and the ritual replace true intimacy.
Those affected mistake the drama for intimacy because it helps them
feel alive. They are generally so overwhelmed with shame and suffer
with feelings of low worth and lack of love for themselves and in
themselves, that love is about little more than duty and deadness.
They distract themselves from the sense of numbness by controlling
and dominating others, though in the film, we only see the ideal of
the virtuous intent. One need only to read about the painful and
often devastating consequences on but a few spiritual abuse survivor
blogs to learn about the risks and some of the more unfortunate
outcomes that result, despite the best of intentions.
Courageous is, at best, a string of
moralistic vignettes that are poorly knit together. Not all will
understand the subtle messages about homeschooling's aberrant
patriarchy movement embedded in the film, and they will hopefully
not fall prey to the deception that others practice I'm
concerned that it will become a gateway into groups like Vision
Forum, especially considering its early popular appeal among many
Christian groups. To those who see it as a film that glorifies
father-centered,
“family
integrated,” “multigenerational
faithfulness,” all terms that mean something very different
from their deceptive pleasant sound, it is a documentary of
their priestcraft.
In closing have to
include these two noteworthy comments from my husband:
“All in all, the acting wasn't that bad, considering the precious little the actors had to work with.”“Some days I swear that they're Roman Catholic. Some days I swear that they're Muslim. And some days, I just swear.”
Referenced comment starts at about 2 minutes into the clip:
