Category Archives: Filmmaking

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 19, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

1 Comment

A Few Differences: Faith-Based and Redemptive Films

© Argus - Fotolia.comThis week I was asked about the difference between faith-based films (a genre), as defined by Hollywood, and redemptive stories (not a genre). One person asked why a film couldn’t be both. Another inquired about who created the definition. And, the biggest question was, “Why do redemptive stories generate 10-20 times more revenue than most faith-based films?”

Since its difficult to categorize the two for comparison (one being a genre and the other one not), I’ll do my best to answer the questions based on known presentation and marketing information.

The faith-based genre definition was generated by a marketing department and ad agency. The team’s task was to release a picture to a market and generate 2.5X more revenue than the picture and prints cost to make. In order to do so, the team had to describe the picture in the right way to the right audience and convince them to purchase tickets.

All of the major studios did the same over several years and watched the measurable results. The definitions were adjusted with each release until the marketing departments and ad agencies were able to reproduce positive results with multiple titles. The elements involved in reproducing similar results led to the definition of the faith-based genre, which was supported by church audiences. However, with the definition in place, it didn’t stop Hollywood from trying to market non-faith-based films as faith-based films.

The biggest difference between faith-based and redemptive stories is in the delivery of the message(s). Faith-based films typically preach or teach one or more messages, while redemptive stories visually demonstrate one message. Please understand that one type of film is not “better” than the other, but very different.

For instance, if it’s done in the right light to raise the significance of the story’s redemptive value in the eyes of the audience, a redemptive story has no problem (within reason) demonstrating non-gratuitous violence, language and sexuality. The bigger you want grace or mercy to appear at the climax of the film, the greater the depravity must be demonstrated in order to create the emotional contrast – Known to most as story conflict.

In a faith-based film, conflict and depravity are rarely demonstrated, but instead are alluded to, for fear of making someone in the audience feel uncomfortable or lead them astray. Because of this choice, the emotional contrast can’t be visualized and therefore the messages are presented through dialog – teaching and preaching.

In other words, redemptive stories are filled with conflict, highly emotional, visually demonstrated, and can be a part of any genre, while faith-based stories are safe and explained, but most importantly are labeled as a genre unto itself.

We also see this affect in the funding requirements. Church funded films must be safe, not lead anyone astray, and many times present the Gospel message, driving filmmakers to create faith-based films. Privately funded films must create a profit, which forces filmmakers to heighten the conflict, visual and emotional contrast within the story.

The market is large enough for both faith-based and redemptive stories to coexist, however, marketers still need to work on differentiating the two types of films. There’s nothing more disappointing than sitting in a theater to watch one type of film and find the other playing on screen.

As for the difference in revenue, it’s anyone’s guess. The best argument I’ve heard suggests that few people want to be told how to live (faith-based), but most want to learn from watching other’s experiences (redemptive).

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 17, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

3 Comments

Why I’ll Never Make One

Les Miserables PosterI’ve watched too many faith-based films over the past two years. It was curiosity more than anything else. The sudden glut of like-minded stories peaked my insurmountable drive to understand why and how it happened.

Looking first to the past, I learned that church-supported “Christian” films had been around since the early 30’s (not to be confused with religious biblical films that started in 1908), but faith-based films launched in 2006 and was immediately embraced and sustained by millions of home schoolers.

Studios got behind the new films, after fledgling around with previous breakout Christian films. Hollywood didn’t know how to promote the films nor did they know how to build the ideal audiences; so faith-based films that arrived complete with audiences intact or with church based promotional campaigns were welcomed.

Studios finally got a handle on the faith-based market when they realized the similarities between all of the faith-based films. These were the same similarities that made genres and sub-genres what they are today. By simply labeling faith-based films a genre, the studios got control over what was once elusive.

Unfortunately that meant audiences would suddenly focus on what made faith-based films faith-based, which was mostly the story’s weaknesses. The good news is that redemptive stories were never tossed into the mix, although many Christians tried to convince others that redemptive films were also faith-based.

The biggest arguments surrounding the claims were in connection with two high profile redemptive stories: The Blind Side and Les Miserables. The faith-based market claimed The Blind Side as one of their own, even though director Tom Hooper specifically stated that it was not a faith-based film. Les Miserables was rejected by the faith-based community due to the whore, drunkards, and other low life characters, even though the story was arguably the greatest redemptive story about faith, forgiveness and love within the past two decades.

The weak, yet repetitive elements within faith-based films, the clear acceptance of non-faith-based films because of certain elements, and the rejection of overt redemptive films missing certain elements, made it clear that faith-based films were about a specific Evangelical culture, not the Bible’s theme of redemption.

What made and didn’t make a faith-based genre became obvious to all film studios. It also helped clarify why some films made a lot of money at the box office, and why others flopped in general release or barely survived in limited release.

When I read the list of elements making up the faith-based genre and saw it played out on screen over the past two years, I concluded that I’d never make a faith-based film. In fact, I’m not capable of putting into a story the things that make a film qualify as a faith-based film.

This is probably a shock to some who know my penchant for redemptive stories. But those who are shocked are simply ignorant about what key elements make up faith-based films versus redemptive films. However, this can easily be clarified with a weekend marathon.

I propose you watch three faith-based films back to back on Saturday, followed by three redemptive films on Sunday. The difference between the two genres should become obvious. For the faith-based films I recommend Facing the Giants, Left Behind (2014), and Soul Surfer. For the redemptive films I recommend The Blind Side, Les Miserables (2012), and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

My personal take away from each film was high, but not in the way you’d expect. I can, however, clearly state that I learned something valuable from each of the six films. Unfortunately, I’ve since forgotten what I’ve learned from the faith-based films and I still clearly remember what I learned from the redemptive films.

After you surface from your weekend binge of films, you’ll be able to clearly understand why I’ll create redemptive and not faith-based stories. You’ll also be able to understand why I still remember the message from the redemptive stories and not the ones from the faith-based stories.

Once you clearly see the difference between the genres, you’ll no longer be shocked that I won’t ever make a faith-based film. You might even get excited enough to cheer me on with making redemptive stories.

Happy viewing!

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 3, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

1 Comment

5 Steps that Create the Middle of a Story

© ktsdesign - Fotolia.comOver the weekend, I coached a couple of young filmmakers in a Google Hangout. Their goal was to create an award winning short story that could be produced as a film. They had a beginning and an end, but struggled to know how to get from one to the other in a plausible fashion for the audience.

I shared five story analysis steps to guide them in how to fill out the middle of their story:

  1. Review the Logline.

I asked what the film was about and they weren’t able to answer within two sentences, which suggested clarification was needed on the core story. Our first step was writing down the logline to make sure they understood their story and its key elements including protagonist, antagonist or obstacle, setting, and protagonist’s goal.

  1. Determine Character Development.

The writer and director knew who the protagonist was in the beginning of the story and the end, but didn’t know how to move him through his character development transitions. In this case, the hero starts out selfish and ends up selfless. A simple response could’ve been the following progression: Selfish -> Disinterested -> Apathy -> Selfless.

However, the excellent conflict between the protagonist and antagonist throughout the story suggests the development should instead be based on the character’s relationship. This perspective led to the following progression: Selfish -> Acknowledgment -> Respect -> Selfless.

More information about the process can be found here.

  1. Make the Scenes Visual.

Motion pictures are about motion and emotions. Something needs to be moving and stimulating. This forces the story to be visual, which opens the door to symbolism, metaphors and allegories. We indirectly discussed what the film would look like if there were no sound, just action.

While the writer feared that the success of the picture would rest solely on the actor’s visual performance (facial reactions), those visualized moments would catapult the story to award winning levels at festivals. Projects that rest on the dialog to tell the audience what’s happening depower the story’s impact.

  1. Find the Symbolism.

Finding symbolism within a story and attaching it to a physical object for visualization makes for a powerful story. This short story was about a precious commodity that the hero holds dear. The physical element quickly emerged as a symbol on its own merits once the story was sound. Having a key visual element tied in to the story as a symbol always turns the heads of festival judges and most audiences appreciate the added depth brought to the screen.

  1. Test the Story.

By writing down a sentence or two for each of the story beats, the writer and director can create a mini treatment that will reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the story. Making alterations at this stage is simple compared to reworking several pages of script.

By reviewing the above five items, an obvious outline of the story emerged for both the writer and director to work from. By adjusting their perspective when reviewing each element, more potential scenes came to mind for exploration. This process makes it easy to create numerous scenes from which the best can be selected for the middle of the final script.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers