[Vision2020] What to do on a slow afternoon

[Rosemary Huskey]

A friend called me to mention the new Kirk Cameron effort "Saving
Christmas."  The film has ties to Moscow because the director, Darren Doake
and one of his associates who I believe self identifies as Chocolate Knox
<https://twitter.com/chocolate_knox> ,  have  recently moved here.  (Their
families accompanied them as well.)  Apparently there are strong religious
ties and philosophical ties with local interested parties
<http://dougwils.com/?s=saving+christmas&submit=Search> .    I was curious
what kind of reviews the film has received - little did I expect to end up
howling with laughter over what I found. So, if it's a slow afternoon at
your home as well, check out this website
<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kirk_camerons_saving_christmas/>  which
includes  reviews by the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc. -
all of them funny, and none of them recommending it. Doug Wilson may claim
that the reviewers are  just mean minded anti-Christians, but I'm thinking
that is probably not the case.  It's just a pathetic effort.   

Rose Huskey


FILM REVIEW


'Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas'

1 star (out of 4)

MPAA rating: PG for some thematic elements

Cast: Kirk Cameron, Darren Doane, Bridgette Cameron

Director: Darren Doane

Run time: 80 minutes

Saving Christmas <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4009460/> " is not the "war on
Christmas" polemic the title implies. Rather, it's a justification of
holiday indulgence hosted by smug quasi-evangelist Kirk Cameron, aimed
squarely at the faith-based demographic.  That Cameron - executive-producing
via his Camfam Studios imprint - does not engage in annoying political
debate is to the film's advantage. He seeks to explain our engagement in
holiday traditions such as Santa Claus and Christmas trees from his
perspective. Spoiler alert: it's all about Jesus. 

However, Cameron (whose previous theatrical release was 2008's
Christian-themed drama "Fireproof") justifies materialism by interpreting
the story of Christ's birth as "the eternal god taking on a material body,"
which feels like a slippery slope. The film begins with Cameron, or possibly
his insufferable, holier-than-thou "Kirk" character - we can't be sure -
seated in a cozy chair sipping hot chocolate and addressing the camera
directly. During a protracted monologue, he says he loves Christmas, because
it's a time to emphasize compassion, but quickly begins soapboxing about how
some have put a wet blanket on the annual celebration. "This bickering is
not good for our kids," he says (read: THE CHILDREN? WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN?), and just as we prepare to wrinkle our noses at the mildewing
stench of a don't-say-happy-holidays-say-merry-Christmas rant, the
pseudo-fictional narrative begins, and pulls the rug out from under us. 

The "Kirk" character is attending a family Christmas party. His sister's
mansion is bustling with people. Everyone's happy except his brother-in-law
Christian (Darren Doane, who also directs and co-writes the screenplay), a
name the film assigns him with a hammer-on-skull sense of irony. He's a
cynical and disenfranchised believer who sees such celebrations as a twisted
desecration of the story of Christ's birth. For example, he worries that
indulging in the Santa Claus myth is "elf worship," something we all have
pondered while staring into the inky void of an insomniac night, no doubt.

Kirk puts his arm around Christian and begins proselytizing and telling
stories, depicted in cutaway dramatizations. Christmas trees represent the
wooden cross of the crucifixion, Kirk says, and Santa is actually St.
Nicholas, depicted as a hooded warrior who smited heretics. Christian's jaw
hangs slack. "Now you see Christmas through new eyes!" Kirk declares.
Christian runs into the house to join the celebration, Kirk stands in a
darkened doorway, backlit so he glows with a halo of light, and they join
everyone for a feast worthy of Caligula and an inexplicable hip-hop
dance-party sequence that eats up the run time like Jaws to a buffet of
skinny-dippers.

"Saving Christmas" is amateurish on all technical fronts: The acting,
writing and direction are barely worthy of public-access television, and
it's all lorded over by the know-it-all Kirk persona, which is one step
removed from Jerry Falwell-style televangelism. Bits of awful "comedy" are
dropped in via minor characters, including an African-American man whose
speech is peppered with Ebonics, veering dangerously close to stereotype.
The desperately unfunny dance sequence nicely represents the film as a
whole, in that it's a twisted desecration of how real human beings act.

The film aims for a specific audience that doesn't necessarily include all
Christians (or me). Some may find Cameron's persona obnoxious and pushy.
Others will look past its professional inadequacies and troublesome
implications and deem the overall evangelical message worthy of emphasis.
Interpret the film as you will, because that's absolutely your right -
perspective absolutely shapes our storytelling experiences. But keep in mind
that Cameron's preferred tool of engagement is a prybar, applied to your
eyelids with an indelicate hand. Questioning his motive and message seems
wise.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20141115/5f0b4f32/attachment.html>