Saturday, February 17, 2007


In the last week alone I've had two detailed email "debates" about the issue of cussing in movies. It's been fascinating. The first one came because my Dad and I got an email from a viewer of the film "Though None Go With Me," which she saw on DVD. She was horrified because at the beginning of the film, one of the characters (a doctor) says, "I brought him into this world, and I'll be damned if I let him suffer because he can't afford medical insurance." She believed that using the word "damned" was inappropriate, sinful, and offensive, and it compromised the Jerry Jenkins name.

I've also been discussing the issue with someone who's interested in helping raise money for "Mountain." In the script, there's a fair amount of cussing (no F-bombs or blasphemy, but a few other choice phrases) because the story is about a bunch of drinking, fighting mountain people in 1920's Virginia.

This issue has always puzzled me in the Christian community. My films aren't intended to be Christian films or made solely for the Christian market, but because my films do come from a Christian perspective and worldview and usually include some Christian characters or references, I have a relationship with the Christian market.

That said, I've always wondered why most Christians have no problem watching films that contain the sins of betrayal, murder, stealing, lying, or drunkenness, but they can't stand to see someone commit the "sin" of saying a bad word. I didn't mean for that sentence to sound condescending, but it does puzzle me. I think that faith-based films have a tendency to be so sugar-coated and sanitized that the ultimate redemption they try to portray is tempered. The message of Christianity is that God can redeem and save the dirtiest of souls, and that hope can be found in the midst of the most vulgar of circumstances. I don't believe that films should be titillating or present wrong behavior in a glorifying or endorsing way (not sure if I'm being grammatically correct right now, but bear with me), but I also believe that sanitizing it in order to be "safe," "clean," or "family friendly" really ignores an important aspect of the Christian message.

The Old Testament, for example, is full of disgusting, horrifying, and yes, vulgar stories. Several translations tell of people "pissing on a wall," "eating their own dung," or one man "spilling his seed on the ground." Of course, the Bible always portrays an overall message of good over evil, of hope and redemption triumphing over immorality.

Therefore, in the case of cussing in films, it seems odd that we would treat that sin as worse than others and as something to avoid at all costs.

But let me illustrate my point through a scene in my script for "Mountain," which is the true story of Bob Childress, a man who went from being the biggest fighter and hardest drinker in the 1920's mountains of Virginia to become a life-changing preacher. Here's a scene that takes place during the period of time when he's trying to be a better man:


Bob talks with other members. A MAN approaches.

The Heller of the Hollow at a Presbyterian church! Childress, you got no right readin' from the Bible.
I'm tellin' yuh, I ain't the same man.
Like hell you ain't! Your cousin Jess, your whole damn family live by stealin' and fightin'!
You jus' watch yerself!
You a sinner your whole life.
I reckon I'm still a sinner...but I been saved.
I don't believe you changed a lick. God got no place for the likes a you.

Bob punches the man, knocking him out. Bob realizes what he's done.

Aw, hell!

He falls to his knees.

Lord, please forgive these damn fists.
(covers his mouth)
And this tongue.


Lelia and Maggie stare at Bob. Reverend Smith walks up.

The Lord changes some slower than he changes others.
Now what's the greater sin portrayed in the scene? The fact that he punched a man or that he swore? I would say that he punched a man. But either way, why would it be okay to show the punch but not hear him say a bad word? This is what has always confused me about certain people's reactions to movies. I think the scene is very poignant and a creative and efficient way to show on screen one man's transformation from the "old" to the "new," which is very difficult to do. Showing a spiritual transformation is about as hard to do on film as anything--it's easy to show someone losing weight, or someone getting smarter, or someone learning how to box, or a building turning more beautiful. And it's also easy to show the moment in which these ideas are formulated--"I need to lose weight because my fat is killing me," or "I need to train for this big event so I can win," or "This building is broken down and ugly and needs improvement."
But showing someone have a spiritual heart change is extraordinarily difficult, and most movies fail at it, which is why most Christian movies never break out of the church basement. The reason is that it's so hard to show, in a short amount of time, someone's NEED for God, and then to show how their relationship with God has changed them. Do they smile more? Do more good things for others? How does their life improve? What if their circumstances don't improve (which is realistic in real life, but is rarely, if ever, shown in faith-based films)?
So how do we effectively and efficiently, in the course of 2 hour movie, show a heart change? Even more difficult, and in our case, how do we show it in the span of the first 40 minutes of the movie so that we can get on to the ministry part of Bob's life? And on that same train of thought, how do we show the transformation of the whole region? Especially when we don't have the benefit of a book format, where you can discuss people's thoughts and motivations without having to show them.
I suppose, if we really wanted the film to be as clean as possible, we could use narration, or we could have characters say things like, "I used to cuss, but I don't anymore." But I believe that would make for a static and sanitized movie. And what it would gain in appealing to church families it would lose in being unrelatable or dynamic to someone who isn't a Christian but was interested in the film.
In my opinion, a great way to show the spiritual transformation of Bob Childress, and subsequently the region, is to use the tools we have as artists--words and actions. In the scene above, in one page, we have efficiently and dramatically shown what is going on inside of Bob's heart, without being cheesy or overly simple. By using rough actions and rough words in the first part of the film, and then showing a lack of those actions and those words in the latter part of the film, we are showing victory. And I confess I wouldn't see the point in sanitizing those words to protect our ears as we watch the film, anymore than I would see the point in sanitizing the actions to protect our eyes. The "F-word," or the Lord's name in vain, would probably be pushing the envelope unnecessarily, because those words are considered so strong and inflammatory in our culture that they can be a distraction. Not that I would be adverse to using the "f-word" in a film if it had a strong and specific purpose, but usually, it's just window dressing.

Anyway, thsoe are some of my recent thoughts on this interestingly controversial topic. FYI, I do believe that there are some movies that can and should do without cussing, especially if they're marketed to families. And I also recognize that certain people go to films for different reasons, and sometimes they don't want to smell the dirty sewer of life, they just want some clean entertainment. That's totally fine. I've been part of movies that fit that description, especially Though None Go With Me (the word "damned" excluded). It's just not the type of film I'll usually make.
Cussing and funding...
Published: February 17, 2007
Have had some interesting financing opportunities for "Mountain" come up recently. At least five different producers or investor representatives have some level of interest in Mountain, and the film could end up being shot anywhere from California to Canada to Virginia. My ultimate preference would be to shoot in Virginia, where the story took place, because that would obviously be the easiest place to match the settings of the story.

When considering where to shoot a film, there are several factors to think about. You're trying to find the perfect balance between cost and authenticity. You want to be true to the story, but obvioulsy, if you're doing a movie set in space, you can't shoot on location. On a smaller scale, the same holds true for movies that take place in different countries or time periods. For instance, Cold Mountain took place in the American South in the 1800's, but the best place to shoot was Romania because of cost and efficiency.

The factors include:

1. Cast and crew base. Your crew will consist of several dozen people, and they'll be working nonstop for at least four weeks on indie movies, several months on bigger films. Best case scenario is to have a great crew available locally so you don't have to pay for hotels. If a great crew isn't available, you have to put them in hotels, give them "per diems" (cash for daily needs), etc. Same thing with actors--it's assumed that you'll pay to put a few of your lead actors in a hotel unless you're shooting in Los Angeles, but you don't want to have to put up all your supporting actors and featured extras. So ultimately, you want to find a location that has a good actor and crew base in the area.

2. Location costs. It costs money to rent an office, shut down a street, or close down a restaurant to shoot there. In Los Angeles, people are film-experienced enough to charge good money. However, if you shoot in certain towns around the country that haven't had a lot of films there, they often WANT you to shoot there, so they'll bend over backwards. On Hometown Legend, we paid a total of a few hundred bucks for all our locations in the film, which is unheard of. But the local area in Alabama wanted us there, knew we were adding economic value to the town, and were excited to host a real film. In exchange, we cleaned up our messes and even fixed a few town lights out of appreciation.

3. Authenticity. Obviously, you need places that look like the setting of your story. For Mountain, the story takes place in the 1920's in mountains of Virginia, so if we can get good deals on points 1 and 2, it would be ideal to shoot there.

4. Tax incentives. A lot of states (and countries, as Canada has shown) are offering tax breaks and incentives to shoot there. They recognize that by hiring their citizens and buying hotel rooms, food, equipment, etc., you are bringing value to the area. So they'll oftentimes give you significant tax breaks on everything you spend in the state. States like New Mexico, North Carolina, and Missouri are offering up to 30%, which is significant.

Anyhoo, that's my little film lesson for the day. Enjoy.