The Case for Remaking God's Not Dead 2
Mar. 29th, 2016 12:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastNo, I haven't seen this movie. No, as of the typing of this post and the posting, God's Not Dead 2 hasn't even been released, yet. Technically, I could be taking a risk that my assessment of the problems with this movie is incredibly off. In fact, the release date is this Friday, April 1, AKA April Fool's Day. That means that, technically, we could wind up with a movie that is deliberately misrepresented by the trailers.
We could, in fact, get a movie that deliberately shows the events of the first movie and of the trailer to be the misrepresentation of events by a Christian subculture that has a narrative-driven distortion of events... But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The trailers for the first God's Not Dead were pretty spot on for the story line. So, using the trailers for the sequel, this will be the story of a High-school teacher put through some kind of administrative hearing, in which either some judge or some effective prosecutor wants to prove that God is Dead.
The first problem is the inciting incident. I believe this would happen in real life. I believe the makers of this movie think that it's perfectly innocent and not, in any way, a teacher misusing her authority for religious reasons. But, let's examine.
In this High-school class, the teacher discusses nonviolence as radical because of it's "unwavering commitment to a nonviolent approach, not just initially, but in the face of escalating persecution by the opposing force".
A student asks "isn't that kind of like what Jesus said when she said that we should love our enemies?"
The teacher responds by quoting the bible with a supporting line from Jesus.
Now, in one sense, this seems perfectly innocent. In fact, it's designed to be. It's designed to say, as loudly as possible, without actually saying "nonviolence, doesn't Christianity own that?" and the teacher responding "Yes, Christianity does own that."
I checked out Pure Flix's full classroom scene and there's an important followup that would make this more appropriate for a public school, particularly one with a picture of Ghandi on the projector. That followup, one that would take time away from the quote and a bit of conversation, would be to remind that it's also like what Ghandi's own Hindu faith said. If she really knew her stuff, she could add in that of the Jainism, which is the faith that Ghandi learned from in order to develop his passive resistance.
She could be knowingly misrepresenting in favor of Christianity. She could be genuinely ignorant of the inclusion of other faiths in the history of passive resistance. Either way, she's presenting a false narrative, one in which Christianity owns passive nonviolent resistance and everybody else has to borrow it from them.
I see that as an entirely believable thing to happen in a public school classroom. I even see the student texting about it as entirely believable. And, I absolutely see the school doing nothing about it. Maybe, just maybe, if the school is really on the ball, they'll do the appropriate thing for one isolated incident. Maybe, just maybe, the principal will have a quick chat with the teacher. Because, despite how the teacher will describe this, it isn't just answering a question a student asked. It's preaching in the classroom.
According to the movie, we're expected to believe that the school will do something akin to putting the kibosh on any discussion of Christianity at all. But, maybe they'll just tell her not to use her position as a teacher to preach at the class, even if a student helpfully gives her an opening. Either way, her response is to repeat a cliche. "I'd rather stand with God and be judged by man than stand by man and be judged by God."
And, yes, this escalates into that school administration official who wants to prove, once and for all, that God is dead. Yeah. Can someone do me a favor and find the school district, in the US, in which that would not be career suicide? I'd be curious to find out if one exists.
She might win the case, she might not. The trailer seems to indicate that students will pray and, probably, we'll see the notion that some will be converted. Heck, we might even get a repeat of the laughable notion that the students in this school might never hear about Christianity otherwise.
Like the first movie, the general concept of the premise is... actually useful. Like the first movie, it's got some basic misunderstanding written in, and is going outside of reality in order to make sure that a Christian is pure and innocent. Based on the first movie, we can also expect that the only flaw to be found, anywhere, is not being Christian enough.
But, still, we can use this. The first change to be made is that this can't be an isolated incident. Even as much as I go out of my way to explain that what she did, in that scene, was wrong, it's a minor wrong, one that can be corrected with a simple conversation. That is, it can be corrected with a simple conversation if the teacher is open to correction.
This one incident seems small. And, it is. But, it is something that needs an administrative response, if not an official one immediately. By supporting this view of Christianity owning nonviolence, she sends a message that she views Christians as better than other people and nonChristians as worse.
She might protest that she would never, in the case of student harassment or assault, respond tribally instead of ethically. And, that might even be true, she might be perfect at that. But, do the nonChristian students know that? Do the Christian students know that? Is her class a safe place to be a non-Christian?
Okay, some people are going to call me a part of the restrictive PC culture, the regressive left, that's trying to strangle conversation. But, I'm not just saying safe from criticism. I'm asking if her class, the area around it, the points where she is the only authority figure, safe from being harassed in the hallway? From physical assault?
The remake has to note two things. Firstly, this isn't an isolated incident. She isn't open to correction. Second, someone with either official or personal authority has to sit her down and explain exactly that to her.
Then, she has to do as many have before her, she has to ignore it. She has to claim that this is PC culture persecuting Christians, something that she's very ready to believe.
From there, the movie that we likely have wouldn't change much in itself. That would be her recounting, her descriptions, her explanations, but never the actual reality. It would be a fictional world that she lives in more and more. It wouldn't be delusions or something else that could be attributable to being aneurotypical. It would be a subculture that reinforces that false narrative that needs that fiction all the more.
In the end, she may win the case. She may lose the case. In the end, she won't teach in Public School again. Either she'll teach in private Christian schools or she'll go on the lecture circuit, peddling that false narrative over and over again.
I suppose that's not a happy ending. And, it can be undercut with examples of a Christian that starts out using the favorable atmosphere to aggressively preach at someone that they identify as a non-Christian, to, over the course of the movie, see the wrong in that. The Christian character need not lose their faith in God, but maybe lose their faith in the moral superiority of Christians.
And, the one that they identified as a non-Christian. Maybe they're not Christian. Maybe they are. Maybe it's a more complex world and the Christian student can learn that even their own faith is more complex than the teacher realizes.
We could, in fact, get a movie that deliberately shows the events of the first movie and of the trailer to be the misrepresentation of events by a Christian subculture that has a narrative-driven distortion of events... But, I'm getting ahead of myself.
The trailers for the first God's Not Dead were pretty spot on for the story line. So, using the trailers for the sequel, this will be the story of a High-school teacher put through some kind of administrative hearing, in which either some judge or some effective prosecutor wants to prove that God is Dead.
The first problem is the inciting incident. I believe this would happen in real life. I believe the makers of this movie think that it's perfectly innocent and not, in any way, a teacher misusing her authority for religious reasons. But, let's examine.
In this High-school class, the teacher discusses nonviolence as radical because of it's "unwavering commitment to a nonviolent approach, not just initially, but in the face of escalating persecution by the opposing force".
A student asks "isn't that kind of like what Jesus said when she said that we should love our enemies?"
The teacher responds by quoting the bible with a supporting line from Jesus.
Now, in one sense, this seems perfectly innocent. In fact, it's designed to be. It's designed to say, as loudly as possible, without actually saying "nonviolence, doesn't Christianity own that?" and the teacher responding "Yes, Christianity does own that."
I checked out Pure Flix's full classroom scene and there's an important followup that would make this more appropriate for a public school, particularly one with a picture of Ghandi on the projector. That followup, one that would take time away from the quote and a bit of conversation, would be to remind that it's also like what Ghandi's own Hindu faith said. If she really knew her stuff, she could add in that of the Jainism, which is the faith that Ghandi learned from in order to develop his passive resistance.
She could be knowingly misrepresenting in favor of Christianity. She could be genuinely ignorant of the inclusion of other faiths in the history of passive resistance. Either way, she's presenting a false narrative, one in which Christianity owns passive nonviolent resistance and everybody else has to borrow it from them.
I see that as an entirely believable thing to happen in a public school classroom. I even see the student texting about it as entirely believable. And, I absolutely see the school doing nothing about it. Maybe, just maybe, if the school is really on the ball, they'll do the appropriate thing for one isolated incident. Maybe, just maybe, the principal will have a quick chat with the teacher. Because, despite how the teacher will describe this, it isn't just answering a question a student asked. It's preaching in the classroom.
According to the movie, we're expected to believe that the school will do something akin to putting the kibosh on any discussion of Christianity at all. But, maybe they'll just tell her not to use her position as a teacher to preach at the class, even if a student helpfully gives her an opening. Either way, her response is to repeat a cliche. "I'd rather stand with God and be judged by man than stand by man and be judged by God."
And, yes, this escalates into that school administration official who wants to prove, once and for all, that God is dead. Yeah. Can someone do me a favor and find the school district, in the US, in which that would not be career suicide? I'd be curious to find out if one exists.
She might win the case, she might not. The trailer seems to indicate that students will pray and, probably, we'll see the notion that some will be converted. Heck, we might even get a repeat of the laughable notion that the students in this school might never hear about Christianity otherwise.
Like the first movie, the general concept of the premise is... actually useful. Like the first movie, it's got some basic misunderstanding written in, and is going outside of reality in order to make sure that a Christian is pure and innocent. Based on the first movie, we can also expect that the only flaw to be found, anywhere, is not being Christian enough.
But, still, we can use this. The first change to be made is that this can't be an isolated incident. Even as much as I go out of my way to explain that what she did, in that scene, was wrong, it's a minor wrong, one that can be corrected with a simple conversation. That is, it can be corrected with a simple conversation if the teacher is open to correction.
This one incident seems small. And, it is. But, it is something that needs an administrative response, if not an official one immediately. By supporting this view of Christianity owning nonviolence, she sends a message that she views Christians as better than other people and nonChristians as worse.
She might protest that she would never, in the case of student harassment or assault, respond tribally instead of ethically. And, that might even be true, she might be perfect at that. But, do the nonChristian students know that? Do the Christian students know that? Is her class a safe place to be a non-Christian?
Okay, some people are going to call me a part of the restrictive PC culture, the regressive left, that's trying to strangle conversation. But, I'm not just saying safe from criticism. I'm asking if her class, the area around it, the points where she is the only authority figure, safe from being harassed in the hallway? From physical assault?
The remake has to note two things. Firstly, this isn't an isolated incident. She isn't open to correction. Second, someone with either official or personal authority has to sit her down and explain exactly that to her.
Then, she has to do as many have before her, she has to ignore it. She has to claim that this is PC culture persecuting Christians, something that she's very ready to believe.
From there, the movie that we likely have wouldn't change much in itself. That would be her recounting, her descriptions, her explanations, but never the actual reality. It would be a fictional world that she lives in more and more. It wouldn't be delusions or something else that could be attributable to being aneurotypical. It would be a subculture that reinforces that false narrative that needs that fiction all the more.
In the end, she may win the case. She may lose the case. In the end, she won't teach in Public School again. Either she'll teach in private Christian schools or she'll go on the lecture circuit, peddling that false narrative over and over again.
I suppose that's not a happy ending. And, it can be undercut with examples of a Christian that starts out using the favorable atmosphere to aggressively preach at someone that they identify as a non-Christian, to, over the course of the movie, see the wrong in that. The Christian character need not lose their faith in God, but maybe lose their faith in the moral superiority of Christians.
And, the one that they identified as a non-Christian. Maybe they're not Christian. Maybe they are. Maybe it's a more complex world and the Christian student can learn that even their own faith is more complex than the teacher realizes.
