Check out this freeptoid Fundie site. These nutjobs are getting scarier

[Ruffhowse]

and scarier.
__________________________________________________________
Act One combines a rigorous curriculum, professional industry mentorships, and a specific vocational spirituality to prepare a new generation of screenwriters for the entertainment industry. Combining mastery of craft with a concern for truth and beauty, these new writers seek to create movies and television that will be balm, invigoration and joy for the human spirit.

Act One seeks talented writers who are passionate about the screen art forms and seriously committed to careers in mainstream entertainment. We are looking for generous apostles who will embrace the demanding arena of Hollywood as their cross and mission field. We need artists with compassionate hearts to offer the global audience movies and television that will be healing escapes.

http://www.actoneprogram.com/index.htm
__________________________________________________________
Sounds like they're ready to train the next generation of writers and producers for the TBN network, PAX TV, and the Hallmark Channel. Sterilized movies and TV for your viewing pleasure.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. What? They couldn't sign Jack Chick?

I can't believe they would just let his talent lay around squandered.

[madrchsod]

6. real people playing

jack chick characters,wow, i`d pay to see that!

[Career Prole]

2. "television that will be balm, invigoration and joy for the human spirit"

The Cartoon Network provides that already. :D

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Teehee

http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/index.htm

[Bouncy Ball]

3. Ah, trying to counter "evil Hollywood" eh?

Heh, yeah I bet those movies will go over REAL well. LMAO!!!! GOOD LUCK!!!

[The Sheik]

5. Not to sound retarted...

but I dont get this website.

[Wapsie B]

7. Kirk Cameron,

paging Kirk Cameron...........

[StoryTeller]

8. Actually, I've met some of the people involved with this program

And they aren't really the creeps you're assuming them to be. You're interpreting this from outside the evangelical culture, without understanding where they are coming from. The following is a mini-history lesson, based on my understanding of how things developed. (And I'm certainly no expert in this, but I have some experience with it.)

You may or may not be aware of this, but evangelicals for the past I-don't-know-how-long have really been antagonistic toward the arts. Acting was considered sinful because men had to wear makeup and actors pretend to be people they aren't, which "everyone" knows is the same as lying." Novelists got the same bad rap because they wrote things that weren't "true" or "spiritually educational." The same goes for artists and musicians and anyone else in any artistic pursuit.

So evangelicals discouraged their kids from pursuing theater, fiction writing, art, and most music (except maybe gospel or classical). A lot of them were/are against going to see movies because, as I've heard them explain, "When you go into a movie theater, people don't know if you're going to see the G-rated movie or the R-rated movie, so you might be giving the appearance of evil or cause someone else to see a bad movie because they thought you were okaying it." Plus, as more "sex, language, and violence" became common in movies, they were convinced it was all hopeless garbage.

Now, please understand, I'm making some sweeping generalizations here. Not ALL evangelicals feel/felt this way. But there are certain trends to point to. And yes, this approach is absolutely ridiculous. Don't shoot the messenger over it -- I'm not saying I agree.

So evangelicals started bashing Hollywood. And the music industry. And theater. And books. And... you get the picture. And their understanding and appreciation of art and popular culture became the most endangered species in the US.

So then, when they began to have somewhat of a renaissance in the 90's, there were a whole bunch of artistic-souled young evangelicals who really wanted to express their art, but had absolutely no understanding of how to do it. They had a legitimate desire to incorporate their faith into their art, but the only artistic examples they had to follow were people whose art messages and methods often conflicted with the evangelical faith. So they tried to simultaneously copy the secular art and "clean it up."

The result has been a pale, poorly rendered image of secular artforms. The Christian music industry woke up first, and now their music quality is finally starting to be comparable to that of their secular counterparts. The fiction industry took longer, but is definitely vastly improved from where it was 10-15 years ago. I am not as up on visual art, so I can't comment on that. Many evangelical churches are starting to re-embrace theater, but there's still a long way to go.

And then you have... movies. Have any of you had the misfortune of seeing the Left Behind movie? Oh my goodness, it is a piece of crap. Not that they had the best material to work from to begin with. That was pretty crappy, too. But they took a bad novel and managed to make a worse movie. It was embarrassingly awful. And it is pretty typical of most Christian attempts at movie making. (They would like to claim Mel Gibson, but he really isn't coming out of the evangelical culture.)

ALL this background information is to explain why Act One was created. The people I've met who are affiliated with it really believe the following:

1) Bashing Hollywood was a mistake. It was not an effective way to provide what they desire to be a positive influence on the industry. And it led to people in Hollywood being very suspicious of anyone claiming to be a Christian, because no one likes constant abuse.

2) Rejecting the arts caused evangelicals to be ignorant and uneducated about art. So when they woke up and realized that this was a huge loss, that the human spirit was designed to create, they had no tradition to build on and no one to teach them the craft they now wanted to learn. So as a result, their efforts were clumsy and uninspiring at best.

So their goal is to teach evangelicals how to write decent screenplays. How to produce movies that will inspire and touch the heart instead of just be embarrassing tripe or propaganda. They want to produce artists.

I suspect that some of you take offense at the various statements that sound like proselytizing. Again, you have to understand the evangelical culture, and the counter-culture emerging from the evangelical church. Most younger people and those in the arts are realizing that the "in your face" type of ways previously used in communicating one's beliefs are... shall we say, usually ineffective. :) And while these more progressive evangelicals would really like to see more people decide to become Christians, getting the "sale" is -- for most of them -- less important that simply being able to talk about their beliefs with someone. So for most of them, viewing Hollywood as a "mission field" means forming friendships with people in the industry and earning their trust and respect. They know they lost that trust and respect long ago, and are truly wanting to repair the damage as much as possible. If they can talk about faith and beliefs along the way, they'll be glad to do so. But they're focus is becoming more about valuing people than trying to argue someone into heaven. :)

They also do want to see more movies that present a world-view more in line with their own. And I'm sure there are those who are being obnoxious about it and who are acting contrary to the very values they claim to represent. However, many of them have an honest desire to see films made that have artistic merit, will touch the soul, inspire the imagination, and have a positive impact on the viewers. There is quite a debate inside the evangelical culture right now on some of the long-held taboos against language, sex, violence, etc. in art. So it's very much in process, and I think you will see a lot of changes in how evangelicals approach art as this dialogue continues.

I wish this website would not use some of the evangelical jargon that they do, because it is easily misunderstood by people unfamiliar with the culture. And I am sure that some people in the Act One program are probably abrasive fundies out to conquer Hollywood. But the people I've met who are actually running the program, and others that I know who are affiliated with it are just trying to raise the artistic quality of their own writers and establish some networks and friendships with an industry that has really been rejected by their culture.

[bobbyboucher]

9. Just where does one go to meet

these nutbags? And why are you giving them cover?

[StoryTeller]

10. Is that the best you can do?

I spent the better part of an hour trying to explain some thing about this organization, in order to promote some constructive, respectful dialogue about a group I happen to know a little about. And you respond with calling them "nutbags" and treating me with suspicion?

I am a progressive just as I'm assuming you are, and it's my understanding that we desire to engage in meaningful dialogue with people in order to come to a better understanding and a greater respect of our fellow human beings.

I will be very happy to continue this dialogue with you and answer your questions if you will please resubmit them in a more respectful and open manner. Until then, I will have to assume you were simply trying to start an argument.

Peace.

[RadiDem]

12. Nutbags is a COMPLIMENT !

" in order to promote some constructive, respectful dialogue about a group I happen to know a little about. And you respond with calling them "nutbags" and treating me with suspicion? "

The Evangelicals who make up under 5% of the world's population, are praying for, and actively trying to bring about Armegeddon, where the other 95% burn in a fiery hell, just so THEY can get raptured.

Nutbags ?

Brainwashed selfish scumbags is more like it.

Peace

[LeftyMom]

11. Explaining thier viewpoint isn't giving them cover.

If anything it allows us to find flaws and argue if we need to. (In the case of Christian screenwriter training I don't see the point. Christian movies won't dominate the marketplace because they're boring and only appeal to some Christians. They're entitled to thier market niche as long as they can make money at it and other demographics still get served.)

I have no clue where the previous poster found out about this movement but knowing this doesn't make him (or her) suspect. I know a fair amount about fundamentalist viewpoints because there are a fair number of posters on Attatchment Parenting and Homeschooling boards I frequent (as well as a few HSers I know IRL) who are biblical literalists. If I ever explain some fundie thing I know about (such as the Quiverfull movement or the HSLDA) I hope nobody assumes I'm some closeted fundie troll as a result of my effort to further understanding.

[StoryTeller]

15. Thanks, LeftyMom

Christian movies ARE boring and unappealing to most people. That is the whole point of trying to teach Christian screen writers to do things differently. This Act One group has only been around a few years, and much of their efforts have been directed simply at networking and earning respect and legitimacy in the industry. But I know their goal is not only to vastly improve the quality of Christian productions, but to also teach Christians how to get along and function in various positions in Hollywood without being so offensive and absurd.

My information comes from listening to some Act One administrators at writers' conferences and from friends who are either in Act One or affiliated with other like-minded groups in Hollywood.

By the way, LeftyMom, I'm a homeschooler, and you have more intestinal fortitude than I do if you hang out on some of the HS forums. I appreciate what the HSLDA has done to help gain and preserve the ability to homeschool, but some of them are so... well, you know. :)

[mattclearing]

16. Thanks for your explanation.

In the search for useful information, I've found that firsthand knowledge is often most useful. Your explanation provides insight that one would not be able to glean from a website.

[StoryTeller]

22. You are very welcome, Tasteblind. n/t

[noonwitch]

18. I think that the success of "The Passion" has them thinking about movies

I did have the misfortune of seeing one of the "Left Behind" movies and it was crap. I do know plenty of people who have read those books, however, and loved them. People who voted for Kerry, no less. Christians can do better and find better stories to work with. There are stories out there that liberal christians can enjoy, also.

A good movie was made of "The Hiding Place" in the 70s-maybe Billy Graham's organization made it? I'm not sure who did, but it had Julie Harris and Eileen Heckert in it, good production values, and told the ten Boom's story well. I caught it on one of the christian cable channels at some point.

A Disney/Dreamworks-style animation of a book like "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" could be a good evangelical movie, if done right. It would have to have great animation to compete with the secular market, or would have to be made by a big studio. It could have a larger appeal if marketed properly, as the Narnia stories have fans beyond just evangelical christians and parents are always looking for quality entertainment for their children that won't warp their brains.

[StoryTeller]

21. I agree with you, Noonwitch

I saw the Left Behind movie at a friend's house. I was interested to see if it could be made more appealing than the books, which I'd slogged through the first few. It was not.

I think I was too young to see the Hiding Place movie. I would be interested in seeing it, as I think the book is incredible.

And I've always loved the Narnia books. I've heard that some company is making live-action movies of this series. I just hope they do the story justice and don't screw it up. :) There was an animated version of LWW made a long time ago, but I was too young to remember if it was any good or not.

[Lexingtonian]

13. kind of touching, really, by your explanation

But I just don't see how they can overcome the central dilemmas to Christian art. To make art that has a compelling quality, it has to argue for a unique (and, in the most successful art, covenantal) way of the subject relating to the disparities the world imposes. To fit Christian theology the relationships argued by the art have to be evaluated and fit to definitions that incredibly narrow the imaginative space, then only to have some substantial portion of those relationships be declared null and void because of externally imposed dogma.

In short, it seems to me that in order to make good popular Christian art a humanistic element has to be brought into it, and all the political emphasis today on an anti-humanistic, extremely theistic, formulation of Christianity makes it nearly impossible to do so as popular art and not be controversial among self-described Christians. If you leave out the appropriately functioning quasi-humanistic element, you get that mechanical and spirit-lacking stuff like Gibson's 'Passion' and the hugh amount of other crud that passes for art but only works otherwise if you buy into the propaganda overall.

There's also the thing about the true believer Christian need to keep on talking about their faith, their implicit (and in some cases, transparent) inability to maintain it without constant positive or negative reinforcement sessions. Robert M. Price says that he finally concluded, after twentysome years as a professional theologian, that unaided (i.e. purist aka fundamentalist) Christian belief is intellectually unmaintainable because the source material is in some fashion insufficient, that there's some basic gap or lack to it that every reader ultimately senses. In his experience every Believer has to resolve this by some combination of willpower- suppressing the evidence and its implication of the whole teaching being potentially fatally corrupt - and adducing some compensating material.

I suppose this is not really a practical problem in the course of e.g. Christian scriptwriting or photography by a few people as individual projects. But it seems to me a problem that will trouble every community of people trying to make Christian art over a prolonged period of time, a problem that will bring an inherent instability to such a community beyond that of the creative process and artist personalities.

[StoryTeller]

17. I agree with you on much of your post, Lexingtonian

You said:
But I just don't see how they can overcome the central dilemmas to Christian art. To make art that has a compelling quality, it has to argue for a unique (and, in the most successful art, covenantal) way of the subject relating to the disparities the world imposes. To fit Christian theology the relationships argued by the art have to be evaluated and fit to definitions that incredibly narrow the imaginative space, then only to have some substantial portion of those relationships be declared null and void because of externally imposed dogma.

I'm not sure I'm totally following you, here, but I think you mean that the theology limits the exploration of relationships because of the "thou shalt not" factor. And I would say that in the way most Christian approach art, that is a problem. But I do think there is a way for Christian artists to explore relationships from a Christian world-view, even though their conclusion and experiences will be different than those artists working from a different world-view.

In short, it seems to me that in order to make good popular Christian art a humanistic element has to be brought into it, and all the political emphasis today on an anti-humanistic, extremely theistic, formulation of Christianity makes it nearly impossible to do so as popular art and not be controversial among self-described Christians.

This statement I do agree with. And so do many Christians in the art community. That's why a lot of excellent Christian art is rejected by the Christian community, and there is a lot of discussion happening right now on what options Christian artists have.

If you leave out the appropriately functioning quasi-humanistic element, you get that mechanical and spirit-lacking stuff like Gibson's 'Passion' and the hugh amount of other crud that passes for art but only works otherwise if you buy into the propaganda overall.

You are again right. I actually have not seen The Passion, so I can't comment on that movie. But a lot of Christian art IS propaganda. And there is an increasing number of artists in the Christian community who want to see that changed. It's a matter of learning how and getting beyond the other factions in the Christian community who don't want to allow change.

There's also the thing about the true believer Christian need to keep on talking about their faith, their implicit (and in some cases, transparent) inability to maintain it without constant positive or negative reinforcement sessions. Robert M. Price says that he finally concluded, after twentysome years as a professional theologian, that unaided (i.e. purist aka fundamentalist) Christian belief is intellectually unmaintainable because the source material is in some fashion insufficient, that there's some basic gap or lack to it that every reader ultimately senses. In his experience every Believer has to resolve this by some combination of willpower- suppressing the evidence and its implication of the whole teaching being potentially fatally corrupt - and adducing some compensating material.

These are some fascinating thoughts. I wish I could sit down and discuss them with you. There's too much here to respond to in this post, but I did want you to know they were thought-provoking and interesting to me.

But it seems to me a problem that will trouble every community of people trying to make Christian art over a prolonged period of time, a problem that will bring an inherent instability to such a community beyond that of the creative process and artist personalities.

I don't know if this is an accurate assessment, but I hope it isn't. I believe that art is the right and legacy of every human being, and that there is a way to find an artistic voice within almost every world-view and belief system. Regardless of the ugly behavior and attitudes of many Christians, there is much beauty in the Christian faith, and it would be sad if that could not be reflected in Christian art.

[Ruffhowse]

14. You talk about "Christian" music as an example of where "Christian" film

art is headed in terms of success. I would argue that "Christian" music is permanently of a second class nature in terms of artistic success as well as financial success, and I feel "Christian" film will suffer the same fate. Sure, this music is much better and more polished than it was 10-15 years ago, but by it's very nature, it will be limited in sales and scope because it is so unidimensional in it's focus. I mean, who wants to constantly hear songs about praising God and Jesus over and over again. Pretty much just the hard core evangelical crowd. With main stream music you get a much steeper success curve that generally weeds out all but the most talented performers performing music that is cutting edge in it's embracement of current issues and social mores. I just don't see how entering any artistic field with one hand purposefully tied behind one's back in terms of subject matter and audience can be considered a recipe for success. Successful art has to be free to tackle any issue, any feeling, any subject regardless of the artist's religious indoctrination.

[mattclearing]

19. I think it's possible to make good Christian art.

Or at least good religious art. Some examples of this would include Lauryn Hill and Kanye West.

Passion of the Christ was a terrible movie, but I think similar concepts could qualify as decent art. My main problem with it was a lack of scope and context that resulted in virtually no storytelling or characterization whatsoever. That and there was no moral, other than suffering.

But there's no reason to believe that biblical movies could not be made in such a way as to be uplifting and entertaining.

Most Christian art right now seems shackled by what it will and won't show. One reason to be afraid of Mel Gibson is that he has made extreme violence in "Christian" cinema acceptable. Once Christians accept cursing and nudity, their movies will cease to be distinguishable from Hollywood's.

Anyone who watched last night's 24 will know what I mean...this is a show that used to center around a Black Democratic President, and now it has become a mouthpiece for Republican defense views and mocking of Michael Moore. There is a perfectly normal Muslim family like any down the street from you who happen to be plotting terrorist attacks in the United States. There is a peacenik environmentalist character who is whiny and utterly unsympathetic.

Yet it still has the violence and envelope-pushing nature of the first few seasons, so fans of the show will likely let this preachy nonsense slide.

edited for capitalization

[StoryTeller]

23. This is very interesting...

Could you expand on this thought?

Most Christian art right now seems shackled by what it will and won't show. One reason to be afraid of Mel Gibson is that he has made extreme violence in "Christian" cinema acceptable. Once Christians accept cursing and nudity, their movies will cease to be distinguishable from Hollywood's.

I found it interesting, because the "sex, violence, and language" debate is raging in Christian art circles. What's okay, what's not okay. What's art, what's not. I just wondered what your opinion is on this, because you seem to have done some thinking about it.

Thanks. :)

[mattclearing]

24. Well, this is what distinguishes Christian "art" from mainstream "art"

They are somewhat hamstrung by what they find objectionable.

Once they get over that, they will be able to appeal to the rest of us who know that in the real world, people curse, get naked, have sex, and occasionally kill people to protect their interests.

At that point, their art will cease to be distinguishable from other art.

The question as I see it is:

Do Christian viewers (who have the final say on this) have the stomach to become what it is they hate in order to achieve legitimacy in culture war?

I'm willing to bet they watch all the same stuff on TV that we do, and then whine about how awful it is. Which means that this isn't a leap at all.

Another question is whether they forfeit their values to do this, or can a Christian message transcend explicitly sexual and/or violent storytelling?

[StoryTeller]

26. I guess it's a matter of defining the term "Christian art"

Hi Tasteblind,

Sorry it took awhile for me to respond to you. I was out for the day. I appreciate your response.

I suppose if one defines "Christian art" as being that which is opposed to nudity, violence, and obscene language, then the removal of those taboos would result in art indistinguishable from secular art. And as it stands now, a lot of what is called Christian art would probably fit that definition.

But what I and other artists would like to see is Christian art defined by its theme and world-view, instead of its taboos. Some of western civilization's most respected art is Christian in its theme and world-view. I'm thinking of things like the Sistine Chapel, Handel's Messiah, the great cathedrals of Europe, etc. These examples all have achieved legitimacy as great art.

So now, I think it is possible to have legitimate, honest, relevant art that is still from a Christian world view. The things that are current taboos, IMO, need to become tools for communicating the themes the artist wants to express. The difference will then be in the conclusions the artist reaches while exploring those common human experiences. The challenge for an evangelical Christian artist is learning how to communicate outside that sub-culture in a way that will be meaningful, and resist the temptation to use their art as propaganda to spread their "message." I don't have all the answers as to how this can be done, but I do believe it is possible.

[StoryTeller]

20. Thank you for the thoughtful response, Ruffhowse

You said:
Sure, this music is much better and more polished than it was 10-15 years ago, but by it's very nature, it will be limited in sales and scope because it is so unidimensional in it's focus. I mean, who wants to constantly hear songs about praising God and Jesus over and over again. Pretty much just the hard core evangelical crowd.

If you've only heard Christian music stations, I can understand how this would be your impression. Actually, there is a vast variety of themes and ideas presented in "Christian" music. I used quotes there because a lot of the music would not necessarily be identified as Christian by fundie standards, but it is primarily marketed in the Christian bookstore/music store industry.

What is played on the radio is no more limited in scope and theme than most top-40's type stations. So it's not really fair to assess the entire industry by that.

You said:
I just don't see how entering any artistic field with one hand purposefully tied behind one's back in terms of subject matter and audience can be considered a recipe for success. Successful art has to be free to tackle any issue, any feeling, any subject regardless of the artist's religious indoctrination.

Well, I do agree with you to a point. But every human being, no matter whether they have a religious affiliation or not, has to some extent "one hand tied behind their back" because we all have our own set of biases, ethics, and a world-view that colors how we think and how we approach life. So I don't know that Christians have to be necessarily any more hindered in their artistic expression than a non-Christian unless they choose to be hindered. But their art and the conclusions they come to through their pursuit of art will be different than the conclusions and results of someone with a different world-view. And I think that's okay. It adds to the diversity of art, which will lead to a fuller expression of the human experience.

[yankeedem]

30. Have you listened to pop music today?

Steeper success curve? All but the most talented performers? Have you seen Newlyweds by chance?

Don't care for xtian music myself, but ever since the beginning of time 2/3 of the songs have been about relationships. These songs are about relationships with Jesus. That's the only difference.

As far as "artistic" in Christian subject matter, have you ever seen the ways people twist the Bible? If that isn't creative, I don't know what is.

[Kingshakabobo]

25. Sounds like what they have done with politics in the last 20 years.

The Talibornagains want to weasel their way in to the entertainment industry so they can tighten their stranglehold on our society.

Same story, different vehicle. The Taliboragains are like cockroaches with a master plan.

We know the deal: Women in burkahs, gays in camps, abortion illegal and punishable by death.

[Mountainman]

27. Has anyone here seen "Spitfire Grill" ?

It was a movie that was paid for by a Christian Church to raise money. I really like the movie and I like similar movies. There is no real sex or violence but a good story line.

If these folks are going to produce movies like that I'd be glad to see them.

I don't like much of what come to the theaters so I don't go to them. When the masses stop going to the movies they will change not until then.

[bitchkitty]

28. They're scamming too -

Written critique of a screenplay or TV script (135 pp.max) $175
Student rate $150 with valid student I.D.
Written critique for a half-hour sitcom script (45 pp. max) $135
Written critique with phone consultation $300 (please include your phone number and a time between 10 am-6 pm (PST) that you will be available.)

Reminds me of the televangelist I caught while channel surfing - he was offering free samples of Miracle Water. I was medicated so I called the number and put in my order for my free sample. I forgot about it, until the other day when a letter arrived with a tiny plastic vial of Miracle Water and a special offer to get a 24-pk (no split orders) of Miracle Water for a donation of only $145!!!!

(I put the Miracle Water on my dog, and am waiting to see if it will have any effect.)

[drscm]

29. Straight out of Soylent Green: Balm, joy for the human spirit, healing

escape while they prepare you for dinner.