What I think is compelling. . .
View: thread | inline
-
What I think is compelling. . . Posted on Jan 31 2007 at 12:55am by I think what's really compelling is a leader who is seen by the led as someone who is in some sense imperfect and who can make mistakes--even theological mistakes. In other words, he's a leader who manages at the same time to be a human being. And this is just not done. I think the tattoos and piercings are in some abstract, maybe subconscious way a rejection of the usual trappings of "status", namely a crisp suit, shiny expensive watches and cars, a fancy cell phone. There is something not-necessarily humble, but anti-controlling about this, to the extent that it somehow avoids making me into an audience member, but rather one of "us".
What is really compelling about the show is that it let's me sort of analyze Jay, to figure him out. I can pretend like I understand why he is who he is, that he was spoiled as a child, that he was a momma's boy who put his parents up on a pedestal, the result of which is an adult without an identity who does not know how to be an adult. I do this automatically, I don't know why. Maybe it's because I see this sensitive idealist playing this role in life that is in a lot of ways fantastic, and to understand it I reinterpret him as somehow typical. It gives me an excuse to have contempt. And while I am doing this, the series somehow explodes this process, not by negating my analysis with the true facts about Jay, but by in subtle ways agreeing with it bit by bit--we see that he sobbed for his mom the first day of school, we see that when he was young he told people at random stores that his dad would fire him, Amanda wonders aloud if Jay totally put his parents up on a pedestal, and so on. And the result is that all of these qualities that I thought I understood in Jay that I might otherwise have contempt for are really brush strokes in a larger picture. They are part of the texture of a human being. They come together in complex, sophisticated ways to form a real human personality. So what I might have judged as a adolescent-snottiness-turned-into-adult-codependence I now have to see as a seeking for meaningful relationships and a desire for people that is more than beyond contempt. . . it's enviable. In turn I learn that all of these things that I want in some sense to be "typical" are exactly those things that keep him from being a cliche.
I think what is really compelling about the show is the depth of Amanda and Jay's relationship. Could Amanda be more beautiful? Could they love each other any more? Could they get along any better? And yet they exist in this universe of tattoos and bars and crazy red hair and fishnet stockings. . . there are all of these contrasting preconceived notions about the tender, gentleness of Christianity and it's association (in my mind) with this conservative brand of Christianity and a feminine looking white Jesus, against dark smoke filled bar rooms with funky lighting and vulgar language, against the devotion and admiration seeping from their relationship, against...
What is really compelling is how Jay's relationship with his parents is depicted. Is it conceivable that men can call their parents regularly and tell them they love them? How? What is it about this relationship that is different, that makes it so desirable? Even the issues between Jay and his father leave me thinking, if this is dysfunction, may dysfunction rain down upon the earth and touch every family in this way.
Why should I care about people as inconsequential as Jay and Amanda? It doesn't make sense in any epic, global way. But the local story is so damn compelling. What decisions would I make? How would I feel? What would I say? Are they courageous? Or Wise? Or infantile? I don't know! But something inside me screams to be a part of this story.
-
RE: What I think is compelling. . . Posted on Mar 15 2007 at 5:55pm by I began watching this show for the "goof factor", and came away compelled as well...these kids are living what could really be difined as a true Christian marriage...the Bakers are a functioning family - Jim, struggling to communicate one on one, Tammy - voice of acceptance, generosity and God inspiring courage, who knew??? I hold 3 college degrees, have studied theology through Jesuits for many years in school, and this old quasi-agnostic is re-intrigued in that "inch" to know something more than the intellectual reality.....and I really hope Sundance continues the series.....I'm so dying to know, what happens next? RE: What I think is compelling. . .the filmmaking? Posted on Mar 16 2007 at 6:29pm by I find both of your responses compelling because they point to the fact that this series is a six part documentary, a specific genre of subjective documentary, in which the filmmaker orders spontaneous footage into a story arc and molds the subject, Jay, into a protagonist. Much of the discussion on this message board is related solely to content and how one personally connects to Jay and his beliefs, or, in some cases how Jay’s views and methods offends one’s belief system. I wonder if there is any interest in discussing some of these Sundance series as films? The medium is unique in the sense that, yes, there is documentary technique, yet the series also has a touch of Reality TV - Reality TV at its best. The genre of Reality TV is certainly well entrenched, and the networks have turned it into a well-made formula like everything else, but here there is a real opportunity for filmmakers to treat subjects cinematically as well as for public consumption. I have had several opportunities to hear Jay Bakker speak both before and after the series aired. I live 15 minutes from Pete’s Candy Store where he holds services every Sunday. His church also includes guest ministers and is open to the participation of his congregation. Yes, it is truly unique as a forum for theological discussions. Each individual, I’m sure, relates to the sermon in different ways, but for me it has often been an intellectual experience which then leads to a deeper analysis of my own experience of the world - directly. The series, however, does lend itself to a direct analysis of Jay (and then perhaps an indirect analysis of self) and that is film. I agree that the series should continue if only to give the filmmaker even more time to develop the story of Jay, a modern day prodigal son, a product of Papa, Mamma and Media. One last note: at this past Sundance Film Festival, I attended a panel discussion and preview of Nimrod Nation, which will air at some point in the future, not sure when. The filmmaker, Brett Morgan coined this six part series as the “new genre” of documentary filmmaking. I was inspired by the discussion of how these things are made. Nimrod Nation was actually developed from a commercial for ESPN featuring a Watersmeet, Michigan elder singing the fight song of the Nimrods, the local high school basketball team. Much of the discussion focused on the question of why film the people of Watersmeet (why film Jay Bakker)? Is it the content that matters or the filmmaker’s vision or both? The director moves beyond just letting the camera roll to objectively document events or people of consequence, to shape and order a story in post-production. Morgan described this as mythologizing everyday life and belief systems, and that this is at the core of all art - to attach meaning to experience - to create a reflective journey – to fondle footage and real subjects into drama (sans the bitch slaps, casual sex and gossip). As a film geek, this would be the moment I would cite the forefathers of this type of filmmaking, but I won’t. What’s “new” is that these techniques are being captured as accessible TV series, not lost on the film festival circuit, or locked up in a Harvard film library.
-
