1 Avril Speaks 12/4/12 TC581 - WTA Touchstone Blinded by Labels At some point in their career, and to some degree,

artists must define themselves. This is particularly true for filmmakers. We have to define ourselves when we create business cards. We define ourselves when we go to networking parties. We define ourselves when we put our names in the credits. How we define ourselves or our work can make or break us when applying to film festivals or looking for agents. Sometimes, however, we can put undue pressure on outcomes as artists when we seek to apply labels and definitions to our work that are more restraining than liberating. This has been one of the issues I have struggled with ever since deciding to become a filmmaker several years ago. Throughout the course of my career, I have vacillated between artist, Christian artist, and professor, thinking that I had to choose one in order to craft a direction in focus. In retrospect I started to see, through my own work, the ways in which my voice has been compromised due to the expectations that are associated with labels. Upon taking this class, I was able to look at my own art, and art in general through a theological lens. The results were very surprising. It was much less a dogmatic criticism or formula for creating Christian work, but rather a broad understanding and appreciation for various art forms in ways that respect our faith tradition. The processes and exercises in this course have given me permission to think about filmmaking in a slightly different context, while still honoring its original intent. One of the greatest outcomes of this class has been gaining clarity about why I am here at Fuller and a better lens through which to view my studies here, as well as my life and art beyond this program. Through this class, I came to the conclusion that I want the church to see again. To see what? To see Gods story in human interaction on the screen, and to see the

2 value that art and artists can bring to the soul. How I came to that conclusion and what I plan to do about that conclusion are the things I have wrestled with throughout the course of the class and during this final project in particular. I believe it is something I will continue to wrestle with; however I came to that conclusion after evaluating some of my previous work in light of the work I would like to do in the future. For the purpose of this final assignment, I asked myself four questions: Who am I? What do I do? What is real? And What is next? By answering these questions, I was able to develop not so much a theology of film, but a theology of filmmaking that helped inform my conclusion as I move forward as an artist. Who Am I? I became a filmmaker one month after deciding to be a Christian. This is significant because immediately after making that decision, my goal in life was to be a Christian Filmmaker. That's with a capital CF, because I knew I wanted to "make films for God". I had big plans. I was going to take Hollywood by storm on my own terms, showing them once and for all that Christians could make films just as good as theirs. Since then, my goals as a filmmaker have become a bit more broad and rooted in reality; however, I still find myself constantly struggling with the question of whether I should label myself a Christian filmmaker or a filmmaker who happens to be a Christian. While I embrace the label of Christian filmmaker (after all, it is part of my voice just as much as being black and being a woman), I realize that that label comes with much baggage. There is the baggage of subpar, cliche filmmaking that is often associated with Christian film. There is also the baggage of the expectations within the Christian community to make family friendly films that are safe. The latter has been the most difficult for me to embrace because it has never been my goal as an artist to make people comfortable. I have always tried to challenge the status quo in some way and create films that make people, and the church in particular, think. This dilemma lead me to the next question:

3 What do I DO? In thinking about how I want to help the church see again, I reflected on the fact that traditionally I have seen myself as a sort of prophetic filmmaker, looking to make films that will challenge the church on its own prejudices and false thinking. One such film was Soul Connection, in which I tried to challenge peoples views of the cross and other iconic Christian imagery. The idea was to visually distort the religious images in order to make people appreciate the person of Christ more than the symbols that represent him. The problem with this type of art is that it does require a certain shift in thinking in imagination as well as in theological ideas. This is already a tough call for an audience because the cross is a sacred symbol that carries its own associations--both positive and negative, and tampering with it in such a way can be too shocking and off-putting. My solution to that at the time was to incorporate chants in which the images were called out as lies and distortions of the truth, a compromise to appeal to the label of Christian filmmaker. Understanding this concession has caused me to rethink how I deal with specific audiences, particularly when it comes to symbols that could be loaded with meaning. Sandra Levy helped me work through this, for example, when she says: the meaning we attach to symbols is also shaped by our life experiences, so that meaning is open to growth and change. Thus, symbols and metaphors that we inherit from our cultural tradition not only have a historical significance but also take on new meaning arising from our present context. (Levy, Kindle Location 185-187).

Being sensitive to the meaning attached to symbols and rituals within the church is critical for someone who, in my case, wants to help the church to see. At the same time, as someone whose goal is to challenge the church, it can be frustrating when the intended audience is not receptive to the ways in which imagination or creativity happen to manifest, which was the case with Soul Connection. As Sandra Levy puts it, how do we judge...the goodness or validity of what our imagination produces? (Levy, Kindle Location 237-238). What I have learned is that Im not so sure we should. While artists can be sensitive to an audience, judging and

4 compromising imagination can cause unnecessary alterations to be made to a piece of art in order to try and fit a label, and that is not honoring the work itself. Garcia-Rivera made a similar point in his book Wounded Innocence when he talked about nominalism and whether or not a piece of art should be considered valid if one could not garner meaning out of it. While I rejected this idea at first, upon further reflection I could see that meaning is often subjective. Ultimately, Garcia-Rivera states, ...the theological dimension of art is that a work of art reveals not simply the concerns of the individual artist but also of the entire community that directly (or indirectly) supports the artist. A work of art does not stand simply as a unique expression of an individual artist but also expresses the deepest concerns of the artists community. (Garcia-Rivera, 35) People may react negatively to a piece of work; however, there is an audience for just about any piece of art. That audience will support the work and will be willing to accept the challenge and the journey. Therefore as artists, we must first trust the imagination to bring us to a place of authenticity. I can still be true to the art, while still being true to the faith tradition it represents, while still being real. Which lead me to the next question: What is REAL? Most filmmakers, myself included, have good intentions to create an experience that is real and authentic. The problem with depicting real life on screen is that it is not always pretty and sometimes the dilemmas that characters face are in fact moral dilemmas. For example, in my film Defining Moments, I was trying to portray the dilemma of whether or not a young teenage girl should sleep with her boyfriend. The girl does end up sleeping with him, a reality that is often avoided, particularly in Christian drama. The challenge is that audiences may not be willing to journey into a world that is steeped in a reality that they are not comfortable with, and therefore miss the talking points steeped in the moral dilemma. Levy addresses this when she says: When the poet, for example, opens up some human truth that lies beneath the everyday norm by imaginatively re-viewing and re-ordering the world around us, he or she then runs a risk that hearers or viewers of the work won't "get" the symbolic or metaphorical

5 opening up of their taken-for-granted reality. Such mental "gaps" - created by the artist's pushing metaphor or symbol into novel realms of meaning - can be flooded with new meaning only if the viewers or hearers are able to engage with the art object and are open to the questions thus raised. (Levy, Kindle Location 612-616). This could even be true for the film we watched during the context of this course, True Grit. It is easy to miss Matties moral dilemma, unless the viewer is willing to re-view and reorder expectations and instead embrace the questions that the film is asking, in True Grits case--what is justice and how do we see the grace of God? What I learned from this is that in helping the church to see, I may need to educate them on how to see, so that they are able to engage with the art on its own terms. However, my job as a filmmaker should not be to predetermine how the audience will engage with the art. I need to instead desire for people to feel. In the words of Shane Hipps at the Preaching in a Visual Age conference, Love has no strings attached. In other words, I cannot honor, respect and love my audience when I am trying to coerce them into a conclusion that is merely based on an expectation from a label. Therefore, I should strive to create work that is authentic, and save the instruction for the Q&A or the classroom, and find ways to encourage discussion of ideas. So, What is NEXT? Practically speaking, how do I apply all of these thoughts, and ultimately, how does it help me to help the church to see? While I sometimes question the need for film within the context of the church, film is an important, influential tool within our culture in which I believe God is present in various ways. He is present in the stories we tell, whether literally or figuratively, and he can be present in the process. He is also present in the artists and the experiences that they bring to the art itself. Film is an art form, and perhaps it is my job to give it its just due and make it without pretense. This is what I attempted to do in my final project Touch and Go. This project was an opportunity for me to create something without judging it for a particular audience.

6 This piece automatically put itself into a slightly different category because it is a visual poem as opposed to a narrative or documentary. Touch and Go was written as a poem five days before I became a Christian, before I had any artistic limitations or labels. I wrote it after attending a lecture in Washington, DC by the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn. He spoke so softly, and he talked about mindfulness and about the beauty in the sense of touch. Even though I was not a Christian at the time, I felt like I was in the presence of God. I went home that night and wrote Touch and Go as a means to reflect on the fact that the sense of touch could be beautiful, but it also could be very ugly. The poem is meant to be a journey through how humans experience the sense of touch. From the moment a child is born, they experience the loving touch of a parent, the touch of leaves, of climbing trees as they play with friends. These are all positive associations with the sense of touch. As people grow, there are negative or uncomfortable associations with touch as well, the touch of a spanking, the touch of an awkward first kiss, the touch of a love gone wrong. The goal in writing the poem was to give a sense of the sometimes conflicting emotions associated with touch. Translating this particular poem into a film gave me the freedom to visualize my own personal experiences and to focus on the image and the emotion. Making the film was just as much a part of the process for me. I shot this film myself, allowing the freedom to see through the lens on my own without the interruption of a large crew. It allowed for a more private experience with the actors, giving me the flexibility to find the quiet moments that come in natural movement. While this is not the way I intend to make films moving forward, it was a breath of fresh air to work this way as I try to figure out this theology behind my filmmaking. It was also interesting to live in the reality that applying the word Christian within a label (i.e. Christian filmmaker or Filmmaker who is a Christian) does not really help define the work itself. God was still present in this work I created even though I didnt talk about him explicitly in the

7 piece or gear the piece toward a church audience. God was present through my imagination, through which I create art. Although the film is still a work in progress, it re-ignited the desire in me to continue creating freely. In many of my previous films, I have altered my original vision in order to accommodate labels and expectations. During the Preaching in a Visual Age Conference, Shane Hipps made reference to the fact that when artists start trying to control outcomes, it becomes manipulation. I tried to keep this in mind while creating this project, and I hope to keep that in mind for future projects so that I am not manipulating my audience, but rather delivering them truth in love. I was very struck by one of the comments from one of my classmates during our online discusion of Garcia-Riveras Wounded Innocence: I think we venture into dangerous waters when trying to label art. Although I do believe that universals exist in the general sense, art is tricky because it is based upon individual interpretation, whereas theology is mostly based upon fact. Ultimately, is art defined by the intent of the author or by the perception of the viewer? Do I have a right to interpret something in art that was never intended by the author and say "this is what it means?" Daniel Vincent, classmate (Garcia-Rivera Discussion) As I continue to think on ways to help the church see, I realize that I can create a relatable, truthful journey on the screen, even without a label. In his article, Too Deep for Words, Todd Johnson states, "The challenge is how do we embody--and instruct--the truth that there are human experiences that are too deep for words?How do we recover the arts as an essential means of communicating the transcendent and divine" (Johnson). Practically speaking, I can help the church see by creating work that shows the human experience, and that sometimes shows that Gods love does not always come in perfect packages. I can also help the church see on an academic or ministry level by educating them on how to read art, and how to reclaim symbols and language by having conversations that redefine their meaning. As I continue to process this issue, there is one thing I am now more sure of. I am a filmmaker. Period. That is the label with which I now choose to define myself. Only time will tell the works that that label will produce.

Works Cited

Defining Moments. Dir. Avril Z. Speaks. azUspeak Productions, 2007. Film. https://vimeo.com/54395938

Garcia-Rivera, Alejandro. A Wounded Innocence: Sketches for a Theology of Art. Liturgical Press, 2003.

Johnson, Todd. Too Deep for Words, GIA Quarterly, pp. 12-13, 45.

Levy, Sandra. Imagination and the Journey of Faith. Eerdmans, 2008.

Soul Connection. Dir. Avril Z. Speaks. azUspeak Productions, 2001. Film. https://vimeo.com/4474065

True Grit. Dir. Joel and Ethan Coen. Paramount Pictures, 2010. Film.

Touch and Go. Dir. Avril Z. Speaks. azUspeak Productions, 2012. Film. https://vimeo.com/54431341