End of the Spear
Jan. 20, 2006 at 5:37 PM
Is anyone else as disappointed as I was to hear that the producers of the movie End of the Spear cast Chad Alan as the part of both Nate and Steve Saint? I'm not a big movie watcher but we were looking forward to seeing this movie. We have read so many books about them. Then I read this post over at Tim Challies and this one by Jason Janz and I had to take a step back and think a little more about it. Good actors draw you into the story and make you believe that they are the person they are playing. You forget they are actors and are drawn into the drama. He is using his role in the movie as a platform for his lifestyle. That's what makes that difficult for me. Now if and when I go see the movie I will be also thinking about Chad Alan and not just the what happened to these men and the work that God did in the Auca Indians; thus my disappointment.
This is a controversy that didn't need to happen and is casting a cloud over an otherwise excellent story. My friend who has written a children's book on Nate Saint is seeing the movie right now. When I told her about this, she was as disappointed as I was. I will be interested in hearing her opinion.
Al Mohler shares his thoughts here.
Update: My friend just returned and she thought it was not a problem. She was drawn in to the story and not distracted at all. Chad Alan's part was minimal and 95% of the movie focused on the Aucas and Steve Saint as a little boy. The story is compelling and she definitely would encourage others to go see it.
11 Comments and Trackbacks
posted by JavaMama on Jan. 20, 2006 at 6:00 PM
It is going to be a challenge to keep my mind focused during the viewing of this movie. But for me it is that way with all Christian movies. Just knowing that the actors portraying Christian characters do not live a life that is not characterized by sin. It must be exspected when Christianity collides with Hollywood that the truth will some how and in some way be clouded. I was terribly dissapointed in reading that Chad Allen would be playing Nate Saint but I can't say that I am all that surprised. We live in a corrupted world where sin is accepted and even commended. Whew, sorry didn't mean to unload on you.
In Christ,
Kelli
posted by Anonymous on Jan. 20, 2006 at 8:28 PM
I am still thinking about whether or not we'll see it. My daughter (14) was excited about it, as she is familiar with the story. But now...have you checked out this link...it will definately give you something to "chew" on.
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=2244
Sorry to comment annonymously, but I just couldn't get signed in - Maggieraye
posted by Anonymous on Jan. 20, 2006 at 9:07 PM
I would really caution you against boycotting this movie. Maybe Chad Allen is coming out as gay to get everybody to boycott this movie?? Please do not boycott this movie!! My dh and I saw this movie and Chad's part is very minimal. No agenda of his own is in this movie. It is strictly about this tribe and the Saint family. Nothing about Chad. It was only small portion in the beginning and end. Half of the movie's profits goes to support the mission work of this tribe. I really would caution you in speaking boycott or negative about this movie just because of Chad Allen.
Holly (www.homeschoolblogger.com/smfeet2001 the passcode doesn't work so I have to sign in as anon.
posted by Spunky on Jan. 20, 2006 at 10:15 PM
Holly, I don't think we are going to boycott it. I posted an update with a brief opinion by my friend Renee Taft Meloche. She wrote the Childrens Heros of Faith book on Nate Saint. She enjoyed the movie and said his part was minimal. Although she did say she would not recommend the movie for children under 11 or so. I think we'll go with our olders. But we haven't made a final decision yet. Thanks.
Spunky
posted by blestwithsons on Jan. 21, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Actually, Chad's been out for quite some time... I'm not calling for a boycott. At least not of any particular movie. (Though by the time I done with the series I'm writing I may be done with all tv and movies - yikes!) I think the best arguments on this have been from Tim Challies about movies giving actor's platforms for their agenda, and Bob Bixby on how the problem is not that Chad is a homosexual - but that he is a homosexual activist. Interesting reading - you can find the link to Bixby on Challies.
My question is - if we know the story through reading it then why do we need to see a movie of it? (A question I wish I had asked before I saw Narnia by the way)
And Spunky, I'm curious, why forego Narnia but go see this one?
posted by on Jan. 21, 2006 at 11:37 AM
I don't watch many movies, either. In the theater, or out. But I know some the films I do see are acted by people whose lifestyles are not godly. (Changing spouses every few years, for example. That really distresses me about many Hollywood couples.) Because I do on occasion watch those movies, I guess that would make me a hypocrite if I decided not to see this film because of the lifestyle of one actor in it.
All the reviews I have read are mostly positive. If the treatment of the subject matter is thoughtfully, faithfully done, we should all support this effort! It's a story that bears repeated telling!
I watched Pride & Prejudice, Part 1 last night. I know very little about the actors' personal lives, but it was a very good rendition of the book, and quite enjoyable. I don't feel I a need to research and stamp "approved" the actors' lives before I watch such a movie, because I know the subject matter is fine.
I personally think John Mark Reynolds is spot on with this when he quotes a relevant scripture:
http://www.johnmarkreynolds.com/2006/01/gay-actors-will-not-harm-making-of.html
I'm not sure what he means by "disorder" (I think he just means the effects of sin on human beings, all too obvious in Hollywood, but also in the church); however, I think the scripture itself is pretty clear. The church is to police *itself,* and in doing so, its guiding principle is the love of Christ and its object the restoration of the sinning brother. What is our mission in the world? If Christ came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:17), isn't our mission as His body one and the same? Isn't our message one of *hope* in Christ? That's the whole point of this movie, isn't it? I hope the Christian community's overall reaction to this bit of trivia about one actor in the film is not ugly. Just my two cents.
Edited by SusannahCox on Jan. 21, 2006 at 8:37 AM
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jan. 21, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Blest, I have asked myself that question. There are a few reasons I am drawn to this movie. One is that the Aucas were heavily involved in this story telling. Many of the other versions that I had read were from the perspective of the missionaries. That is one reason. Second, I have a children who have read their bios and would like to see it. So it would be a nice addition to their reading. We don't go to many movies at all. So I thought this would be a nice outing for us. I don't view this movie in the same way that I view lots of the entertainment that is out there. I also have my good friend (the author) who would really like for me to see it. So I'm considering it for that reason as well. I didn't have any of those reasons about Narnia.
posted by JeanaG on Jan. 23, 2006 at 9:25 AM
My husband and I saw this movie a few months ago when it was being previewed. It is a gripping film. We found out later about Chad Allen. We were disappointed to say the least. We have written letters to some of the people involved in making the film. One response a friend of ours received said that they (the producers) didn't realize Chad Allen was an outspoken homosexual until after they had cast him and done much of the filming. They said they simply could not go back and re-do it because it would have cost too much time and money. I seem to remember a quote by Jim Elliott that went something like: he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.
Here is an excerpt of a letter my husband sent to EveryTribeEntertainment:
(Your choice of Chad Allen) furthers the homosexual agenda to redefine morality and destroy the family; it dilutes the gospel message; it confuses the public; it defames the precious memory of the 5 missionaries; ... What a contradiction to sell out to the world in order to tell the story of 5 men who did the opposite. It's a shame to Jesus and the memory of the missionaries, and it's a blow to those of us who are trying to reach homosexuals with compassion and truth, while resisting their agenda to destroy our families. (end of excerpt)
I don't believe Chad Allen is trying make the movie fail. What good would that do? He would be more likely to use it to get more attention, more recognition, more of a platform for his agenda.
An organization called Glsen has recently introduced a program to the public schools in which, beginning with kindergarten that will "help" students with their orientations if they are not happy with the gender that was assigned them at birth. This is the world we're living in.
We need a revolution!
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jan. 23, 2006 at 9:41 AM
I"m not sure they were totally in the dark. According to Chad Allen he told them ahead of time and they had seen the Advocate magazine. If you follow the Jason Janz link in this post to Sharper Iron Forums you will read a more detailed account of what Every Tribe Entertainment knew. I'd encourage others to read it.
posted by jayfromcleveland on Jan. 23, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Spunky, I heard an interview with Steve Saint on Prime Time America last week. He said that they (the producers) didnt learn of Chad Allen's gay activism until after the movie was underway. They felt that Chad gave the best audition by far and was the most interested in learning about the circumstances and about Steve's father. So when they learned of Chad's lifestyle and activism, they felt they'd already developed a relationship with him, and that they would be treating him poorly if they just dumped him outright, and thus a negative testimony. So they moved on in faith that the LORD would have a plan for Chad Allen's life and that He would use this situation.
I couldnt find the interview online, so please dont base everything on what I wrote, I'm sure I'm mis-remembering Steve's exact words. But he sounded as if he were trying to be gracious in Christian love and showing a heart for Chad Allen as a person, and not just broad-brushing him as a political opponent.
If nothing else, I'm sure the gay community and others on the left are turning out to see this movie, and perhaps the LORD plans to use that? -jay
posted by spunkyhomeschool on Jan. 23, 2006 at 3:27 PM
I'm sure Steve Saint is telling the truth. It is Every Tribe Entertainment who did the casting that I am less sure of. The man has been an outpsoke advocate for the his lifestyle for years. A simple google search would have turned this up. Not to mention his previous acting roles. I have a hard time believing they didn't know before they cast him. Especially when he also did a Larry King interview with John McArthur.
What is sad to me is that this whole thing didn't need to happen. If for example, a movie was made about Ronald Reagan and they chose a short little fat man to play him it would affect my enjoyment of the movie. Or if they picked someone who was a flaming liberal. It would be hard to believe it was Reagan because WHO the actor IS gets in the way. His attributes don’t match those of the character he is playing.
So it is with Nate Saint. His Christian character is integral to the story. Believability of the actors is necessary to draw the audience. A good actor makes you forget they are actors at all. A fat, liberal Ronald Reagan or a gay Nate Saint make that difficult for me.
Another point to consider:
Chad Allen believes that God has made him this way. He sees homosexuality as God’s choice for him not his choice for himself and sin. Do we as Christians have a responsibility to answer such a claim without being labeled unloving or judgement? Especially since HE has made it a public issue. Is it judgemental to say call sin what God calls sin? I’m not saying pull the role from Chad Allen. But I think that the producers of this movie had a Christian responsibility to let the Church know. Not as a public airing of this man’s sin. But to let the Church know that they are aware of his beliefs (that homosexualiyt is not sin) and chose him in spite of it and provide the reasons. Thus embracing the man but not the beliefs of the man. As it is now, the two are getting intertwined and it is a distraction to the message of the movie and the message of the Gospel.