A few months ago, a little Christian film called Facing the Giants—which opens in limited theaters this Friday—made national news because the MPAA reportedly gave it a PG rating solely because the movie talks about Jesus.

The news stirred an outcry among some Christians—and at least one U.S. Congressman, Roy Blunt of Missouri, who publicly reprimanded the MPAA. The American Family Association rallied its supporters, who allegedly bombarded the MPAA with 143,000 e-mail complaints.

The MPAA then said, hold on, we never said the PG was because of the Christian angle, but because of "thematic elements"—like violence (some hard-hitting scenes on the football field), infertility (one of the main characters can't get pregnant), and depression. Some skeptical observers wondered if the filmmakers had trumped up the MPAA-as-bad-guy story just to get the publicity.

Kendrick, editing 'Giants' at his desk

Kendrick, editing 'Giants' at his desk

But the filmmakers, Alex and Stephen Kendrick of Sherwood Pictures, say they were stunned at the sudden limelight—even though it did amount to a ton of free publicity, something they couldn't afford on the film's $100,000 budget, all donated by church members and others. Sherwood Pictures is a ministry of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia, where the Kendrick brothers serve as associate pastors.

Facing the Giants tells the fictional story of Grant Taylor, a football coach at a Christian school who is dealing with some difficult circumstances—his wife is infertile, his team can't win, and the athletic boosters want to replace him with another coach. It amounts to a crisis of faith until Grant cries out to God, promising to put him first—and then all kinds of things start going right for Grant and those around him.

We spoke with Alex Kendrick, who wrote, directed, and stars (as Grant, the lead character) in the film, about the MPAA brouhaha, the making of the movie, and his reactions to those who are criticizing the film.

I understand a Barna report had a role in your decision to make movies.

Alex Kendrick: Yes. In 2002, he had a report that said movies and television more influential on our culture than church or religion. That prompted our first movie [2003's Flywheel, made on a $20,000 budget]. The pastor said, "Well, Alex, if you want to do this, bring me a story and a script, and let's just pray our way through. And if the Lord opens the door, we'll do it." I agreed to that. And God answered dozens of prayers, but it's flat-out hard to make a movie.

Article continues below

Especially with limited personnel, equipment, and budget.

Kendrick: Yes. I see things in my head and I ask God for ideas. But getting those wonderful images out of your head on to a screen is unbelievably difficult. I used to be very critical of what other Christians were doing with movies until I tried it myself. Because to be honest, Christian movies have a terrible, cheesy reputation.

Oh really?

Kendrick: I don't mean to be critical, because I know a lot of people in the Christian movie-making business. And I have more respect for them now, but not necessarily more respect for the product. The product still is either effective or it's not.

Let's talk about Facing the Giants. Is this story in any way autobiographical for you?

Kendrick: Only in the sense that everything that happens in the movie has happened to someone in our church or family. There was a couple who couldn't have any children. There was a coach who was given a vehicle by the school because of his ministry to the students. And a team that was 0-and-3 and ended up making the playoffs.

My main quibble with the film is after Grant gets serious about his faith, everything goes right. It doesn't usually work that way in real life.

Kendrick: That's always the first negative comment we get after our test screenings. I'm not a name-it-and-claim-it guy; I think God does allow us to struggle. But when I was writing this script, Stephen and I were reading Job, and we asked, "Why did God allow Job to go through so much to hit rock bottom? And then why did he give Job more health, more wealth at the end than he had at the beginning?"

The Prodigal Son doesn't deserve a second chance, but he gets the new cloak, new sandals, a ring on his finger and the biggest feast. Why? As I searched Scripture, sometimes God would overwhelm somebody when it was to his glory.

We ended up with our story for two reasons: Number one, we had seen it happen around us. And number two, it's a movie and we wanted people to leave inspired and encouraged.

But you can leave them inspired even if a couple things go wrong for the main character.

Kendrick: Yeah, we talked about that. But while we were making this movie, every single prayer that we begged God for was answered. Every single one—a state-of-the-art camera, a professional crew, the $100,000 budget, the editing equipment, the school to shoot in, even the theatrical distribution. I was like, "God, why are you doing that? Why are you answering all these prayers?"

In the role of Grant Taylor, the film's lead character

In the role of Grant Taylor, the film's lead character

So, even though I'm not a name-it-and-claim-it guy, I have a hard time with people saying God doesn't do that. And I am at a loss for words how inescapable we tried to make the point in the movie where Grant says to God that no matter what, I'll praise you. The wife says that whether or not she gets pregnant, "God, I will still love you." The coach tells the team whether we win or lose, we praise him.

Article continues below

We tried to make that as clear as we possibly could. But people don't focus on that. They focus on, "How come everything worked out in the end?" That is unbelievable to me. Every person in the film says, "God, no matter what, I will worship you either way." That's the point of the movie, not that everything works out. I am stunned that people don't see that.

Do you think of this movie as evangelistic? I mean, do you hope people will come to Christ?

Kendrick: They already have. We showed it at two Christian film festivals, and 284 people made first-time professions of faith.

Is it evangelistic? The gospel is in there, but we don't shove it down your throat. It's kind of woven in the story. You've got the coach telling one kid, "Nobody is forcing Jesus on you. Following Jesus Christ is a decision you're going to have to make for yourself, and you may not want to accept him because he'll change your life."

Those are conversations that would really happen at a Christian school. We wanted to be realistic, and true to the fact that we're a church first and we're making this as a ministry. But it still is up to people to seek to the Lord or not. We can't do that for them.

What is your understanding of why the MPAA gave it a PG rating?

Kendrick: Provident [the Christian distribution arm of Sony Pictures] sent the movie off to the MPAA. We thought we'd most likely get a G rating, because there's no profanity, sex or violence. The MPAA website basically says those three things are what mainly constitute a PG rating.

Those, or what they call "thematic elements." That's where it gets dicey.

Kendrick: Right. We thought there's a chance they'd give it PG, because of the infertility issue. And we were completely fine with that. So the certificate comes back to Provident, and it says PG because of thematic elements.

Did they say what "thematic elements"?

Kendrick: Not initially. Both Sony and Provident called the MPAA and asked, "What did you constitute as thematic elements?" The initial response from the MPAA was something to the effect of, "Your movie advocates one religion or faith over another." We mentioned Jesus Christ, and they considered that proselytizing. So it's not the football and it's not the infertility. It's that we talk about following Jesus Christ. We were like, "Are you serious? It's not the football or the infertility?" Again, the fact that it's rated PG didn't bother us. We never appealed it or anything. We were just surprised at their reason.

Article continues below

So then a reporter named Terry Mattingly interviewed me and wrote a story about it, and they picked it up on the Drudge Report. And then the bottom fell out. The next thing we know, Good Morning America, Fox News, CNN, Time magazine, Hannity and Colmes, everybody is calling us, asking for interviews.

What happened next?

Kendrick: Then the AFA got wind of it and rallied their listeners to e-mail the MPAA and tell them to stop picking on Christian movies; they sent thousands and thousands of e-mails to MPAA. [The AFA says it was over 143,000.] So the MPAA calls Provident and says, "We're not the bad guys here. Call off the dogs."

Shannen Fields as Grant's wife Brooke, who deals with infertility

Shannen Fields as Grant's wife Brooke, who deals with infertility

The next thing we knew, we read in the L.A. Times that the MPAA's story had completely changed. They told Times the rating was not for the proselytizing and religious elements, it was actually for the football violence, the infertility and depression. I about fell out of my chair when I read that. I was like, Depression? You've got to be kidding me.

Then this congressman, Roy Blunt, gets into the act. I've never talked to him or any other congressman, but they get into the act because they say that they've had issues with the MPAA anyway, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. And we're just sitting here at Sherwood just in a daze. It's just unbelievable. But we have been accused of planning this whole thing, that we organized this controversy because we didn't have marketing money and we're small potatoes.

Anyway, we've just sat back and laughed. We haven't done anything. We've not attacked the MPAA or anybody else. We looked at it as God doing his own thing. He's getting the movie out, and it's kind of a blessing in disguise if you want to be honest. Because people are aware of the movie now.

Did you read Dick Staub's commentary, criticizing your film as "another embarrassment in the name of Jesus"?

Kendrick: Yes. You know, people can say whatever they want; you're absolutely entitled to be your own critic. But this guy has an audience and he's saying this—and he's not seen the movie. That is just flat-out irresponsible.

Anyway, he goes into this thing about how art should be the primary thing and that's how you glorify God—through art, not through the message, not through the motive. It's all about the art. I agree with him that Christian art has been second rate at best, that it has been accepted because it's well-meaning—and that's not good enough. But when we say, "God, we want to do our best," and he answers every prayer and we work our tails off and compromise in nothing, and we use every dollar of the $100,000 given, and then to have people saved, and to have Sony recognize it as something worth distributing—all that, and then have a guy that's a Christian say this is an embarrassment to the name of Jesus, without seeing it? That's what stung me more than anything else.

Article continues below

If he wants to say it's still a big ball of cheese after seeing it, that's fine. But without seeing it, and God's given you a platform and you're shooting another brother in Christ, that is just flat-out irresponsible.

Coach Taylor (Kendrick) stalks the sidelines

Coach Taylor (Kendrick) stalks the sidelines

He also wrote a follow-up noting that he got a lot of e-mails from Christians who believe that if it's a movie made by Christians and their hearts are pure, then we should support it.

Kendrick: I disagree; you can't do that. In that regard, I agree with him. If you're going to do something, you'd better not only do your best, but have some level of excellence in it. We don't want to do anything we feel like we have to apologize for. And we haven't done that.

We've had 50 screenings of the movie all over the nation, and people are saying something to the effect of, "This made me want to draw closer to the Lord," or "This made me want to give this area of my life to God, because I realize this is a giant in my life." It's staggering how often we hear that. People are leaving the screening saying, "This was a better movie than I was expecting. I enjoyed this movie as much as I've enjoyed many other movies."

And that's what we prayed for. We think it's a God thing. Do I think we've got a ways to go to make better movies? Absolutely. I'm not content to stay where we are. We did the absolute best with what we could, where we are now. How can anybody criticize that?

Editor's note: Shortly after this posted, we heard from Dick Staub, who wrote the commentary to which Kendrick refers near the end ofthis interview. Staub claimed that we "misquoted" him when we wrote that he had said the film was "another embarrassment in the name of Jesus." Staub noted that he had actually written that it was "another artistic embarrassment in the name of Jesus," and was concerned that we omitted the word "artistic." Staub confirmed that he indeed had not seen the film when he first commented on it in that particular article, but added that he has since seen the film and has written several more commentaries about it (here, here, here, and here). He also noted that he has heard from a number of CT Movies readers who criticized him for commenting on the film before seeing it, and he has written a response to those criticisms here.

Tags: