Director: Darren Doane
Screenplay: Darren Doane and Cheston Hervey
Cast: Kirk Cameron as Kirk; Darren Doane as
Christian White; Bridgette Ridenour as Kirk's sister; David Shannon as Diondre;
Raphi Henly as a conspiracy theorist; Ben Kientz as St. Nick
Ephemeral Waves
...and I love hot chocolate!
Covering this notorious Christian Christmas film, most reviews would immediately take this time to shoot fish in a barrel. Instead, during this Christmas period where this review would be best to read this review, let us make this a morality tale, a frank ones that sometimes are still told at this time of the year, as necessary alongside the hot chocolate that keeps us warm, the good cheer needed after all the stress of the year previous, to drop a form of reality check to improve for the New Year. The moral of this tale is the dangers of lack of speaking without thinking, and the tale immediately begins in 12th October 1970, the birthday of the executive producer/lead star Kirk Cameron.
Cameron, a child actor whose biggest claim to fame in his youth was the ABC sitcom Growing Pains (1985–1992), became an Evangelical Christian in his youth and began starring in films like Fireproof (2008). He begins Saving Christmas speaking directly to the viewer in a room from a Hallmark Christmas card about his love for Christmas, "even growing out the winter beard". He definitely adores the season, just hot chocolate alone, which whilst other reviews will possible mock him, this tale I am telling is ultimately a tragedy. Of someone who clearly had a good childhood with Christmas, and is well intentioned in this curious documentary/essay/fictional seasonal drama, but also unfortunately showed so much in his character by accident, flaws and traits from the worst of human beings which include an inability for constructive argumentative work, and not responding to criticisms with the virtue that a Christian should offer his other cheek to be smote and learn from the issues raised. He also looks reminiscent, in dress sense and unshaven look, to my older brother which adds weirdness to watching the film, baring the fact that despite once being a choir boy in his youth my older brother is definitely not an Evangelical Christian.
How does one practice Christmas as a Christian? That is the main concern of the film, or should be with mind to some issues that will be raised, but you can imagine that Cameron, likely with a wide eyed naive love for the season took it upon himself, with his own studio Camfam Studios and funded by the Liberty University1, to work on this project with his co-star/director Darren Doane. The tale of Saving Christmas is Kirk Cameron showing concern that the Christmas he adores, of roasting chestnuts and turkey, is too materialistic in the eyes of others of the same faith, alongside other concerns of whether it has pagan aspects, such as whether his beloved chocolate was invented by druids.
This does hint at a good debate to have, as fellow Christians believe Christmas has completely misinterpreted the festival, something even non-Christians can show a concern of. The animated opening credits, set to a ska version of Silent Night, offers the promise in itself of a warm, well-minded work. Even if the title sadly has a more negative weight to it than one would hope, the fantasy would be that, if this was a smart introspective debate on the subject from a Christian perspective, the title would be a more humorously toned choice similar to the title to a family film about rescuing Santa Claus.
What Saving Christmas actually is - essay, Christmas drama, religious discussion, none of the above - is a misguided attempt at tackling a much more complicated subject, wide-eyed but without greater wisdom. It surrounds Cameron trying to help his brother-in-law Christian (Darren Doane) who hates Christmas, clearly suffering through a severe depression, requiring a therapist, which has latched onto an existential crisis about being a Christian but seeing Christmas as full of "perverted symbols with hidden meaning", "needless spending" and (with more humour) "elf worship", which requires a priest. It does not need Kirk Cameron to bend his arm in the front seat of a car which they spend most of the film within, all with a calm smile on his face of confidence, unless Cameron was to turn this into It's a Wonderful Life (1946) and properly help Christian find new meaning as his Clarence. The Christmas party his wife has set up would have been expensive to decorate, which if this was ever realistic would have not helped violent depression further especially as a religious man, "a slap in the face of the true meaning of Christmas" the thing he has latched onto in what is clearly an existential "dark night of the soul" in a well thought out film.
I can see the ideal and sympathise with Kirk Cameron - wanting to be a reassurance that Christmas cheer and charity has not been lot even today - but I agree more with Christian which immediately causes problems, that "this is not what God wants" when, for the Judeo-Christian faith, Christmas usually means now spending too much and advertisements for productions which puts off even the non-religious. Christian even brings up a sad symbolism, from the sad image of a Nativity snow globe buried in the corner hidden by a giant tree, a sad image just from merely having to picture it, which does have too much power to be easily dismissed. The moment however Cameron says he is wrong, that he was "drank the Kool-Aid", is when the film becomes a tragedy of him drinking his own, a solipsist form where, in a long conversation, Cameron has some good thoughtful ideas and constructive metaphors you can work with in wisdom, such as the swaddling clothes at Jesus' birth and death symbolically connecting, but there is not enough provided to lead to the needed conclusion.
There is also the tangent which feels out of place, that the film gets into references of the apparent war of Christmas, as a couple of the people at the party are planning to protest the cancellation of crazy shirt Friday at their work place. This concern for me has always been a contentious thing in whether it actually existed, as we have in the British Isles occasionally talks of this, but at times, it has felt from my insignificant vantage point whether this is just an odd thing that happens in the big metropolises. Where did this apparent belief in the cancelling of Christmas come from? A bigger concern for myself, whether this will have note or be a completely straw man argument in its nature, is that never is it asked whether someone who is not Christian (or of a different faith or celebrating Haneka) is ever offended if someone says "Merry Christmas" to them in the street or at work, but that it apparently exists as a concern to cancel Christmas, never asking where the evidence from either those who are threatened, or those blamed responsible, comes from in terms of how regular people on the street with their own faiths or lack thereof react to the Christian holiday. As much of this belief for me, even if bias, stems from living in a working class English town which is predominantly Caucasian environment of Protestant background, whilst multi-ethic and diverse, where Christmas cards which say "Merry Christmas" are a dime a dozen everywhere at the winter season, and no one really bats an eye on the subject regardless of whether they even have spiritual faith or not. In itself, like the entire issue of whether Christmas is too materialistic, we have these debates, or whether Fairytale in New York by the Pogues has to be censored due to certain un-PC language in the lyrics for a specific example, but never does it get brought up enough whether there are really any debates to figure out the solution, instead always coming off as solipsism in that neither side ever consider the wider question.
It neither helps that Saving Christmas with this pointless digression, requiring this huge tangent in the review, seems to make this all a joke but still be fixated upon it. It is a joke, much later on, with the character of Diondre (David Shannon), a friend of Cameron's who is the most charismatic person of the film, alongside a co-worker at the party, start commenting on things like there being an Area 52, where all the Christmas decorations are hidden away? It is actually a funny joke, but what about when they start trading off between them, behind their mugs to stay secret, ideas like Chem-trails or even the conspiracy that all the burger meat in fast food is merely "pink slime" rather than the real thing? On the surface this scene, which is presented comically, would be a parody of this mentality, but tonally there is a question of what the intention is, especially with the question why the scenes and references were even made.
If this had been a subtle documentary about breaking down how to worship, including where Christmas symbolism originates from, and issues like why we celebrate Christ's birth in December, the film would have been welcomed even if it was entirely from a Christian perspective. Cameron pulls some long bows, like The Garden of Eden's stand-in being a Christmas tree lot, but sometimes his personal interpretation have something of note which is sweet, such as it better we have trees than more crosses, as Christ hung himself off one to forgive Adam taking an apple off the Tree of Knowledge. It may cause people to roll their eyes, like the one I have just included, but this is not the problem. The problem is when he presumes this is enough or makes assumptions, batting off difficult issues which need to be tackled.
Interpretation has been a huge part of Christian text, but as someone who has had an interest in religion in general since I went to a primary school where the local vicar came frequently for assembly sermons, the most profound ideas tend to not try to win an argument but offer introspection. Cameron comes off as a big kid who really had good Christmas memories, but he skips huge and dangerous amounts of detail which, even if some would still cause him grief, would have given him greater wisdom and strengthen the interesting moments of introspection if he forced himself as the executive producer to tackle them.
Even with some of the obvious ideas - like reminding people of St. Nicholas being a true Santa, not the construct in red garb by the Coca Cola Company - is not dealt with enough. Director Darren Doane goes for a grubby realism, of a man in pelts and a beard brooding, but it leads to an unintentionally funny moment which, if the film was not gun-ho at being right, would have been an amusing fictionalised and human take on the figure. One where St. Nicholas will beat up a heretical priest, for saying Christ is not immortal, then suddenly go off to give gifts to the poor with a cheese eating grin on his face. Even if Cameron had gone for the obvious, i.e. ideas which Charles Dickens did perfectly well in A Christmas Carol of charity and that virtue can be found even in the spectacle of Christmas, he would have done better, but this is all left on the table.
The added, uncomfortable detail is found in the type of language used. "Drinking the Kool-Aid" or throwing about the word "heretic". You can have your unexpected, silly hip hop Christmas dance at the end scored to Family Force 5, but it cannot be hidden how this attitude of headstrong righteousness is when this all sounds sinister. This is where the American Evangelicals in pop culture become an entity which is looked to in suspicion, and even without this, unfortunately a film like Saving Christmas has not aged well further after the presidential nomination of Donald Trump, a figure bolstered by the Evangelical right in spite of nothing in his background recommending him as a very virtuous figurehead. It is an accidental coincidence Kirk Cameron was behind Trump in the 2016 elections2; some of the aw-shucks charisma, blunt with disregard attitude to conflicting opinions the film has is the kind which has become more acceptable by the end of the 2010s and has run amok in politics in a more toxic form.
This film's issues can be boiled down into Cameron's infamous banana argument against evolution, although let us correct one detail - Cameron was merely co-hosting the television show Way of The Master with Ray Comfort, a New Zealand Creationist/host/Evangelical who was offering the argument the banana was an "ironclad argument" of God's intelligent design3. I am not here to debate the subject of evolution, when the bigger issue is how, even for someone arguing for evolution, you need to accept that a debate will not be won by bringing literal piece of fruit into the debate, or that (for the Creationist or Scientific side equally) winning the argument will reward everyone in the end when the introspection and ideas considered should be the point. Yes, the banana, even if we have generically bred them into what they are, are curiously perfect in their form just from how to open one, but even wishing to win the argument is not a goal worth striving for as it gains nothing. It would have been more profound, even if it pissed scientists off still, to just raise a banana up and ask them how on Earth it came to be, even if said angry scientists would have scientific theories to retort back. Back-and-forth debate with mind to grow on both sides should have been the point.
The problem with Saving Christmas is the same, where through less arguments but empty bravado, Kirk Cameron convinces Christian he is right rather than come to a new meaning between them, to storm into the house and belly surf the floor nearly into the Christmas tree. Kirk Cameron did not want to actually debate this subject, just go for material that is not even obvious, but ill thought out. Glossier than I expected, nothing about the film in its low budget style, like a low budget Christmas drama, or the music and casting etc. is an issue, but that as a production desiring to argue, it does not provide an argument to begin with. The sense of intellectually head butting others rather than trying to deal with the conflict is what corrupts Saving Christmas in itself entirely right down to only being eighty minutes with little friction, with a quick and frankly illogical resolve that changes Christian.
Cameron would sadly be doing this still even after the film was criticised and I have not even gotten around to the fact the film effectively celebrates the materialistic and indulgent nature of the season, and merely placates the notions of charity and goodwill. A close thing to a warning is Cameron informing the viewer to not run their credit cards to their limits, but this aspect is the most egregious. It also is where the sense of Kirk Cameron's wide eyed, child like nature coming into this, from how he perceives the subject, is ultimately his undoing, to the point that whilst Saving Christmas was savaged, he did not come back with an argument against his critics and have a debate, but say it was part of an "atheist conspiracy"4.
Sadly he did not use this to grow and mature, and whilst we can argue that a lot of the worse aspects of Western culture in the late 2010s onwards comes a variety of things (corruption, anti-intellectualism) also add to that list an unwillingness to accept failure, a juvenile attitude that one does not continually change and learn in the face of subjects, one that does not learn a subject cannot merely be conquered, with the knowledge it may have never been meant to be completed. Kirk Cameron sadly did not learn as, in December 2020, as an anti-mask and lockdown supporter he went to stage mask-less carol singing protests during the season, twice with mass crowds, during the COVID-19 pandemic5. Most reviews, if they time stamp themselves, may never consider the opinions of those on the opposite side of the argument, but this morality tale of mine, for a film which is misguided as its reputation suggests and for only the morbidly curious, is not meant to be another burial of an American right wing Evangelical either.
In fact, truthfully, I will argue the left wing are as capable of this type of ignorance and misguidedness, in a worse capacity behind moral righteousness and common sense to shout down their opponents in the same way Kirk Cameron does to Christian in the front seat of a car, their own vocabulary replacing the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid" with a similar unwillingness to debate a subject. In mind to the likes of A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens forced his protagonist and the reader to experience the cruelty of real life before there could be a happy ending. This particular morality tale does not ignore the real difficult nature of the world, particularly as this review to stamp it to December 2020 comes from a miserable era in human society. The moral however is one I feel is important, whilst also being a very simple one - that we really need, even on an amateur level, better critical thinking and debating skills. I am sure, one day, I could easily write a very long polemic about a film from a left wing perspective this ill advised and ill-thought-out, which makes this a moral I want to learn as much as any of my dear readers should.
==========
1) "Training champions for Christ since 1971"
2) An example from the 2020 re-election of this can be found HERE.
3) An article on this, though from the scientific side of
the debate, can be found HERE.
4) As talked of HERE.
5) HERE.
