I was able to catch the last screening of "The God Who Wasn't There" at the Vine Theater last night.

In the first six minutes, the host and creator, Brian Flemming, intertwines clips and stock footage of early b/w religious films to tell a "quick summation" of the story of Christ, "in six minutes." Every once in a while a clock-indicator will flash onto the screen, to let you know where you are in the running time and how much time is left. It's really quite funny, and entertaining.

PAZ continues his review:

The problem is that the rest of the film is very much an extrapolation of that concept. It feels a bit rushed and glossed over, rarely pausing to allow the magnitude of its facts to sink in. I was not a big fan of the music, either; the constant big-beat DJ mix served mostly to distract from otherwise pertinent information.

For its budget, I will say that the film looked good, and was entertaining. But I left feeling quite unsatisfied.

The movie only partially succeeds as a documentary, because it doesn't go enough in depth into any one subject; instead, it's rather disjointed, and disconnected. I don't blame Flemming for this; I sympathize. I think "religion" or "Christianity" are FAR too general concepts to tackle in a 62-minute documentary (the last five minutes of which are end credits.) In comparison with some informative programs on Discovery and History Channels (on, say, history of biblical translations, or the prophets)... 'The God Who Wasn't There' comes off more as a propaganda piece in keeping with the likes of Michael Moore.

Now, having said that, I don't want to give you the impression that the film is a waste of time. It's not. It asks the right questions and raises excellent points. I have always supported any form of expression which encourages the listener to think more critically, and in this the film succeeds. Where the film fails, I think, is that it doesn't satisfy its own title, the questions of "Did Christ exist at all, and if he did, was he the Son of God?", although it does present a good, solid argument that the evidence we have of Christ's existence is flimsy at the very best.

The movie uses lots of computer graphics and charts to display its points; Flemming also employs the ever-popular handheld interview to bring his questions to the public. Again, though, I'm unsatisfied. The interviews of random people on the street are all taken from one setting: outside a public rally for Billy Graham. Before the interviews started I knew that everyone there would be an extremely devout, yet sorely uneducated (at least in their own doctrine) Christian. I wanted more perspectives, more faces and voices. Flemming does interview some important authors and professors, who argue his points well.

Flemming knows how to make an entertaining film, though, and he uses some familiar techniques to great effect. In one of the most memorable segments, he questions Christianity's deep seated need for blood sacrifice; he compares three famous "Christ" movies, the third being Mel Gibson's 'The Passion Of The Christ'. By now it is no surprise to anybody that Gibson's movie is by far the most popular, both in box office receipts and in the eyes of its admirers. But juxtaposed with a chart of its revenue, Flemming runs a scrolling text detailing EVERY single moment of bloodshed in the entire movie (by hour-minute-second mark), which runs up the screen for a long, long, long time. It's a nice touch. With a wonderfully ironic vindication, Flemming's voiceover announces that there was no contest; "[The Christians] were unanimous: they said, 'This is the film we wanted.'"

Brian Flemming used to be a born-again Christian. He attended an evangelical Christian school, and at the end of the film, he visits his old alma mater. Apparently he had set up an interview with the headmaster, and we get to see most of this interview (apparently there is more footage of it on the DVD.) Flemming is spot on in his questioning, and though I feel a little guilty, I have to say I enjoyed watching the headmaster squirm while trying to sufficiently explain his positions. It's obvious, though, that the headmaster was lead to believe that the interview would not lead in an argumentative direction, because he tries to get Flemming to stop the camera, and, when Flemming refuses, abruptly ends the interview.

On the one hand, it made me a little uncomfortable; it seemed slightly cruel of Flemming to be there under false pretenses. On the other hand, the headmaster's reaction is overwhelmingly predictable. On rare occasions I speak to a well-spoken and strong-willed Christian, who is not afraid to admit the shortcomings of his faith, and has the balls to stand for his convictions, illogical and silly though they may be. This headmaster doesn't have those balls, and his walking from the interview feels like a retreat; the typical insecure, indignant Christian tucking his tail in and running because he feels attacked. (I never did understand that. With an omniscient and omni-powerful entity on your side, what possible threat is a naysayer with a video camera?)

"The God Who Wasn't There" is worth watching, because it raises questions and encourages people to research and learn more about such an enormous, mysterious history. It's also good for a few laughs. I will buy the DVD. But I expected more, and I guess I was a little let down because of my expectations.

Brian Flemming was recently interviewed by Christianity Today.