MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Jesus Camp figure fingered: UPDATED Haggard says he's guilty

Evangelical mega-church leader, close confidante of President Bush and vitriolic anti-gay activist Ted Haggard, whose toothy excess is one of the more frightening of the many scary parts of Jesus Camp, recently disowned that movie, but is also stepping down this afternoon as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and leader of the haggard_not_gay_300-1.jpgColorado Springs-based New Life Church after allegations were mounted, with voicemail recordings presented for verification, of a three-year homosexual affair involving drugs. Haggard denies the assertions, and blames his exit from his ministry to the Denver Post as being the fault of the messenger, stating that he could “not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio…” Continues the Post, “Haggard’s lawyer, Martin Nussbaum, emphasized that Haggard has not admitted to the affair. Nussbaum said the church’s bylaws state that if an allegation of immorality is made, the proper action is for Haggard to step down and put himself on leave.” A colleague of the Rev. James Dobson, of the equally homophobic Focus on the Family, defended the Rev. Haggard’s faith this afternoon: “He has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation. That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again through the years.” Haggard’s Colorado Springs church, “with 14,000 members, is the largest New Life congregation in Colorado.” The contentious response to Mr. Haggard’s allegations from the makers of Jesus Camp is after the jump. [On Friday, Pastor Haggard admitted many of the allegations: “Pastor Ted Haggard came out of his house Friday morning and admitted to 9NEWS that he bought meth from a gay escort in Denver… after contacting him for a massage.”] Here’s a brief clip of Mr. Haggard in action from Jesus Camp:



JESUS CAMP responds to Ted Haggard

As the directors of the film Jesus Camp we feel the need to respond to Pastor Ted Haggard’s comments on our documentary. As a co-directing team, we embark on each new project with two qualities: a healthy amount of curiosity—we’ll be living and breathing the subject for over a year—and with the utmost respect for our subjects. We make films to not just simply entertain, but as a way to learn about the myriad different lifestyles that together form the human experience. We see making non-fiction films as a way for our viewers and ourselves to connect with others.

When we heard that that Pastor Haggard has described us as having an “agenda” we were alarmed. Of course, there are plenty of filmmakers that do make films with a political or personal agenda, but our conscience is clear that we aren’t among them. We filmed with an open-mind and with a beginner’s eye (neither of us are Evangelicals) that allowed the story to emerge in a natural way.

As for accusing us of portraying our protagonists (people whom we’ve grown close to over the past year) “sinister,” this is a disturbing charge. Perhaps Pastor Haggard is projecting his own point of view on the film’s characters, as we absolutely do not see them as such, and went out of our way too make sure that they were shown in a human, three-dimensional light. The children come across as kind, passionate and intelligent. Pastor Becky Fischer is a very likeable and real person, both on and off the screen.

Pastor Haggard is the only person in Jesus Camp who has a problem with how he was portrayed, and with the film as a whole. All the others in the movie feel it is accurate and fair and are excited about people seeing it. The subjects in the film very much identify themselves as part of the Evangelical family and are hurt and stung by Pastor Haggard’s wholesale and somewhat venomous rejection of them and the film. While they do identify themselves as Charismatics and Pentecostals, they feel (and we agree) that they have much more in common with the greater Evangelical movement—their morals, values, and political beliefs—than they have differences. For Pastor Haggard to marginalize and dismiss them by labeling them a “sub-group” seems unfair, mean spirited and unproductive.

As a religious leader, why wouldn’t Pastor Haggard take this film as an opportunity to discuss differences and similarities amongst Evangelicals and the various styles of worship and communication? Why not embrace the film as a tool for discussion about raising children with deep faith and keeping them in the church as young adults? Why miss an opportunity to address any misunderstandings secular Americans may have about the aims of the more politically involved arm of the Evangelical movement, of which Pastor Haggard is very active?

We taped at New Life Church for an entire day. Pastor Haggard played with the camera and made jokes through both sermons. We made sure to indicate in the film (from the audience’s laughter), that he was joking around with his parishioners. After the sermons he met and spoke to a child in our film who has dreams of preaching and gave him advice, which we show in a very straightforward way. His interview was also filmed modestly, sitting on the alter after his sermon. We did not put words in his mouth nor did we instruct him to utter the statement that has garnered him so much attention: “If the Evangelicals vote, they determine the election.” In fact, we were very careful not to include other material from his sermons that were more inflammatory in nature and could perhaps be interpreted as divisive.

Perhaps Pastor Ted regrets how he comes off in the film and is expressing it by criticizing us, Becky, and the children in the film. What he calls “negative” and not “normative” we see as simply true and accurate. As for us, we will continue to share “Jesus Camp,” with people from all backgrounds and beliefs and learn from the profound discussions that result from this film.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon