I finally saw the movie Collision the other day and I thought I would do a little review about it. First I'll write a little summary about it. Second, share my thoughts about the movie. And third, I will discuss the arguments in it.
Summary:
Collision is a documentary film released in 2009 that follows a tour of debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson following the release of their co-authored book Is Christianity Good for the World? The title of the book also serves as the premise for the movie. Hitchens, who had previously released a book called God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything argues not only that God does not exist but that the world would be better off if religion was eliminated. Wilson, a Presbyterian pastor, argues that Christianity makes the most sense of the world and has provided the basis for much of Western culture's progress. A camera crew follow these two men as they go on tour debating at different locations such as King's College in New York and Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. The movie interchanges from shots of the two men debating to scenes of their personal life to scenes of their informal conversations together. The movie is noticeably stylish, often employing black and white camera shots, quickly zooming in on a subject, and in-and-out-of focus shots. By the end of the movie there is no decisive winner, which suggests that the director intended the movie to be an introduction to the differing arguments, leaving the viewer with the responsibility of looking into the questions on his own in order to make up his own mind.
Thoughts on the movie:
Personally, I did not think the movie was very well made. The whole movie is basically snippets of arguments without an outline. This makes the movie feel more like a jumble of sound-bites than a documentary. There were times when I felt like I was watching a never ending trailer and I think this is because there was no narrative or story to follow. The snippets of arguments feel like they are floating around on air and arranged randomly. The music is also over dramatic in places (sometimes laughably over dramatic). Is the movie still worthwhile? Yes, but mainly because the subject matter is just that darn interesting and the dialog between the two speakers can be very fun. I personally found the informal, candid exchanges between Wilson and Hitchens to be the highlights of the movie, even when they're just laughing and quoting literature at each other.
Thoughts on the arguments:
This is an example of when a debate focuses on who has the best one-liners rather than overall argument. Let me say this about Douglas Wilson (the Christian) and Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) - both men are witty and have quick tongues, but Hitchens is wittier and quicker. In his published work, Wilson does a good job at matching Hitchens' overbearing personality, but in a public, spontaneous, debate setting does not stand a chance. This being the case I think the movie goes out of its way to cater to Wilson in order to make both sides seem even (I think Wilson even appears to come out on top at the end). Neither man is very formidable in their argumentation, but rather rely on quick one liners. Hitchens is pure rhetoric and appeals to your emotions and common sense, but almost completely without any real arguments. Douglas Wilson does not do a much better job. Wilson is a presuppositionalists which is an apologetic method popular to reformed Christians. Unfortunately, I do not think he does the apologetic method justice. He rightly points out that Hitchens has no grounding for his moral complaints against the Bible, but that's pretty much it. He almost never argues directly that God exists or that Christianity is true via the impossibility of the contrary. At best Wilson argues that Christianity is more consistent than atheism. But that only proves that Christianity is more consistent than atheism, not that Christianity is true.
Another interesting thing about the movie is how your theology influences your apologetic. Wilson is a preterist (Preterism is the belief that most of eschatology has already happened in the past) and an amillennialist. When pressed that Jesus incorrectly predicted his own coming and failed to fulfill it (Matt. 24:34), Wilson responds by saying that Jesus figuratively came in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 AD. Wilson also explains to Hitchens that the anti-Christ was a false teacher in the early church named Cerinthus and the Beast of the book of Revelation was the Roman Emperor Nero. It is interesting to see how these beliefs help Wilson create his defense of the Bible.
So in conclusion, the movie is not the best movie out there, but it is still interesting. Not to mention it is free on YouTube. Com'on, at least watch the trailer:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbVhAS5KFs
Leave a comment!
