Jamin Bradley

“What’d you think about the movie?” an older woman I didn’t know asked me after we saw The Great Awakening in theaters.

I paused for a moment, looking for words. “I’m not sure that was historically accurate,” I responded. She walked away quickly and I got the vibe that she had hoped for a different response.

While the production value was good, I found myself bothered by the movie for a number of reasons. First off, the film is supposed to be about the British revivalist George Whitefield and the revival he was a part of. But in the end, it seemed to be a movie more about Whitefield’s relationship with Benjamin Franklin. And the reason for this focus seemed to be to make a weak cause-and-effect propaganda case for Christian nationalism.

The movie starts with delegates trying to create the United States Constitution, but failing to come to an agreement. The middle of the movie is then a flashback about the relationship between Whitefield and Franklin. The movie then ends with Whitefield dying, which makes Franklin think of Whitefield and religion, which makes Franklin propose the delegates should pray. Sometime after this recommendation the Constitution was finally agreed upon. Ergo, by the movie’s logic: because it was recommended people pray, we are a Christian nation founded in prayer. And because Franklin knew Whitefield, this is all due to Whitefield and his revival. This loose connection seemed to be the ultimate home run point the movie wanted to make.

Secondly, though I am quite the supernaturalist, the revival scenes felt emotionally hokey. As an audience member, very little of what Whitefield preached in the movie was memorable. It felt like he just yelled Scriptures in non-compelling ways. However, the movie portrayed people coming out of their houses to hear him with teary eyes as they lifted their hands and sang. Whitefield’s own salvation story toward the start of the film feels overplayed in the same way. This is something that bothers me in Christian scriptwriting, where someone might say something uninspiring, but the scene is written to make it look like it was the most amazing thing that anyone has ever said.

The last point I’ll make is about the final conversation Whitefield and Franklin have. For one, this great evangelist’s plea for Franklin to get saved did not feel like great evangelism. It had no tact, felt a bit whiny and aggressive, and wouldn’t work on anyone I know. It reminded me of a younger version of myself trying to understand how evangelism works. For two, Franklin calls Whitefield to account on some of his sins and Whitefield owns up to them. (Props to the movie here for being honest.) But after Whitefield owns up, he kind of deflects his sins by saying to focus on Jesus and not on him, and then he sort of tries to justify his sins. (Less props to the movie here, if this is scriptwriting gloss that’s trying to protect the movie’s character and justify history.)

George Whitefield was an important revivalist in Christian history, as was The Great Awakening an important revival in Christian history. But how we tell such stories are important, as are the points we try to make with them. I’m no Whitefield scholar so I can’t tell you fully where this movie is and isn’t being fair with his life. But I am an avid moviegoer and can point out where a movie is and isn’t being fair with its script.

Of all my critiques here, it is the political propaganda that bothers me the most. And it concerns me even more to find generally glowing reviews from the Christian audience that saw this movie. It’s important to be in dialogue with the media we watch, even when (if not especially when) it’s Christian. We tend to have a way of using tropes to paint ourselves in a light that isn’t fair or good.