Peter Chattaway (one of my favorite film bloggers) recently watched two films about the ill-fated missionary trip to Ecuador in 1956: one a documentary (Beyond the Gates of Splendour) and the other a dramatic film (The End of the Spear). Both films were made by the same people, but contain some interesting aesthetic contrasts--the music used in each is quite different, as is the clothing worn by the natives. Peter asks some questions about these aesthetic choices:

So for some reason, the documentary uses secular rock'n'roll to evoke first the era when these five missionaries went to their deaths in Ecuador, and then the era when one of their sons returned to the place where his father had died; but the dramatic film uses an earlier generation's jazz music and an even earlier era's opera to evoke the, um, 1950s, and then the dramatic film plays a standard-issue CCM ballad over the closing credits.

Like I say, this is a remarkable difference, especially because both films were made by essentially the same people. Which of these musical choices reflects the tastes of the actual missionaries themselves? What do these choices say about how the filmmakers perceive their intended audiences?

Peter's not condemning one or the other, but his post presents some interesting questions about the trappings in which we wrap religious stories. He's asking for theories as to why these choices were made, so if you've got any ideas, head on over and share your thoughts.