APRIL 2017 7

Editor in Chief Brad Jersak speaks with PaulYoung about the movie adaption of his awardwinning bestseller,The Shack.

PAUL: Fire away!

CWR: First, for people who have never read TheShack, those coming in cold, what’s the theme?What are we to expect from this story?

PAUL: It’s a mystery-suspense wrapped in a “whatif.” It’s a very human story about loss and tragedyand the “what ifs.” What if in the middle of ourlosses and tragedies there is actually a God who isgood all the time? And how would that changeeverything? So the story line is about a father whogoes camping with his kids, something that he

obviously does normally, and he experiences a greattragic loss. And it’s about the struggle with his senseand perception of himself, who God is and what thismeans. God begins to dismantle his world andrebuild it around something very new for him, andwe get to go along on the journey.

CWR: You like to talk about how fiction candeliver truth. Is that what you’re talking about here?

PAUL: Yes, fiction has a way, I think, of deliveringtruth. When you think about it, nobody wouldargue that Jesus’ parables were not true. They are

fiction, but they are absolutely true. When you dealwith fiction versus non-fiction in general terms,fiction actually creates more space than it uses up,whereas non-fiction is an attempt to reduce space.In non-fiction, I’m trying to get my space to matchyours and yours with mine. We do that throughargumentation and logic and everything else. Itmight resonate in the head but often has very littleimpact anywhere else.

Fiction is about building and crafting a space.People who read Lewis or Tolkien or Madeleinel’Engle—they go into this space, and they hear forthemselves whatever they hear. So fiction wantsto craft a place where people can hear forthemselves. I think it does a magnificent job.Music does that too, or any creative sort of art.

I love how film does that. Most successful movies—Ithink it’s 65%—are based on fiction books oradaptations of one sort or another. It’s respectful aslong as it’s not propaganda, because you can usefiction to create propaganda. But when it’srespectful and it’s exploring, especially if it’sexploring questions, which is what I do, stories open up a respectful space for the other to hear forthemselves. It doesn’t have an agenda to make youthink like I think, or for you to think that I must beright, either.

CWR: This is fascinating: fiction can be a delivery

T h e S h a c kI n t e r v i e w w i t h W . P a u l Y o u n g

Official movie poster, © Lions Gate, Summit Entertainment

8 CWRm

system for the truth you’ve lived,Paul, but also for the guy ondeath row who’s reading TheShack, someone who may neversee grass or the night sky. There’sa truth in it for him as well.

PAUL: Correct. Our participationand co-existence with God, whois a creative Being, means thatcreativity emerges from thatsource. Our tendency is to attachcreativity to darkness. And thenwe begin to imagine things basedin fear, rather than exploring thecreative reality of truth andgoodness and kindness, and howthat interrelates with darkness.

You’ve just alluded to a storyI’ve shared where The Shack hada massive impact on a manwho’s been on death row inTennessee—I was able to visithim recently. He’s in a verysmall cell and hasn’t been ableto step on grass for 33 years. It’sone of his great longings anddesires. But inside a story, he isnot bound by those four wallsor concrete and tile, and Godmeets us in that space.

So yes, I’m able to explore myown story and wrap it in a waythat gets past “our watchfuldragons” (as Lewis would say).Fiction is powerfully able to dothat for us.

We have our theology and wehave our philosophy and ourcertainties, but when youinteract with someone’s story,and it’s relational, you’reinteracting with them inanother form.

So when I meet people likeTerry on death row, he alreadyknows me to some degree.

CWR: Now there are also folkswho have read your book once ortwice or five times, and they’vebeen transformed.

But a movie adaptation can be

scary for them. Some worry thefilm might not do justice to thebook. Are you able to reassurethem? How do you feel aboutthe movie compared to thebook?

PAUL: Great question. Let mejump on one thing that you saidin the process of asking thequestion. I have friends that haveread the book a dozen times, andtheir response is, “I didn’t see thateven on the twelfth time!” Well,it’s because you were a behind atree last time.

There’s this incredibledynamic that when you read astory, you hear what is relevantto you in the world that youoccupy at that time.

It’s like looking at a mountain.If you’re in the valley, themountain looks like this. But ifyou’re on another mountain, itlooks like this. Or if you’re onthe other side it looks like that.

CWR: Or if you’re looking at itthrough a “knothole of pain”?

PAUL: It looks like that, right!That’s the beauty and the wonderof the how the Holy Spirit is ableto meet us in the place we’re at.But we’re the ones that areoffering our participation in that.

As to the comparison, themovie is a faithful adaptation. Alot of folks get very nervous,and I understand that,rightfully so.

On a technical level that youare dealing with two very

different genres. And it is quite achore to move from the writtenword to a visual expression,especially if the written side ishighly dialogued, which TheShack is. And just like peoplewho listen to the audio book;they hear it differently thanwhen they read it. We readdifferently than we listen. Wetend to skip stuff and we don’t

photo courtesy http://wmpaulyoung.com

they were in the book, but theintent was there. Sometimesthey framed it in a differentway, but everything thatmatters is in there. It is solid,strong, orthodox.

CWR: A final question just forfun. How did the cast do? Whoare the cast?

PAUL: Octavia Spencer (whowon an Oscar for “The Help”)plays “Papa,” the maternal Papa.

So Papa already knows thekitchen, knows how to bakepies—for those who have seen“The Help,” that’s an insidejoke. I tell you, Octaviaknocked it out of the park,and that was the sense ofeveryone who came to it.

The paternal “Papa” isplayed by Graham Green, theCanadian First Nations actorfrom “Dances with Wolves.”

Sam Worthington (from“Hacksaw Ridge”) not onlydid a really great job as“MacKenzie,” but he engagedwith Kate (Megan, who plays

the daughter). She’s a youngactress and Sam was really ableto help her emerge inside thatcharacter.

Then you’ve got RadhaMitchell, who’s amazinganyway. And Avraham AvivAlush is, I believe, the firstactual Jew to play Jesus in amajor motion picture. SumireMatsubara plays the Holy Spirit.If you have an imagination ofSarayu, she’s there. She’sJapanese-Hawaiian who fits thecharacter very well. “Sofia”[Alice Braga Moraes] is one ofthe top actresses in Brazil—verypresent, very powerful. And TimMcGraw—he’s a natural. Hebrings a presence, and he wassort of the stable “through-line”for the whole thing.

CWR: Thanks Paul. And by theway, let’s all watch for Paul’scameo in the movie!

PAUL: Oh yeah! I’m in a two-second cameo! And you knowwhat . . . film really does makeyou look fatter! q

even realize we skip it, but thenwe hear someone speaking itand engage with it differently.

It’s the same with visualimagery. The big challenge, Ithink, for the producer, thedirector and the crew, is how totake this from the written sideand put it on the screen in sucha way that those for whom TheShack was massively significantare not betrayed in the process.

And there is also a specialchallenge when you’re dealingwith faith components.

How do you not turn thatinto propaganda? Most of ushave grown up where (how do Iput this kindly?) “Christian art”wasn’t [art], generally speaking.

Modern Christian art toooften becomes a means to anend, rather than an explorationof space.

As a result, you feel like you’vegotten hooked, and we’re backinto transactional theology.You’ve now got to pray thismagic phrase in order to be inthe “in-group,” and to escapebecoming “toast.”

So one challenge is how tokeep this from becomingpropaganda, and the otherchallenge is how to avoidmaking it so esoteric that itbecomes rather meaningless.How do you avoid changing thestory into something it wasnever meant to say? You’ve seensome movies where you ask,“What book was this exactly?”

But with The Shack, the moviedid a good job of riding thatline. I didn’t have any creativecontrol at all, but unexpectedly,I was enfolded into the processin a significant way. Theyconstantly asked me for inputand let me look at the script.

So there are some thingsyou’re going to watch in themovie that weren’t exactly like

APRIL 2017 9

www .p tm . o r g / r emnan t

In a totalitarian, post-apocalypticfuture where religion is forbidden, aband of concentration-camp escapeestrek through a lawless wilderness on aquest for authentic Christianity, only tocome face-to-face with an unthinkabledilemma.Order at our secure website or by

phone 1-800-309-4466.

The RemnantAvailable now from CWRpress —

by award-winning author, Monte Wolverton