|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Roe v. Hollywood
Some politicians may be vying for the role of protector of the "right to choose," but Hollywood seems to be increasingly squeamish about giving abortion such a positive spin. This week's World Magazine cover story highlights the recent big-name movies and TV shows that portray protagonists who -- sometimes reluctantly -- choose life over death.Has Hollywood tilted off its reliably pro-abortion axis? With the 2007 debut of these films, has the American abortion debate finally reached a tipping point, where more art now imitates pro-life?
Yes, says Steve McEveety, producer of Braveheart and executive producer of Bella and The Passion of the Christ. He believes moviegoers will see "a lot more films" with an underlying reverence for the unborn "and a lot more pro-life people coming into the film industry based on pure logic." This is a trend we have praised at The Point and on BreakPoint as well, and if it keeps up, it could potentially have a greater impact on public opinion than the stances of Democratic (or Republican) presidential candidates.
And that doesn't make everybody happy, of course.
Ellen Goodman writes in the Boston Globe that these movies are giving young women the wrong message.Against the endless loop of hip and comic stories, parents are expected to write the crawl - the stuff about relationships, about birth control, about becoming an adult before you become a parent. We're supposed to write the real life postscript to Hollywood's happily ever after.
Once again, adults are being called to teach against the cultural tide. Think of it as a casting call for designated fuddy-duddies. Goodman might have had a good point in there, had she emphasized the importance of teaching young people the importance of marriage, and stemming the "cultural tide" of uncommitted physical relationships. That is a message that should not be overlooked. But the powerful revelation of productions like Bella is not that everyone gets a happy ending, but that everyone deserves a beginning.
--- Friday, October 12, 2007
The Great God Debate Continues
One fair assessment of Christopher Hitchens' atheism: It hasn't brought him happiness. Hitchens might deny that, but the man debating Alister McGrath last night at Georgetown did not seem a happy one. Instead, he directed a plethora of tirades toward primarily the Christian faith, barely pausing to catch his breath.
McGrath summarizes the debate about right in his book about another angry British atheist: "Whereas [Stephen J.] Gould at least tries to weigh the evidence, Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking." Hitchens takes just the same approach, though McGrath wasn't nearly as direct in their confrontation yesterday. He presented himself, in fact, as a near-perfect anti-Hitchens, providing a calm, patient, and civil contrast to Hitchens' sharp and bitter rants.
Where McGrath didn't succeed, unfortunately, was in pinning Hitchens down on any of the gaping holes of his argument. Hitchens was on the offensive for most of the debate, with a shock-and-awe delivery of unsubstantiated accusations and twisted theology. Persistent in his "good cop" role, McGrath's approach seemed to be to concede points wherever he could, keep the debate positive, and turn around Hitchens' distorted view of Christ. In the latter he was probably most effective, countering Hitchens' perspective of God as a "celestial dictator" with a view of a "celestial liberator," and dismissing an interpretation of Revelation that sees "gleeful" destruction with one that finds redemption and healing.
Still, I thought McGrath was ultimately too soft on the hopeless logical conclusions of atheism and the firm truth claims of the Christian faith. And he chose not to fully address Hitchens' repeated attacks on the integrity of God as displayed in the Old Testament (or the New, for that matter). Perhaps this was a wise move, yet simply pointing to the non-violent teachings of Christ didn't satisfactorily address the issue.
But the bigger question left on the table: On what basis can man determine what is good without divine assistance? Or as McGrath put it, "Can one have a viable moral system without some transcendent basis of morality?" Hitchens was asked these questions directly, and -- as in every debate I've read or seen of his -- he evades the problem by instead attacking the perceived evils allowed by or ordained by God. This may not be the only meaningful point of dissension in this debate, but it's close.
In a somewhat surprising admission, Hitchens did acknowledge that his obligations to fellow man are based in a hope that goodness will be returned to him. Yet such a pragmatic morality is only as binding as a few selfish humans decide it is. No wonder he's bitter.
(More comments and discussion at The Point.)
--- Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Faith, Football, and Romance
I did a bit of light, diverse reading this summer, going back and forth from theology to biography to classic fiction. As part of a project for The Point, I gave a running commentary of "Cyrano de Bergerac," which was an entertaining and interesting tale, but I found myself a bit shaken by the end. The story is a romantic comedy, through and through, yet it also begs many questions of the nature of true love and beauty. (My critique of the book gives away all the major plot points, so steer clear if you haven't read it or seen it performed.)
Cyrano has seemed to play the part of a noble hero through most of this story, but after Act V's denouement, it is hard to see him as more than a noble fool. He had won the heart of his beloved, yet he refused to accept it, instead allowing her to languish in mourning for a love that she hadn't even lost. Another of my recent projects was Tony Dungy's memoir, "Quiet Strength." It is a fairly simple book, but Coach presents himself as the humble, dedicated, faithful leader that I had figured him to be. The review is at BreakPoint:
It's not about Tony Dungy.
His name and visage may occupy the cover of Quiet Strength, and it may be a memoir of his life. But Coach Dungy goes to great lengths to explain why he's neither the star nor the Author.
Still, as I watched my Indianapolis Colts ascend to a Super Bowl last season, I don't think I would have been quite as ecstatic if anyone else were standing on the sidelines. This book reminds me why.
--- Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Revealing the More Excellent Way
It is no secret that American culture does not often proclaim chastity as a virtue. Most every corner of media and education seem designed to create or encourage lustful impulse. If that isn't discouraging enough, Roberto notes in his latest column at Boundless that young evangelicals may be as susceptible to that pull as anyone. The question is, how do we convince them to counter the culture?Today love often has to wait a dozen years or even more while being surrounded by nearly-constant reminders of what it is you shouldn't be doing. If it's difficult to exercise what Rosin called "inhuman discipline ... over [one's] hormones" for three or four years; imagine what doing so for 12 or more years must be like.
This isn't an excuse or even an explanation: It's taking note of the larger context in which teenagers and young adults are expected to be continent, never mind chaste. If anyone is talking about this confluence of biology and culture in Christian circles, it's escaped my attention. (An obvious exception are my friends at Boundless and Pure Intimacy.)
But you can't fight a hegemonic culture with curricula -- no matter how well-designed -- and pledge cards alone. You need to create an alternative culture. By "alternative" I don't mean taking the dominant culture, sanding away the most obvious objectionable bits, i.e., those relating to sexual mores, adding a bit a "God talk" and, as my family says, "huepa!"
While the cause and effect might not be clear, surely it cannot be a coincidence that young people are seeking marriage later while being railroaded with sensual imagery and messaging practically from the crib (not the MTV kind). That is a lot of years of potentially unfulfilled desires or "hope deferred."
And Roberto is certainly right to assert that the better road has become a radical, "peculiar" one. Perhaps even a completely backwards one. Marriage is not, after all, meant to be the crash landing after a youth spent dating and partying. Rather it should be the mark of the commencement of a lifetime spent unconditionally loving, serving, and sacrificing for one's beloved.
Tragically, though, the former image has become the preferred one. No wonder it is so begrudgingly entered, or so easily cast aside. Perhaps the solution, then, starts with reminding young people (and old) that commitment and fidelity are precious gifts, not curses.
--- Tuesday, July 31, 2007
What Will They Think of, Next?
Why is it that the release of a movie, a book, or a video game system can spark such a cultural phenomenon? If James Emery White is correct, it is not the allure of the "new" that is so intriguing, but the thrill of the "next."Turn on the TV and you'll find "America's Next Top Model" on CW and "Next" on MTV.
There are even stores specializing in the "next" through "fast fashion," such as H & M and Zara, which replace their entire line of clothing every few weeks.
Our preoccupation with "next" has replaced our earlier fascination with "new." The difference? New is what something is; next suggests a special insight. Christians can be captivated by "next" as much as anyone.
Just think church. Pastors often joke about a "migratory flow pattern" among Christians in their community who are constantly church-hopping to the "next" thing in church life. They move from one church to another, looking for the next hot singles group, the next hot church plant, the next hot speaker, the next hot youth group. Many times they end up full circle where they began, because their original church suddenly became "next." This is, perhaps, the reason that going to see a movie entails 15 minutes of trailers, which are often more exciting than the feature presentation. There is something innately alluring about the "next" -- it allows our imaginations to roam through a utopia wherein lies the best scripted movie, the most amazing gadget, the perfect church.
We are a fickle bunch, though, as White points out. And when "next" becomes reality, our expectations don't tend to hold up. Thus a perpetual casting aside of one trend for another, and an ongoing parade of instant celebrities who become instant has-beens.
Such a mindset is not surprising for a restless and easily bored society, but it seems to be in contrast to the God who changes not and is the same yesterday, today, and forever. While Christians are called to anticipate a "blessed hope," that too is a hope that remains wonderfully static. Nothing that truly matters loses its grandeur like a passing fad. Praise God for that.
--- Friday, July 20, 2007
Someday My Sequel Will Come
Perhaps I tend to cling too tightly to tradition when it comes to the stories of old, but I just can't feel like this article at Slate presents a convincing case.Perhaps ticket buyers (i.e., parents) long for a different era of animation. If so, Disney's sequels will do a much better job of reminding them of the animated classics than the slick gagfests in today's theaters. Despite their straight-to-DVD status, there's nothing cheap or knocked-off about the animators' work on these sequels. They have a rich, hand-drawn look that few studios' CG efforts can match....
And unlike the current crop of animated features, Disney's direct-to-DVD sequels tell their stories simply, without a constant barrage of slapstick and winking pop-culture references. All three films I watched were entirely free of crotch-kicking, and the only fart joke belonged, appropriately, to a skunk. Instead, the jokes tend to be quiet, the action gripping if only occasional, and the entire pace of the movie enjoyably slower than you're likely to see onscreen these days. How much slower? Lady and the Tramp II and Cinderella III even make time for character-defining songs, the way animated movies used to. Disney has become renown, of course, for its ability to create ad nauseam sequels, spin-offs, and Saturday morning cartoons of its brands. But until fairly recently, it seemed that the company's most treasured productions had been spared such treatment. Now, I for one can't help but cringe every time I see a new episode of a classic tale.
The Slate article makes some fair points about the new movies' production value remaining high, but it is not an issue so much about the quality of the story-telling, as the quality of the story itself. And from the films and trailers that I've seen, the original parables of romance, right and wrong, and perseverance through trial are largely replaced by relativism and political correctness -- like plenty of other modern entertainment. But, I wonder, is there any way a timeless work like Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast could be updated in a way that truly honors the original? (Maybe if Pixar made it...)
--- Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Evan Can Wait
Against better judgment, perhaps, I really liked Bruce Almighty. The movie was hilarious, and it was driven by a fairly simple message that we aren't God. Not the deepest theology, for sure, but one could uncover a few nuggets of truth.
The sequel, however, is a modestly amusing display of slapstick based on a convoluted mishmash of earth-centered ideals and incoherent spirituality. Despite being marketed heavily to Christian audiences and being tied ever so loosely (and absurdly) to biblical narrative, Evan Almighty fails to show any real deference to Scriptural principles or reality. Morgan Freeman plays a likeable enough character, but any resemblance to the actual God of creation is purely coincidental.
The movie and its director seem well-intentioned enough, and "Evan" doesn't stoop to the level of mocking Christianity (or even mentioning the word). It does, however, seem to turn the wrath of God into a comedy -- which could be a far worse error. The Flood, we are led to believe, was sent as an act of compassion, rather than anger. And "wickedness" in the story is limited to self-centered politicians, too-busy parents, and hyper-developed Northern Virginia (in a town ironically similar to the one where I saw the movie). Yes, this is PG-rated stuff; but in truth, the justice of God usually isn't.
I know, nobody went to the movies this weekend to get a lesson in biblical exegesis from Steve Carell. But because "Evan" dares, in a sense, to speak for God, I think it is fair to view the film as more than sheer entertainment. If it hadn't attached itself to Scriptural history, maybe it would be harmless fun, however trivial the values. Maybe it still is harmless, but I think viewers will develop, if anything, as small and shallow a view of God as Evan did.
(This post also sparked an interesting response from my friend Faith at The Point.)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
