G-rated movies are better because of profits at boxoffice?
"The Dove Foundation, a conservative advocacy group in
But other media watchers question the study's math - and its partiality - saying "profit" numbers in
Full story is in the Christian Science Monitor.
But I wonder. Does profitability equal a “good� movie. Disney's Fantasia sank at the box-office and has since become one of the most respected films of all time. As did Shawshank Redemption ..Oh, oops that was R rated. But same point. Appropriateness for a six year old girl does not mean a great film any more than a great box office.
Sorry Dove Foundation, I am not buying into your conclusion. I am very glad for diversity in the arts.
6 Comments:
I find it interesting that most Christians choose not to watch a movie based on whether it has sex, violence or/and bad language, as if as long as they avoid those "big sins" then they are safe to watch.
Many of the "G" rated movies that many Christians view as "safe", may not always have the "big sins", but that doesn't mean that they are without sin at all. There are "G" rated movies that have characters who are disprectful, gossips, slanderers, prideful, rude, theives. Shall I go on?
It's interesting that in 1 Co 6:9-11 when the apostle Paul mentions that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God, he puts the slanderers and greedy in the same catergorie as the homosexual offenders and drunkards. In other words, Paul does not divide them into "G" rated sins and "R" rated sins.
But isn't that what most of us Christians do? Divide our sins into "G" rated and "R" rated, and even though we gossip or slander, as long as we're not like those homosexual offenders, our lives are just like one of those "G" rated movies.
No -- profitability does not equal a "good' movie. Nor does making a G rated move mean you'll get quality. There are some "family friendly" films out there that are real stinkers. There are some rougher, PG or even R rated films that convey a message that you want to be able to share with your family, even if the package it is in isn't very pleasant. ("Shindler's List" comes to mind).
i think the point folks like the Dove Foundation are trying to point out is you can make a movie that doesn't have all the egregious and extranious sex and violence in it, and still have a movie that will attract attention and be popular. Much of the films my family enjoys are older -- the classic films of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Many times we'll watch a film made today, and blanche at the language, or the scene of the hero and heroine in bed together, and think, if they didn't have those kinds of scenes, this would have been an excellent movie to have my kids watch with us. Its not that we're prudes, but my youngest is still only 8 years old, and there are cetain things an 8 year old doesn't need to see. Would "Casablanca" be any better if it had a scene with Rick and Ilsa having sex? Everybody talks about "family values" as if they're an inhibitor for artistic expression. I don't want to censor anyone. But I don't understand why most Hollywood films have to have these kinds of elements when they really are not central to the story.
To answer Wendy's comment above, I agree with her on one level. You can also point out how many of the "G" rated films that folks like the Dove Foundation want to promote have themes that at thier core are extremely anti-Christian. Occult themes or anti-Christian ideologies are prevalent, particularly in the "fantasy" films. But in most of these films, at least if they are quality, there is the ability to take the flawed nature of the characters portrayed and use that to bolster the themes of Christianity that run through day to day life. "Casablanca" is a great example. I had the opportunity to watch that with my teenage daughters, and discuss the concepts of faithfullness in marriage, faithfullness to the civil law, and faithfullness to your own country on a myriad of levels. Had the movie been rated "R," I would not have been comfortable having my teenagers watch. Casablanca isn't a Christian themed film -- but its a great work of art that can be used to point the way to Christ, just like so many of the HollywoodJesus reviewers do. I'm not for censorship, I just don't want me or my family to be exposed to overly disturbing images of violence, sex, or the occult while viewing what is held up by society as a work of art. A film like "Schindler's List" is a tougher call, as I do indeed consider that "art," and would want my kids to watch it with me, but the images are very disturbing. But I guess that's where parenting skills come in, and I hope I know when my kids are ready for something a little tougher to swallow.
I understand what you are saying. You have a certain comfort zone. I respect that. Often in these conversations folks forget that there are numbers of good family-friendly films from Hollywood. Such repots as this one from the Dove Foundation comes off sounding like Christians often do ---like moral police. So critical have Christians been over the years toward Hollywood, that they/we just generally opted out of this very important form of communication. When Christians have applied their standards to filmmaking the result has largely been films that are forgettable and certainly not part of the popular culture conversation. In more recent time young and promising filmmakers (who happen to be Christians) have entered the scene. This gives me hope for some exciting and provocative filmmaking with a Christian world view. These emerging artists will be the salt and light within the actual Hollywood industry itself. The moral police approach is not as effective as some would like. Change comes best from within and not from without. I celebrate the emerging new filmmakers who just happen to also follow Jesus.
As an addendum to my comments above, and Mr. Bruce's answer, I draw your attention to an article published at www.breakpoint.org, dated June 17, 2005, by Rachel Houston entitled "Michelangelo, the Missing Message." The focus of the article is primarily on addressing modern day gay-rights apologists who claim that Michelangelo was a homosexual -- Ms. Houston points to evidence to show that in his later years, Michelangelo made a firm commitment to Christ. She notes this was primarily through the influence of a woman -- Vittoria Colonna, Marchioness of Pescara. Ms. Houston notes that Colonna was a wealthy patroness of the arts who had "been fellowshipping with Protestant and Lutheran reformers" at a time in Italy when doing so meant one could be burned at the stake. It was obvious Colonna, through her relationships with these folks, had an evangelical worldview.
Colonna "was eager to share her newfound faith. So, she began inviting groups of intellectuals (mainly artists, writers, and clergymen) to meet and engage in thoughtful conversations. Some historians believe the conversations were prefaced with a reading from one of Paul’s Epistles. We do know, through the account of Francisco de Hollanda, that Colonna often discussed her faith.
As a side note, notice that Colonna did not witness to the artists of her day by first condemning them. She could have criticized their nude paintings. She could have denounced their humanism. But she didn’t. Instead, she spoke to artists in dialect they understood, knowing that as intellectuals they would enjoy informal discussions. After she allowed them to express their own worldview, she would openly share the reasoning behind her faith. Perhaps this is why a cardinal once wrote about Colonna: “she seems to show the most serious and famous men the light that is a guide to the harbor of salvation.’�
Interesting, eh? I would hold Ms. Colonna up as an example of what Christians interested in the arts should be -- not one who condemned folks like Michelangelo for doing things Christians would view as immoral, but engaged these artists in order to help lead them to Jesus. According to Ms. Houston's articles, Michelangelo's personal jounrals and writings indicate a gradual shift until he recognized his need for a Savior. If only more of this could happen today -- perhaps the "emerging artists" Mr. Bruce speaks of will indeed help usher in more art,film, and music from a Christian world view.
I agree. Good example. Building bridges is always the right idea. I do not think that rock throwing is a very good idea. Being an artist within the artistic community merits credibility, influence and place.
To Wendy,
On why Christians don't like to watch movies with nudity, swearing, and violence, but don't mind lying and gossiping:
The three "R-rated sins" are avoided by christians for any number of reasons. One may be to save their kids (or even themselves) from such things. While there are children (and adults) that have heard swears or seen naked people before, that doesn't mean it's alright. It doesn't mean that a parent should allow their child to look at pornography or listen to George Carlin, and even a full grown man could be harmed from doing either of those two things. Also, while I have no problem watching movies with violence, i wouldn't sit down with a young child to watch Kill Bill. Another reason might be personal values. I, for example, have a girlfriend for whom, i care very much. As a result, i respect her by trying to avoid seeing naked girls, and i expect that she would do the same for me.
As for the "G-rated" sins, lying stealing, etc. are a part of our everyday lives and they are sins we have to deal with. I think it's ok to watch them because (generally), those that commit such sins are not glorified in doing so. The people are usually seen as bad in committing the act; they are punished or seen as "bad guys".
If your point is that Christians are hypocrites for forgiving movie characters for being disrespectful, while not forgiving them for swearing, then i think you have the wrong idea. If, however, you are claiming that watching movies with what are viewed as "minor" sins can have an effect on how we view the sins in our own lives, you may have a point.
Post a Comment
<< Home