May 10, 2009

Welcome to The Message Behind the Movie BLOG

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Book Information
Leave a Comment 


Books on movies written from a Christian standpoint often discuss Hollywood’s messages without teaching readers how to evaluate movies themselves. The Message Behind the Movie (Moody Publishers) seeks to accomplish this, as well as instruct believers in what to do about those messages. Readers will be able to understand the basics of movie interpretation, identify and interpret key ideas, and provide an uncomplicated defense of the Christian message. In a fun and approachable style, The Message Behind the Movie will help enable you to wisely engage a film and the culture without disengaging your faith.

 

July 16, 2010

Hollywood Jesus Reviews MBM

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Reader Reviews
Leave a Comment 

A rather uninspiring review of Message Behind the Movie just got posted over at Hollywood Jesus. I was disappointed at how little attention Act One received, and the reviewer made the introductory material in Act Two out to be too high level. Oh well, like I told my publisher – anyone who likes the same things I do will like the book too haha.

 

May 3, 2010

Back to Narnia!

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Theater Thoughts
Leave a Comment 

The first trailer for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader premiered this Saturday!!!  For more information see NarniaFans.Com – The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

 

April 20, 2010

SES Movie Night April 24th

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Speaking Dates
Leave a Comment 

SGA Movie Night - Saturday, April 24th, at 6:00 p.m. in the Westra Student Center.  Movie: Out of the Ashes.  ”Message Behind the Movie” with Doug Beaumont -  Discussion begins at 8:30 p.m.

 

April 15, 2010

Invention of Lying: a Master-Piece of Trash

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Theater Thoughts
Leave a Comment 

I don’t usually post spoilers, but it’s hard to spoil a movie with an opening scene such as this:

“Hi. You’re early. I was just masturbating.”

“That makes me think of your vagina. I’m Mark, how are you?”

“A little frustrated at the moment. Also equally depressed and pessimistic about our date tonight. I’m Anna.”

“I hope this date ends in sex.”

“Not me. I don’t find you attractive. Come on in. I need to finish getting ready. While doing that I might realize I’m still horny and try to finish masturbating.”

How could a movie with such delightful repartee as this possibly fail? Easy, just add boring dialogue, uninteresting and virtually immutable characters, sizable plot holes, a predictable ending with zero emotional appeal, and you have “The Invention of Lying.”

In case the above attributes were not enough to ruin a potentially interesting plot, the film confuses honesty with gullibility, making a world of truth into one of stupidity. As my friend Ben pointed out, everyone telling the truth does not guarantee accuracy, thus the world would still have to exercise discernment. But discernment is not high on the list of this film’s creator’s skillset.

The film also openly attacks the Christian faith in general and belief in God in particular. One character puts it the most clearly when he says,

“I say F**K the Man In The Sky!”

Wow, what a thought-provoking script! Not.

In summary, this film is a complete piece of trash. It sucks in virtually every way that a film can suck.

 

April 6, 2010

Chapter 9: Additional Argument for God

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Extra Features
Leave a Comment 
The Vertical Cosmological Argument- From Contingent Existence to the Necessary Sustainer
SYBOK: “Consider the questions of existence: Who am I? Why am I here? Does God exist? These are the questions man has asked ever since he first gazed at the stars and dreamed. My Vulcan ancestors . . . believed in a place where these questions of existence would be answered. . . . My brothers, we have been chosen to undertake the greatest adventure of all time . . .”
(Star Trek V)

There is a less common argument based on the cause of creation which does not look backward through time. Instead it looks “up” – to the cause of existence itself. Norman Geisler refers to this as the vertical form of the argument from creation. The horizontal form, which we covered above, shows that if we look backward through time we will eventually come to the beginning of the universe which requires a cause. Now we will look “up” and consider the cause of contingent things existing right here and now.

First we need to understand two terms: contingent and necessary. A contingent thing is something that exists but does not have to exist. Contingent things must be caused to exist because if they do not have to exist they must have a reason for existing outside of themselves. A necessary thing must exist because that is its nature. The basic argument looks like this:

(1) Contingent things exist (e.g., the universe came into existence, and can go out of existence).
(2) Either contingent things are causing themselves to exist or they are being caused to exist by something else.
(3) Nothing can cause itself, therefore contingent things require other things to make them exist.
(4) There cannot be an infinite number of contingent things in the causal chain, therefore there must be a necessary thing holding contingent things in existence.

The argument becomes clearer when we grasp the difference between what something is and that something exists. When we define something we are telling what it is – but not that it actually exists. A thing can be defined that does not really exist – like the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. But just because we know what something is, that does not mean it actually exists. If we did not know what something was, we could never know if it actually existed. So “what something is” and “that something is” must really be two different things. If this is true, then just because something has a definition does not mean that it exists (at least outside our imagination). To look at the same truth another way, if all triangles ceased to exist that fact would not change the definition of a triangle.

What all this means is that for something to exist it must be made to exist – it doesn’t exist just because someone defines it. Imagine if I was defining the Easter Bunny. I might say, “The Easter Bunny is a magical rabbit that hops around on Easter morning and hides eggs for children to find.” Because you know something about reality you would probably guess that this creature does not exist. You might say, “Oh, you made that up – a creature like that cannot exist.” But suppose I then said, “OK then, how about this: The Easter Bunny is a magical rabbit that hops around on Easter morning and hides eggs for children to find, and he actually exists.” Would my addition of “and he actually exists” at the end of the definition change anything? Of course not. We cannot simply define something into existence.
Adding “and it exists” to any thing’s definition does not make it the case that the thing actually exists any more than adding “and it exists” to the definition of the Easter Bunny would mean that the Easter Bunny really existed.

If existence was part of a thing’s definition then it would have to exist by necessity – otherwise it would not be what it was. Thus, for all unnecessary things there is a difference between “what it is” and “that it is.” And that means that if it exists, something else is making it exist. Since this is true of everything in the universe something outside the universe is required to make it exist right now. This thing cannot be getting its existence from something else or we would be right back where we started from – with things that need something else to make them exist. Therefore, the existence of things that do not exist of necessity shows that there must be something that does exist of necessity – something that has never not-existed, nor can ever stop existing.

Further, this thing would have to have existence as its very nature. That is, necessary existence cannot have been given to a nature for that would make the thing contingent on whatever gave it its existence. To have existence as a thing’s nature means that existence is what it is. What this means is that this existence is unlimited, because a thing’s nature is what limits its existence. For example, a man’s being is limited to his “man-ness.” His existence does not extend to anything not in the nature of man (he is not also a horse or a tree or a rock). But if a thing is existence itself, then it has no limiting nature. It is infinite existence. That thing, we believe, is God.

Coffee Shop Talk

After the philosophy circle meeting Renee had asked if Mike would be interested in going out with Nita again sometime. “Sure,” he had said, “although I don’t know if it would do any good.” “Well,” Renee had answered, “how about a double date with you two and Bert, my friend from physics class?” Mike thought that perhaps a more casual setting would be better and that a group would help if he and Nita ran into conversation issues again. As it turned out, one of the campus groups Bert belonged to was hosting a movie night. Renee suggested that they begin there and follow up with some free coffee at the café afterward. Never one to say no to free coffee, Mike made the call. Nita agreed, and they all met up in Bert’s dorm.

Bert was a Physics major and he and his colleagues liked to unwind at the end of the school week with a movie. They enjoyed science fiction and other science related films because it was fun to pick them apart after viewing. As Mike, Nita, and Renee entered they overheard someone loudly complaining that “You can’t hear explosions in space, and ships can’t fly like that!” The rebuke to this critic was immediate and decisive, “Star Wars still rules so shut up!” “I concede the point,” was the only response. Laughter followed.

“Guys, this is Bert,” announced Renee. He had been the one to rebuke the Star Wars critic. “Good to meet you, I hear you’re Christians.” “Bert!” exclaimed Renee. “It’s OK,” said Mike, looking back at Bert, “guilty as charged!”

Bert smiled and said, “Look, you can believe whatever you want but we’re scientists here and the movie tonight is definitely in favour of rationality and knowledge – I hope you won’t be offended.”

Mike looked over at Nita who was wincing, and answered that “Our only concern is that it is accurate in its portrayal of scientific fact.” Bert smiled widely at this.

The movie was Contact, a film written by the late atheist-astronomer Carl Sagan. The film was nearly as bad as Mike or Nita expected. There were some jabs at religion, and Christianity was not very well represented by the religious character, but there were some points made on both sides and in the end the hard scientist hero became somewhat softened by her experiences beyond the lab. When the movie ended they headed over to the café where Renee got them all complimentary drinks.

“What did you think of the movie, Mike?” Bert asked when they were all seated.

“Great story,” he began although he knew Nita was less than pleases with it. “But I think that Christianity was not given a fair shot.” Groans followed but Bert seemed genuinely interested when he asked, “How so?”

“Well,” Mike began, “the Christian character was immoral and too much of a fideist.” He threw in this last term to sound a bit more sophisticated, something he assumed the scientists there would appreciate. He wondered if they would take out their pens and begin writing down notes. “A fideist is someone who thinks faith is irrational or unprovable – that you should just believe despite any evidence.”

“I thought that’s just what faith was!” groused one of the science students. “I put my faith in facts!” This was greeted with murmurs of assent. “Me too,” replied Mike and took a long sip on his coffee. Surprised stares greeted him so he continued. “Belief in God can be inherited from parents or assumed, but I think there are good arguments for God’s existence that do not rely on mere hopes.” “Like what?” the first student asked.

“Well, you all agree that the universe has not always existed right?” Mike asked. Nods all around. “OK,” he continued, “then what caused it to come into existence?” “Nothing!” blurted one of the freshmen. “So it’s more scientific to think the universe came into being by nothing than by something? Where else in science are there effects without causes?” Mike responded.

“Nothing cannot cause something,” Bert said. “But here’s your problem: you’re going to say God caused the universe, so what caused God?” “Nothing caused God,” Mike answered, and before the freshman could object he added, “God is uncaused. He simply exists.”

“You can’t just say ‘the universe needs a cause so my God exists,’” said Bert, “why couldn’t it be two gods, or the Muslim God?”

“Well, at this point I am only arguing that God exists – not which religion’s God is the right one. That has to be decided on other grounds – such as whose religion was affirmed by verifiable supernatural acts – such as Jesus’ resurrection which the Bible says proved that He was God in the flesh and had died for the sins of any who will put their trust in Him, but I digress. Your issue seems to be whether or not God exists at all.”

Bert nodded and said, “Fair enough. All you have said sounds very nice, Mike, but I don’t have enough faith to trust in some old man up in heaven that made everything. You’ll have to do some major convincing to get me to believe – and leave religion out of it!”

“You have every right to demand evidence,” Mike answered. “Christianity does not ask for blind faith. So, besides religion, what would you suggest as a means of inquiry?”

“Well, scientific proof would be nice,” Bert said. This was followed by nods all around the room. Renee had perked up and suddenly Nita joined in. “Science cannot say anything about God. Science studies only the physical world. God is not physical.”

“That’s right, Nita. It’s not fair to ask for proof from a method that cannot possibly supply it,” Mike said. “Bert, remember in Contact when Joss asked Ellie if she loved her dad and then asked her to prove it? She couldn’t, at least not in the way she demanded that Joss prove God, because love is not an object of science. God isn’t either. Asking science to provide proof for God is like asking biology to explain why a car won’t run.” There was laughter at this.
“Well what, besides religion, can say anything about God then?” asked Bert.

“Before science became so narrow as to only study physical things,” Mike replied, “it was called philosophy. Philosophy is an acceptable method for investigating God, for it studies all of reality.”

“OK, so what does philosophy have to say about God?” Bert asked.
“Well, let’s start with a premise that everyone can agree upon: Things exist.”
“That’s a pretty safe starting point!” Bert laughed. “OK, so things exist. So what?”

“Let’s begin with only one of those things – like a triangle. What is the definition of a triangle?”
“How about “a three sided, two dimensional figure”?
“Sounds good,” Mike responded. “Now, suppose I went through the universe and somehow destroyed all the triangles. How would that affect the definition of triangles?”
“It wouldn’t,” Bert said. ”Triangles would still have the same definition. In fact if they didn’t we wouldn’t know what one was if we saw it.”

“Very good,” answered Mike. “So what does that tell us about the existence of triangles?”
Bert caught on quickly. “That something doesn’t have to exist in order to be a triangle?”
“Excellent!” Mike said. “You’re well on your way to belief in God!” Everyone laughed.
Mike grinned. “I think you skipped a step or two,” Bert said wryly.

“Fair enough,” Mike replied, “let’s move on. So far we have discovered that triangles do not have to exist. That means they are not necessary. In philosophical terms, necessary means something that necessarily exists. It cannot come into, nor go out of, existence. Are triangles like this?” “No,” Bert answered. “Triangles are not necessary because they can exist or not.”
“Exactly,” Mike stated, “and it reveals something about the triangle’s definition.”

“I thought we already defined what a triangle is,” Bert said looking suspicious.
“Yes,” Mike said, ”and what did we say in this definition regarding existence?”
“We didn’t say anything about it in our definition.”
“And why not?
“Because existence is not part of its definition.”

“Correct again,” Mike said. Bert was following along very well so he pressed forward. “What would happen if existence were part of a triangle’s definition?”
“Then . . . triangles would have to exist,” Bert guessed.
“Very good,” Mike affirmed. “So you see then that we cannot simply define something into existence. For example, I could not define a unicorn as ‘a horse with a magic horn in its forehead that exists.’”
“Right,” Bert agreed, “because then unicorns would just pop into existence.”

“You’ve got it,” Mike answered. “Now let’s go back to triangles. Suppose that all triangles were in fact destroyed, could one come into existence?”
“Sure, I could draw one,” Bert said.
“And what would drawing a triangle do to its definition?” asked Mike.
“Nothing,” Bert answered. “There would just be one.”
“You mean that what a triangle is would not change?” Mike asked to clarify what was being said.
“Yes.”
“So what does that tell us about the actual existence of triangles?”
“That they must be caused to exist.”

“Very good,” Mike stated. “OK, let’s sum up what we have so far: Unnecessary things (like triangles) exist, but they do not have to exist. Therefore what something is and whether or not that thing exists is not the same thing.”

“Is that all we’ve got so far?” Bert moaned in mock exasperation. “Took us long enough!”
“I am just making sure we don’t miss anything,” laughed Mike. “Now, you said a minute ago that if all triangles went out of existence that you could cause one to exist.”
“Yes, I could draw one.”

“But what would be ‘drawing’ you?” There was a moment of silence in the room. Renee was looking at Bert and Nita was looking at Mike. Both girls were following the analogy and wondered if Bert would get it before Mike had to explain. “What I mean is this,” Mike stated. “While you are giving existence to the triangle, what is giving existence to you?”

“What do you mean?” asked Bert. “Nothing is, I already exist.”
“Yes, you do exist. But do you exist necessarily?” Mike asked.
“You mean is existence part of my definition? Well, I guess not.”
“You don’t have to guess! Have you always existed?” Mike pressed.
“No.” Bert responded.”
“Could you cease to exist?”
“Yes.”
“Then is existence part of your definition?”
“No.”
“And therefore . . . ?”

“Something else is ‘drawing” me?’” Bert said with a sinking feeling as he caught on to where Mike was going with all this. Before Mike could continue he raised an objection. “Hold on there professor. I exist because my parents made me, and their parents made them, and so forth all the way back to . . .” Bert’s eyes looked past Mike for a moment as he mentally calculated the outcome of this line of reasoning. “Oh,” he concluded, “that won’t really help will it? I can’t just have an endless string of things that cause each other.”

“Right,” Mike agreed, “but even worse is the fact that your parents are not the primary cause of your existence anyway.”
“They’re not?”
“If your parents ceased to exist would you?” Mike asked.
“Not necessarily,” Bert said thoughtfully.
“So your parents . . . ?” Mike began.
“OK, I got it. They can’t be causing my existence because then I’d go out with them.”

“And that’s not even the biggest problem,” Mike said. Bert sighed and leaned back in his chair looking around for help. The rest of the students glanced around casually, not wishing to indict themselves by lending him aid. Mike continued. “Is existence part of your parents’ definition? Or their parents’? Or whatever slime you think your ancient ancestors were made of?” Mike said this last part with a grin but he knew he would raise some hackles.
“Hey, that’s not nice,” Renee complained. Mike grinned, “Hey, it’s not my theory.”

“OK, OK” Bert interjected, “so you’re saying that all people are not necessary, they must be being caused by something else then. But if the universe is all there is, and it began with the Big Bang, then everything came into existence at once. And scientists say that someday there will be a Big Crunch and everything will be destroyed. So according to you – nothing would be necessary!”

Mike waited a moment, then said, “Do you see a problem with that conclusion?”
Bert thought about it. “Well, if things exist that don’t have to then something else has to give them existence. If everything in the universe doesn’t have to exist then something else has to exist that exists necessarily” realizing that this meant that there had to be a necessary cause outside of the universe he tried another tack. “Wait, what if everything just gives everything else existence?”

“You mean like A gives existence to B which gives existence to C and so forth?” Mike asked.
“Yes,” Bert agreed, then shook his head. “That’s like your slime question earlier. It can’t just go on forever – you still need something to cause A. So what if Z causes A? Then everything is accounted for!”

“Not everything,” Mike answered.
“Why not?” Bert replied, “it would be a perfect circle of existence-giving.”
“But what caused the circle?” Mike prodded.
“Darn it!” Bert said. “You’re good at this. Wait, why couldn’t it cause itself?”
“Nothing can cause itself – that’s a contradiction,” Mike explained. “In order for something to cause itself to exist it would already have to exist in order to cause.”

“OK, OK. I see where you’re trying to go with this. If the whole universe is made up of things that exist but don’t have to exist, then something else has to give the whole universe its existence. I suppose you’re going to say God did it,” Bert said sarcastically.

“Interesting supposition, but you brought it up – not me,” Mike reminded him. “We agreed not to discuss religion though, so let’s stick to philosophy for now and just see where we are. If there has to be some thing causing all other things to exist what sort of a being would that be?”

“An old man with a beard up in heaven?” Bert asked, eliciting laughter from a few of the students. Mike rolled his eyes in good humor then waited for Bert to give a better answer. “OK,” Bert began, “well it couldn’t be just another unnecessary being because that would just push the question back another step. So it would be . . . necessary. This thing is starting to sound familiar.”
“It should,” Mike said, smiling.
“And it just happens to be the God the Bible talks about,” said Bert teasingly. “What do you know? What a shock!”

“I haven’t said God or Bible once in this discussion,” Mike reminded him. “But since you insist on bringing up religion in a purely philosophical discussion, I will allow it. You know, the apostle Paul said that God’s invisible attributes were made obvious to all people through His creation. Perhaps this is what he was referring to.”
“And I suppose Paul came up with this argument too?” asked Bert.
“Actually Aristotle came pretty close about 400 years earlier,” Mike reflected, “although he did not have a Bible to compare to his god.”
“Well, just because this argument sounds good that doesn’t mean I have to believe in God,” concluded Bert a little too joyfully.
“Yes,” Mike said looking him in the eye. “Unfortunately Paul said that too.”

Tension was starting to rise in the room when Renee broke it by saying, “OK, enough philosophizing for one night, my head hurts!” Everyone laughed in agreement and started cleaning up after themselves to save Renee some work.

On the way out Nita said, “Mike, I was really proud of you tonight. I never could have done that – stood up to a bunch of science geeks I mean. Where did you learn all that?
“Actually it was in an Introduction to Philosophy class – Thomas Aquinas took Aristotle’s arguments and applied them to the God of the Bible. Turned out they were basically one and the same, Aristotle just didn’t have the advantage of the Bible to make the connection.”

“So you don’t just watch movies all day, huh?” Nita joked.
“No,” Mike answered her, “sometimes I watch TV.”
She hit him in the arm, and it was the best feeling he’d had in days.

*Note: These are supplemental writings to The Message Behind the Movie, and are not necessarily endorsed by Moody Publishers.

 

April 6, 2010

Chapter 5: Horror and Culture

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Extra Features
1 Comment 
EMILY: 
"People say that God is dead. But how can they think that if I show them the devil?"
(The Exorcism of Emily Rose)

Although it is probably the least favored by Christians due to the genre’s style elements, horror can communicate messages in a powerful way that others cannot. Hollywood has certainly churned out movies designed to frighten rather than enlighten. According to box office dollars (and allowing for inflation) only three of the top fifty ranking films of all time are horror films (although they are close to the top, with the 7th and 9th spots: Jaws and The Exorcist respectively). They also tend to be almost non-existent at the Academy Awards (a notable exception being The Silence of the Lambs). However, there are many books, websites and magazines devoted to horror, and horror fans are quite devoted. So, is there any redeeming value to horror films? Should all horror movies be avoided by Christians? I would argue that in many cases what horror lacks in stylistic appeal it can make up for in suppositions and significance. Truth can often be communicated clearly through terror.

Horror movies date back to the close of the 19th Century with Georges Melies’ Le Manoir Du Diable (The Devil’s Castle), making the horror genre one of the oldest. What is notable is how quickly horror was used as a cultural commentary. 1920′s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari contained some bizarre commentary on the Scopes Trial over evolution and provided a “political parable of unchecked authoritarianism following the cataclysm of the war.” [i] World War I had an important impact on the depiction of terror on screen and several 1920′s movies reflect the horrors of war. Technology was not only increasing warfare’s means of destroying the human body, it also was producing medical treatments allowing disfigurement victims to survive. This time period also saw the birth of quasi-human monsters like vampires, golems, werewolves, etc. Actor Lon Chaney alone played a wide range of characters such as the Phantom of the Opera, the Hunchback of Notre Dame, a criminal ventriloquist, an amputee, as well as the famous Hollywood vampire.

The 1930′s saw the Great Depression as well as the classic era of horror films. In a time people needed to escape their fears, horror movies came to the rescue with the release of the original Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931),The Mummy (1932), King Kong (1933), The Invisible Man (1933), and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). The enduring mythos of Frankenstein and Dracula is another indication of horror’s ability to speak to cultural concerns. Both stories deal with man’s quest to overcome death apart from God – one replacing God with science and the other with heightened humanistic powers. Frankenstein represents modernism’s obsession with scientific progress unchecked by morality, as well as fear of the mechanical overthrow of humanity. Dracula deals with the effects of man’s willingness to take other’s lives in support of his own (not to mention addiction to ‘drink’ – another large issue of the day!). These two themes are so powerful that they have been remade more than any others.

The 1940′s gave us more classics such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941),The Wolf Man (1941), and The Phantom of the Opera (1943), with sequels galore. Of cultural interest in these films is the theme of a basically good person being turned into a monster. World War II introduced mankind to an almost unstoppable evil in the form of Hitler’s Nazism, strongly calling into question the basic goodness of mankind and the wolf-man became the horror icon of America’s involvement in the war. This time also saw a rise in the popularity of madmen and mad scientists – the connection to Hitler and the Nazis’ sadistic surgical experimentation hardly needs to be mentioned.

In the 1950′s horror started sliding in quality with countless remakes, sequels, and low budget slapsticks. The beginings of the Cold War and a general fear of foreigners was also the time when invasions from aliens became a popular theme of many films like Invaders from Mars (1953), This Island Earth (1955), and Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957). The threat of massive destruction through atomic warfare also changed the way monsters were made – big and bad. This became the era of the Japanese Godzilla (1954) – a monster literally created by nuclear means. This ruination of nature which comes to terrorize humanity is a clear picture of the underlying fear of nuclear holocaust. This was followed by giant octopi, spiders, birds, crabs, and even human monsters. Communist paranoia came to a head with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) decrying blind conformity that communism represents, and fears of spies might be seen as the impetus for The Beast with a Million Eyes (1955), The Cyclops (1957), and The Crawling Eye (1958).

By the 1960′s the genre had started to go in many different directions, some good and some bad. Several had truly terrifying themes such as Haunting, Psycho, Rosemary’s Baby, The Birds and the Living Dead series. As the teenage generation became known for rebellion several horror flicks were released that paralleled the theme of “scary kids” such as and Village of the Damned (1960) – which also called reproductive technology into question the same year that the birth control pill was introduced. Pregnancy issues also surfaced in Rosemary’s Baby (1968). This trend continued into the 1970′s with the release of Carrie (1974), It’s Alive (1974), Salem’s Lot (1975), The Omen (1976), The Shining (1977), The Brood, Prophecy, and Humanoids from the Deep (all 1979), and one of the most terrifying films of all time – 1973′s The Exorcist. Even the science fiction-horror hybrid Alien (1979) used ‘birth’ as a means of conveying horror. In the 1970′s a new movie rating system was introduced, in part as a response to the subversive, violent themes of horror films. 1978′s Halloween provided a segue into one of horror’s most notable subgenres – the “slasher” films.

Despite some notably high quality horror like The Fly (1986),The Shining (1980), An American Werewolf in London (1981), or The Thing (1982), the 1980′s will be remembered for slasher film series like Friday the 13th (1980), Nightmare On Elm Street (1984), and Child’s Play (1988). [ii] Many of the slasher series began well but devolved into increasingly cheesy, seemingly never-ending sequels (e.g., 2003′s Freddy vs. Jason). Most of these films featured a supernatural psychopath who could not be (permanently) killed, gratuitous gore and violence, and victims made up of mostly promiscuous teenagers. This is not surprising during the rise of the AIDS epidemic where sex was literally killing people. Slasher films did splash over into the 1990′s, but by then the sub-genre had become rather campy.

The 1990′s major contribution to the horror genre was the more serious serial killer story. These films were much more realistic and thought provoking than their slasher predecessors. Although pre-dated by 1986′s Manhunter, this new take on horror really began with 1991′s Silence of the Lambs which spawned so many knockoffs like When the Bough Breaks (1993), Copycat (1995), Kiss the Girls (1997), The Bone Collector (1999), or The Cell (2000), that it almost became its own genre (peaking with 1995′s brilliant Se7en). This decade saw the creation of horror parodies such as Scream (which was then followed by the meta-parody Scary Movie in 2000) and ended with a unique departure from high tech special effects with the release of The Blair Witch Project (1999) – a film shot with no special effects, no musical score, unknown actors, and handheld cameras.

The 21st century took the horror scene seriously with several new themes. Many of its films brought a welcome return to a more gut-level horror rather than simply ‘gorifying’ audiences to death (pun intended). Films such as The Sixth Sense (1999), The Others (2001), Frailty (2001), The Ring (2002), The Mothman Prophecies (2002), Darkness (2002), The Grudge (2004), The Village (2004), The Forgotten (2004), White Noise (2005), Boogeyman (2005), Dark Water (2005), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and Cloverfield (2008) have shown that audiences are far from bored with being seriously scared (and scared seriously).

As you can see, the genre of horror is more varied than some might think. While much associate horror with promiscuous teens getting mutilated in creative ways by sinister and grotesque monsters. True horror, however, is not gore or shock. Repulsion can be achieved through gore and adrenaline-fed tenseness can be created with shock . . . but true horror is deeper down and more difficult to elicit. Consider these classics: The Shining, Alien, Frankenstein, King Kong, The Amityville Horror, The Haunting, Halloween, Psycho, The Sixth Sense, even the Twilight Zone TV series, . . . most have very little in the way of shock or gore yet they have the power to haunt our thoughts and dreams for years to come. Why? Because true horror is elicited from our nightmares, our childhood fears, the terror of the irrational, the unknown, the unexplainable, or the juxtaposition of innocence and evil. When done well, horror films need not rely on horrifying gore, special effects, or cheap shocks. [iii] The best horror films create deep-down terror in subtle ways, using our imagination rather than spoon-feeding it to us through blatant images. [iv]

One thing nice about the more pure horror movies is that they are simple and archetypal. While there are many sub-genres of horror (thriller, slasher, serial killer, supernatural, satanic, etc.), the storylines are usually pretty easy to follow. The genre is fairly well marked out in terms of themes and artistic elements. The heroes and the villains are obvious which is helpful in a world that often thinks of evil in shades of gray. The best horror will, of course, stretch these basics – but in general you usually know what to expect. This also makes the messages easier to interpret.

Worldview-wise I think horror can be at its best. The fact that good and evil are portrayed in absolute terms is both refreshing and welcome in a time of relativistic idiocy and special interest pandering. In horror evil is real, and the distinction between good and evil is made clear. In stark contrast to the humanistic view of the innate goodness of mankind, horror movies have a unique ability to really show the dark side of man. Famous monsters like the Werewolf and Vampires, as well as specific characters like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, play on the idea of man struggling with inner evil. Almost all of the serial killer films depict the villain not as the crazed lunatic we’d like to think all killers are, but as perfectly rational, intelligent people (a slap in the face to those who think only mentally sick people are evil).

Many horror movies make much out of the power of evil. This can be good in a world that seems to think that evil either does not exist, or that it only exists in intolerance (of course everyone tolerates what they think is tolerable – this is hardly an admirable ethical position). On the down side – the elevation of evil to the point where goodness can just barely overcome it (and rarely in finality) is a poor message. It seems that ultimately good wins battles but never the war. While this can be attributed mostly to the desire for potential sequels, it sends a false message that evil can never be finally eradicated.

Religiously-oriented horror movies, for example, are almost always bad (notable exceptions include many vampire movies e.g., The Addiction [1995]). Religious believers are usually powerless in the face of even moderate evil, and often end up requiring the assistance of occultists to successfully fight paranormal evil. This only gets worse as the villains become more “supernatural.” The idea that there is a legitimate battle between God and the forces of evil is not simply unbiblical. The notion of God struggling or fighting to accomplish something is ludicrous. Good actually has all the power in the universe, because evil is nothing – it is just a privation of goodness. In fact, evil is in a dependant relationship to goodness. Like a hole depends on the doughnut, good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. Fortunately, goodness is also a very important feature of most horror films. In most horror movies the hero is the most morally pure character. The wise-man figure Randy recognizes this fact in the slasher film parody Scream (1996). While we may object to overly-simplistic presentations of sin, or the fact that the morally pure are often the butt of jokes, Christians should appreciate the fact that moral goodness is often at least recognized as such.

Randy: “There are certain rules you must abide by in order to successfully survive a horror movie. For instance, number one: You can never have sex. Big no-no.”
Stu: “I’d be a dead man.”
Randy: “Sex equals death okay? Number two: You can never drink or do drugs. . . . This is sin. It’s an extension of number one. Number three: Never, never, ever under any circumstances do you ever say, ‘I’ll be right back,’ cause you won’t be back.”
Stu: “I’m getting another beer you want one?”
Randy: “Yeah sure.”
Stu: “I’ll be right back!”
(Scream)

Whether or not horror films can be justified on a theoretical basis, we must always be careful not to cross the line from enjoying a bit of scary fun to developing a fascination with evil. When appropriate, many horror movies do indeed provide a good basis for communicating the truths of sin in the world at many levels (some blatant, some subtle), and this should not be overlooked as well.

[i] Skal, The Monster Show, 41.

[ii] Much like the 1970′s will be forever remembered for Disco despite the vast amount of good music that was produced in that decade.

[iii] As of 2008, the IMDB’s Top 50 Horror list included no 1980′s slasher films (www.imdb.com/chart/horror).

[iv] A rather stunning counter-example is The Exorcist (1973) – a film so graphic that it continues to elicit shock over 35 years after its release and is still considered by many to be the most terrifying movie of all time. Unlike crass ‘gorror’ films, though, The Exorcist still holds a record number of awards for a horror film with two Oscars as well as 12 wins & 14 nominations in other award categories.

*Note: These are supplemental writings to The Message Behind the Movie, and are not necessarily endorsed by Moody Publishers.

 

April 6, 2010

Chapter 4: Taking Hollywood to the Cleaners

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Extra Features
[5] Comments 

Cleaning Up Their Acts

At the close of the 20th Century Hollywood made itself a new enemy: Movie Sanitizers. It all started with TV Guardian – a product that automatically muted foul language based on a program’s closed captioning which replaced the profanity with a socially acceptable version of the audio in text form on the screen. Then, companies arose that allowed consumers to simply purchase technology that edited films for them. In the year 2000, Ray Lines started CleanFlicks, a Utah-based video sanitizing company that cuts out nudity, sex, violence, and foul language from movies, and then sells the edited films (along with a copy of the original) to consumers. These “clean films” went for about $12.00-$17.00 depending on the amount of work involved to clean the film up. Another company, ClearPlay, did not change the original movie at all. Instead, ClearPlay provided hardware and software that skips flagged content based on the viewer’s pre-selected choices. The ClearPlay DVD player sold for about $150.00. Other companies, such as CleanFilms, Video II, MovieMask, Family Shield, Clean Cut, FamilySafe, Play It Clean Video, and Family Flix provided essentially the same types of services in various formats.

Members of the Director’s Guild of America (DGA) raised an outcry against this practice – what they consider to be illegal, or at best immoral, tampering with their work. These “e-rated” (for “everyone” or “edited”) movies, they claim, also violated federal copyright law. The sanitizers argue that the practice is protected by the law’s “fair use” provisions (such as allowing parodies to be made without the original director’s intent). Indeed, what the sanitizers are doing is not all that different from studios creating edited versions of movies for TV or airline flights. The directors’ answer is that those changes are made with their permission and remain true to the original intent for the film.

Sanitizers said they were simply meeting a market need and argue that they have actually created a market for Hollywood that it would have otherwise lost. Consumers who would never purchase a non-edited film might now do so. Studies consistently show that the majority of Americans think movies are too violent / sexual and would like to have the ability to view the films with these elements taken out, and family friendly movies continue to top the charts.

The Empire Strikes Back

In September of 2002 the editing companies and the DGA with eight Hollywood movie studios (including MGM, Time Warner, Disney, Sony, and Universal) and sixteen major film directors (including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, and Robert Redford) became involved in suits and counter-suits over copyright and trademark infringement issues. Four years after the original suits began, on July 6, 2006, Colorado federal appeals court judge Richard P. Matsch ruled that CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, Play It Clean Video, and Family Flix (and, by precedent all similar editing companies) were acting in violation of copyright laws. [Specifically 17 U.S.C. § 106[1] and 106[3]. See the United States district Court for the District of Colorado Civil Action No. 02cv01662RPM]

Fortunately for ClearPlay, its movie filtering technology was protected by Congress when they passed the Family Movie Act of 2005. ClearPlay was officially upheld in court in August of 2005.The Family Movie Act, spearheaded by ClearPlay’s CEO William Aho and introduced by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), clarified the legality of technologies that edit out unwanted content in movies without changing or duplicating the original media.
The legal issues have been settled for now. Although it was a close call, Hollywood won the most points in their case against the cleanup of their movies. The letter of the law won out over the spirit of the law. But it raises some interesting questions about Hollywood’s motives and the real issues that were being fought over in this case.

What Is the Real Issue?

Money?

Although it is often the first thing that comes to mind, the issue was simply not about money – and few people argued that it was. Many people remain convinced that Hollywood is just giving people what they want in order to make more money, but box office records disagree. Family-friendly films are well known for being the top overall moneymakers. According to the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), only one of the top 25 all time box office sellers in the US is rated “R” – and it is a Christian film (The Passion of the Christ – at number 11). In fact, there is no notable collection of “R” rated movies on the top list until the 50–60 range. If directors were truly concerned over monetary issues they would produce more family-friendly pictures since these have historically generated more money than non-family-friendly movies.

Further, sanitizers are quick to point out that they are not robbing Hollywood of its income. In fact, they actually increase income by creating a market that the original movie might have lost. When CleanFlicks sold a copy of one of their sanitized movies the consumer was also sent a non-edited copy. Thus, for every sanitized DVD CleanFlicks sold, a corresponding non-edited DVD was also sold. Finally, companies like ClearPlay do not change the studio version or produce edited copies at all, yet the DGA comes after them too. Hollywood is clearly not concerned over income loss.

Freedom of Speech?

The claim that sanitization is a violation of the director’s First Amendment Right is simply absurd. There would not be a sanitized version of a film if the director had not already been allowed to produce the original. On the contrary, disallowing people from editing what they watch may very well be a violation of their First Amendment rights, which includes protection from indiscretion. People clearly have the right to censor what they watch, and simply because a company is providing prepackaged versions of censored films does not change that fact.

Hollywood can produce whatever it wants under the First Amendment, and individuals can personally edit what Hollywood produces under that same Amendment. So long as these edits are not being sold or misrepresented as original works then copyright law is not violated. If this is the case then selling these edits should not be considered immoral either. Further, some companies, like ClearPlay, do not change the studio version or produce copies at all – they merely add electronic flags on to certain scenes that their software can detect and skip if the viewer desires. Yet Hollywood comes after these companies as well.

False Advertising?

The idea that directors/studios do not want their names associated with these sanitized films would be more legitimate if it was not done all the time for other reasons (e.g. airlines and television edits). Further, those who own a sanitized film are well aware that it has been edited. Why else would they buy it? The idea that people will credit the director with a badly edited version is rather ungracious. The directors obviously do not care about this particular audience anyway since they continue to make violent, sex-filled movies despite their proven overall unpopularity in the market (according to the MPAA website, PG and PG-13 films accounted for 85% of 2005’s top 20 films).

Parental Responsibility?

Hollywood directors seem to be altogether ignorant when they claim that this is simply an issue of parental consent regarding “adult oriented” films. They argue that parents should have an active role in determining what their children watch (which is true), and that this is the purpose of ratings. However, it is not this simple. First, ratings are fairly subjective and based on the MPAA membership’s personal beliefs. The MPAA also seems to assume the position that the appropriateness of certain material simply has to do with one’s age. Somehow, once one reaches adulthood offensive elements automatically become acceptable (thus the euphemism used when referring to pornography as “adult films”).

Parents often unwittingly buy into Hollywood’s morality by trusting the ratings that Hollywood gives to its own movies. In fact, according to the official MPAA (which, oddly, is made up of parents) ratings explanations, they apparently do not recommend that parents begin thinking unless a film is rated “R”! [see www.filmratings.com] Perhaps all people should do their thinking no matter what the MPAA has to say.

Movie Police?

One common objection to this cleansing process is that sanitizers are deciding what people should and should not watch. But how, it might be asked, is this any different than what the directors are doing? Directors seem to think that what they create is what people want to see. The popularity of the sanitizing business indicates that they are in fact wrong in many situations. Studios playing the ratings game also have control over content – the existence of “uncut and unrated” versions bears testimony to this fact. All sanitization does is provide additional options. So why is it that only the “moralists” are being attacked? In either case products are being made for a certain market – the double standard is glaring.

Further, different companies base their editing on very different standards. CleanFlicks and CleanFilms edited the kind of material most conservative moviegoers (religious or not) might find objectionable (such as sexuality, cussing, gore, violence). Another company, FamilyFlix, also edited out religiously offensive material (such as using titles of deity as curse words), homosexuality, inappropriate dress, crude humor, sexual innuendoes, alcohol and drug content, etc. and refused to edit films with objectionable themes. This should thrill Hollywood directors as the audience now has more content choices than ever! Instead, the DGA’s position seems to be that movie viewers need to be protected from their own choices.

Sauce for the Goose?

Some directors have asked, “Why not take all the sex and violence out of the Bible or Shakespeare?” This only reveals their ignorance of the world outside Hollywood, because this has already taken place. Children’s Bibles, for example, do not include such content (not because it is morally repugnant in significance, necessarily, but because many parents simply do not want young children exposed to such things).

Artistic Integrity?

This challenge to the sanitizing practice is based on the fact that a screenwriter’s story, a director’s vision, or an actor’s art, is considered the intellectual property of that person. To tamper with it is to change it into something its creator never intended. Members of the DGA seem scandalized by what they consider to be poor editing and the destruction of their creation. This might be closer to a legitimate objection. As a writer and musician myself, I understand that creators do not like any secondhand distortion of their creation (just ask God). This is also closely related to ego issues – credit is difficult to assess in a situation where the creator cannot claim sole responsibility. The main problem as I see it is that directors want to be celebrated for their creations and cannot stand it when the majority of moviegoers wish the film had been done differently.

A case in point happened in 1999 shortly after the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. There was almost universal dislike of the character Jar-Jar Binks. This created a demand in the market that was met by the release of a re-edited version of the film (variously referred to as “The Phantom Edit” and “Star Wars Episode I.I”) with Jar-Jar and other goofy material removed. This version quickly became more popular with many fans than the original film. Writer/Director George Lucas (who has himself created several controversial edits of his own movies) was surprisingly non-outraged.

“Armchair Directors” have always existed of course, but never before have they been able to so easily do something about it. I believe it is an affront to some director’s egos that others think they can “do it better than they can”, or, “some amateur” messing with “their vision.” However, if these amateurs were not producing something that literally millions of consumers are willing to pay extra money for it is doubtful that the practice would ever has become such an issue. The popularity of the re-edits should perhaps be clues as to how high Hollywood directors ought to think of themselves in the first place.

Ego Issues?

The loss of artistic control and integrity is an issue. However, it should be noted at the outset that very few movies are the creation of a single source. The very existence of “Director’s Cuts,” “Unrated / Uncut Editions,” and “Extended Versions” argue for this fact. Few directors are given carte blanche with regard to their films. The final film product is almost always a collaboration between the producer, studio, director, screenwriter, editors, actors, etc. In fact, there is even a term (auteur) used of directors who have gained enough control to be considered the primary source for a film.

The fact is that many people make decisions about the “vision” of a film besides the director – and this often massively affects the final product. In fact, this is a large enough issue that official DGA policy has been enacted to address the situation. When directors believe that they have lost control of a project, and are so unhappy with the result that they no longer wish to be associated with it, they may appeal to the DGA to have their directorial credit listed as “Alan Smithee” (an anagram for “The Alias Men” – the only allowable pseudonym for a director). So the DGA’s claim that to edit their work is to destroy it requires a somewhat dishonest assumption about the actual process that led to “their” creations.

Further, even if it were true that these sanitized films rob a given movie of its original intent, beauty, intensity, sexiness, or whatever – so what? If someone is truly concerned about these things they probably wouldn’t watch the sanitized version in the first place. All sanitization does is offer people a choice (which is, ironically, the paramount ethical consideration in most Hollywood dialogues).

Finally, this position might be seen as simply hypocritical. Screenwriters and directors are constantly “adapting” books into movies without authorial input (or, in some cases, the author’s approval – such as the case of Roald Dahl and the 1971 version of Willy Wonka). Why aren’t these directors concerned about authorial intent when revising other people’s visions? As far as credit goes, many times the original creators are barely noticeable in the credits (Stephen King has stated that fans continue to be surprised to find out that 1986′s Stand By Me and 1994′s The Shawshank Redemption were both taken from his book Different Seasons). This practice is not limited to book or play adaptations. Within Hollywood itself countless “remakes” and “re-imaginings” of older films are done all the time – often without attention being called to the original. It is widely thought that these remakes almost never live up to the originals, yet no one complains about it except fans. Cliff’s Notes are well known for the violence they do to the texts they summarize, such as the Bible or Shakespeare. This does not necessarily make the process legitimate, but it does show that originals do not lose value just because alternate versions exist.

A More Simple Solution

Re-editing / sanitizing is no more immoral than hip-hop samples, cover tunes, parodies, Cliff’s Notes, or paraphrases. Certainly these kinds of works do not reflect a high level of artistic quality, and only the original work should be considered when evaluating the director (or writer, or actors, or studio, etc.), but to consider this kind of work immoral or illegal is nothing more than special pleading (the application of standards to others while exempting oneself without good cause).

Personally, I try to get as close to the director’s vision as possible when evaluating films. I will almost always choose the Extended / Unrated / Uncut / Director’s Cut versions of any movie I wish to see in order to best evaluate what the movie’s creator(s) had in mind. I also believe that style elements should not be universally categorized as right or wrong without considering their intended effect. However, I would certainly consider making user-controlled filtering technology available for times when I did wish to remove objectionable elements in order to accommodate my tastes or those of more sensitive viewers (see Romans 14).

Finally I wish to encourage movie lovers out there that perhaps rather than spending so much time “sanitizing” Hollywood, Christians should simply make better movies themselves. For most of the Church’s existence it led the way in the arts (and sciences, and philosophy, and most other fields). The expectation that the world will be better at producing these things is extremely new to the scene. But we (Christians) have sacrificed significance for style, and cultural relevance for cheap “gospel messages.” Even in this fallen world, quality is what counts (as films like The Passion of the Christ have demonstrated). So long as artistic fluff is offered as the pinnacle of Christian creativity we will have little to complain about when it comes to Hollywood’s popularity.

*Note: These are supplemental writings to The Message Behind the Movie, and are not necessarily endorsed by Moody Publishers.

 

April 6, 2010

Chapter 4: Desensitization

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Extra Features | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 
BART SIMPSON: “If you don’t watch the violence, you’ll never get desensitized to it!”

(The Simpsons: ”Colonel Homer”)

The issue of desensitization is a tricky one. The idea is that the more we are exposed to certain things, the less sensitive we are to them. This is not the place for a lengthy survey of psychological studies, but for the purposes of this book we can grant the popular opinion that this is the case. Desensitization therapy has been successful in curing many cases of phobias and other hypersensitive issues. Desensitization does seem to occur, at various levels and for various amounts of time, with repeated exposure to particular elements, including when those elements are found in movies. The question, though, is whether we should be concerned about this phenomenon.

First, it should be noted that desensitization is largely an emotional issue. That is, it is not with the will or the intellect that desensitization necessarily occurs. Thus, it is one’s emotional reaction that is considered when studying sensitivity to certain elements, not what is thought or willed concerning them. Is emotional response a serious concern for the Christian? Sin is an action of the will / intellect, not the reaction of the body (emotion).* For example, I am not responsible for my reactive feelings if I see a beautiful woman walking by—but if I set my mind to think about her sexually, then I have committed sinful lust. So desensitization should only be considered a problem if it affects the will / intellect as well, and some studies indicate that it can.

Second, the Bible does not command that we feel a certain degree of emotion to be morally upright, only that we agree with what is right. This distinction is missed by many who confuse one’s feelings with one’s thoughts. For example, The New Bible Dictionary cautions that it is possible for man’s conscience—the faculty by which he apprehends the moral demands of God and which causes him pain when he falls short of those demands—to be inadequately disciplined, to become weakened and defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7–12; cf. Titus 1:15), and to grow seared and ultimately insensible (1 Timothy 4:2). However, 1 Corinthians 8:7–12 is actually referring to someone whose conscience is hypersensitive, not desensitized, and 1 Timothy 4:2 is referring to unbelievers, the impure to whom all things are impure. If an emotional desensitization is sinful, other verses will have to be marshaled to show that this is the case. What we think and do are at issue in the Bible’s descriptions of righteousness and sin, not how we feel. So simply having less of an emotional reaction may not be as bad as it is often assumed to be.

Third, in many cases strong emotional reactions are indicators of immaturity. Children react with far more emotion than is acceptable in adult society, but we would think it a tragedy were the emotional reactions of a child not under better control by adulthood. Maturity actually seems to require a certain degree of “desensitization.” Another indication that desensitization is not always bad is that in some cases it is not only accepted, but expected, that certain individuals be desensitized to things that others are not. Not only those in law enforcement but doctors, soldiers, ranchers, and others could not function if their reaction to criminal behavior, injury, nudity, violence, or death were the same as others. Yet we do not consider them less morally upright than anyone else for such desensitization.

Finally, in classical theology the majority position has always been that God Himself is without emotion. That is, He is said to be impassible (“without passions”). While this attribute of God is not undisputed, the fact is that orthodox believers have affirmed God’s “non-sensitization” for centuries without fearing any subsequent loss of His goodness.**
If it comes about that viewing violence or sexual acts, listening to profanity, or anything else should cause us to become less caring, act less uprightly, or go in any other immoral direction, then we should cease consumption of such things. This extends beyond mere style elements—it would include being influenced by positive portrayals of immorality (The politically motivated inclusion of socially enjoyable, attractive homosexual characters in several recent TV sitcoms might be a case in point.).

*This does not mean that emotional reactions cannot serve as indicators of the intellect / will (e.g., Jeremiah 6:15; Amos 6:1; Matthew 21:32; Philippians 1:7; 1 Timothy 5:11).

** Thomas Aquinas reasoned that because emotions are bodily reactions, and God does not have a body, that He must not have emotions (as popularly understood). Further, there are certain emotions which, having a body or not, would be improper for God to have such as hate, aversion, sadness, fear, anger, despair, etc. The difficulty that arises from this position is that the Bible itself ascribes these very things to God in various places. In these cases, answers Aquinas, the biblical writers are using metaphors to communicate God’s actions as interpreted by men. Other emotions such as love and joy that are said to be in God are literally true, however, for they are not found as emotions in God. Rather, they are found as dispositions of His will—love being the willing of good to another, and joy being a resting of the will in its object (which, for God, is Himself). See Summa Contra Gentiles I, 89, 3; I, 90, 4; and I, 91, 2.

*Note: These are supplemental writings to The Message Behind the Movie, and are not necessarily endorsed by Moody Publishers.

 

April 6, 2010

Letters to God – April 9th

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Other
Leave a Comment 

Letters to God

I know nothing about this film other than it’s ad copy, but here it is:
LETTERS TO GOD – Opens in Theatres  on April 9th!
Content: Very strong Christian worldview with a very moral perspective, references to coming to Christ, prayer, and what would Jesus do; no foul language; minor slapstick violence such as little girl pushes little boy’s face in his pie and alcoholic trashes his room; no sex; alcohol use to get drunk; no smoking; and, nothing else objectionable.

Summary: LETTERS TO GOD is an entertaining, heart-rending, and inspiring story about a boy with cancer whose letters to God change the lives of the people around him. LETTERS TO GOD is an impressive, well-written, redemptive, powerful movie that will touch the hearts of most people who see it.

Review: LETTERS TO GOD is a well written, entertaining, heart-rending, and inspiring story about a boy with cancer.

Tyler has an indomitable spirit. He is always trying to do what Jesus would do, although he has innumerable brain tumors and is going through chemotherapy. His father died a couple years before. His older brother is angry at the loss of their father and the loss of his mother, because she has to take care of Tyler full time.

Tyler’s grandmother comes to live with them and brings a strong Christian perspective to the home. His next-door neighbor Sam, a girl, is ready to be Tyler’s defender. When Tyler goes to school one day after two months of absence, one boy makes fun of him. Sam pushes the boy’s face into his lunch at the school cafeteria. Sam’s grandfather tells her to be a peacemaker and tells Tyler that he is a warrior for God.

Meanwhile, all this time, Tyler is writing letters to God. Brady the postman is separated from his own boy and buries himself in the bottle. Not knowing what to do with the letters, he takes them to his local church. The minister wisely tells Brady that God has given him the job being the caretaker of the letters. In the process, Brady’s life turns around, and he comes to Christ. In fact, one by one, Sam’s neighbors and friends come to Christ. Will their prayers be answered? Will God heal Tyler?

LETTERS TO GOD is an impressive movie. It is extremely well written. The dialogue is edgy and drives the story forward. The production quality is first rate. There is even great attention to the music, which is usually forgotten in low-budget productions. LETTERS TO GOD is the type of movie you want everyone to see, one of the most encouraging and inspiring movies in a long time.

Click here for more information.

 

April 6, 2010

No Sex Scenes? “You’re Fired!”

Posted by Doug Beaumont under Other
Leave a Comment 

Via DrudgeReport.com comes this article from Deadline Hollywood:

neal-mcdonough1.jpg

Neal McDonough… was suddenly replaced with David James Elliott 3 days into the filming on ABC’s new series Scoundrels earlier this week….

The move was officially explained as a casting change. But, in fact, McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes with… [lead actress] Virginia Madsen. The reason? He’s a family man and a Catholic, and he’s always made it clear that he won’t do sex scenes….

ABC knew that. Because he also didn’t get into action with Nicolette Sheridan on the network’s Desperate Housewives…. And he also didn’t do love scenes with his on-air girlfriend in his previous series, NBC’s Boomtown, or that network’s Medical Investigation.

“It has cost him jobs, but the man is sticking to his principles,” a source explained to me. You can’t help but admire McDonough for sticking to his beliefs….

 

Next Page »