Interview on One Minute Apologist – pt. 2:  Tips from a parent.

Interview on One Minute Apologist - pt. 1: Hollywood and Worldviews

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

"People say that God is dead. But how can they think that if I show them the devil?"

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 7^th and 9^th 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 19^th 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 13^th (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.

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.

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.

(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.).

** 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.

This book can be utilized as a key resource not just for churches, but also parents, school clubs, and even for personal growth. We need good books that will equip the people truthfully about the media. This area cannot be ignored as the movie industry has formulated the culture of the present generation.

Original Post

The Message Behind the Movie is divided into three “acts” (based upon a standard screenwriting procedure in which each “act” serves a particular purpose): 1) Watching and Understanding Movies, 2) Evaluating and Discussing Movies, 3) Applauding and Avoiding Movies. A brief comment on each section will suffice.

Act one focuses on watching and understanding movies and is very informative about the different aspects and features of movies, such as the lighting, sound, and structure, how these decisions are very intentional and how every moment of a movie purposefully planned. Beaumont helpfully guides the reader through these and other aspects of movie-making so that hopefully they, with a little practice, will learn to “watch movies well.” Overall, Act One was the most interesting section of the book. Beaumont’s frequent references to particular aspects of some of the cinema’s finest achievements kept me turning these early pages. I was very intrigued to read about scenes from some of my favorite movies from his perspective.

Act two slows down a bit in its address of how to discuss movies according to particular disciplines such as theology, philosophy, and Scripture. While these are essential disciplines in which to discuss movies and their message, I felt the pace of the book lagged in comparison to act one. Part of the reason is because these chapters essentially amount to an apologetic for the Christian faith. This really did not shock me, as the author is a Ph.D. student and professor of apologetics. Please do not misunderstand me—I am all for apologetics. However, most (if not all) the information in this section is material I have read numerous times and can be found in most intro-level apologetics texts. I would have preferred more discussion and interaction with movies themselves rather than an apologetic presentation.

Act three somewhat regained my interest, but I felt was rather brief in comparison to the first two acts. Act three focuses on the question I believe most would ask when picking up this book—“What should we then watch”? Beaumont does provide a good summary of the points presented throughout the book (though brief) and will certainly be helpful for those asking this question.

Format-wise the book was appealing and easy to read. Errata were few, including a statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1948 (they were discovered in 1947—I know, it’s nitpicking!). In summary, The Message Behind the Movie is a helpful volume that will be a good starting point for Christians who wish to be discerning about the movies they watch, having at least rudimentary tools to “watch movies well.”

Memorable quotes:

“Finally, we must avoid the common tendency to balk at offensive elements in a movie while indiscriminately imbibing false worldviews and destructive philosophies when they are presented in non-offensive ways.” p. 57

“If you think the film was objectively sinful to watch, then you should discuss that later with a view toward discipleship, not discipline.” p. 156

Original Post

Finally! I think to myself, a book that focuses on all the issues I (and many other christian movie-goers, I think) have had over the past decade or so about the message we should or shouldn’t be getting from, not just christian films but all films we view.

This first chapter focuses on the importance of films in our culture and how they provide the perfect medium for conveying the message of Christ. Douglas says “one study reported that teenagers spend about ten hours per day consuming media of various kinds. This means that even if teens were to spend two hours per day with their parents, by the end of the week they would have spent five times as much time immersed in media”. How important is it then for christians to have a bigger role in Hollywood?

The theme of the book is to teach us how to analyze all films we watch without stamping the film with an overall ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ label, looking into the underlying message of the story instead of at the amount of it’s moral/immoral content. This quote from the chapter sums up the feel of the book as a whole. “In order to successfully integrate movies into our spiritual lives, though, we first need to learn how to evaluate movies, so that we neither miss the good nor uncritically accept the bad.”

So, so far, I like it! I think it will prove to be a great companion to anyone interested in finding the real message behind the action, drama and special effects of any film.

Original Post