1 2 3 ... 45 Previous Next

Plugged In

673 Posts
Paul_Asay
1

A Novel Study in Character

Posted by Paul_Asay May 16, 2012
reading.JPGReading can change our lives—quite literally, according to a new study. Researchers say that literary characters can have a sizable impact on how we think and act.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that Harry Potter readers are going to start shopping for cauldrons or fans of the book The Hunger Games will stalk neighborhood pets. But the study (published recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) does suggest that we may internalize and emulate some character traits from, well, our favorite characters.

 

That can be a good thing, researchers say. Geoff Kaufman, the study's lead author, uses Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird as an example: If you dig Atticus, you might find yourself acting a bit more ethically due to his influence. But it stands to reason that the opposite would also be true. "Think of American Psycho," Kaufman told msn.com. "The character is very likable and charismatic. But he's a serial killer. To the extent that you connect with him, you may try to understand or justify the actions he's committing."

 

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? After all, we Plugged In folks are always talking about how entertainment can influence us. Books are (regardless of what your typical seventh-grader might say) a form of entertainment. And frankly, I think the impact books have on us might be even more profound: Reading is more immersive: Our brains are engaged when we're pounding through prose, our imaginations are locked into what's happening. Anyone who calls themselves a "reader" knows what it feels like to get lost in a book—to look up from its pages and see that a couple of hours have flown by without you even noticing. Frankly, I think the books I've read have had more impact on my life than anything outside my friends and family.

 

But while books are undeniably influential, I think the way we engage with them gives us a greater ability to choose what sorts of influences we'll take on, if that makes sense. When we read, we're not overwhelmed by the spectacle of the thing, as we can be in movies. Rather, we're engrossed in the story. We feel, in some ways, as though we're part of that story. And as such, I think we intuitively look for both characters we can relate to and characters we'd want to be more like.

 

For instance, I was (and am) a big Chronicles of Narnia fan. But when I read, I didn't gravitate toward Peter or Caspian. They were a little too heroically distant for me. I certainly never aspired to be like King Miraz or Uncle Andrew. But I always did like Eustace—a pretty dweebish guy who, throughout three books, grew in both character and faith.

 

Because our brains are so fully engaged, I think we're more aware of the messages we're absorbing through the books we read than the stuff we watch and listen to. It makes them more affecting … but it also allows us more opportunity to sift through what we're reading and push back when necessary.

 

But that doesn't give us an excuse to not sift through what we—or what our kids—read just as carefully as we do movies or television. The old saw that you can't judge a book by it's cover is right on. But you can judge it by its character.

1 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: books, discernment, reading, influence, harry_potter, hunger_games, chronicles_of_narnia
Adam_Holz
2
mraz.JPGThree weeks ago, we reviewed Jason Mraz's new album, Love Is a Four Letter Word. And apart from a couple of passing allusions to cohabitation, it was a sweet album full of earnest, optimistic reflections about life and love. So much so, in fact, that I wrote in the conclusion of our review, "Jason Mraz's unironic, unapologetic embrace of life's inherent goodness is a breath of fresh air."

 

Then something decidedly less "sweet" and "fresh" appeared on the horizon: An alert reader tipped us off to the fact that the deluxe version of the album included a song that was much, much nastier than anything else on the regular version of the album.

 

I'll say more about that in a moment. But first, let me talk about our approach to reviewing albums.

 

Typically, we don't review alternate or deluxe versions of albums for several different reasons. First, some data has suggested that the majority of music consumers buy the standard version of an album. So we review the one that most people are listening to.

 

Second, in these days of artists constantly looking for a marketing edge, there may be multiple, exclusive versions of an album available for purchase. It's not uncommon for musicians to release a standard version, a deluxe version, a version with tracks that are exclusive to a particular retailer (iTunes, Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc.) and even different versions overseas. We don't have the resources, time-wise, to track down every possible derivation, thus we focus on standard-edition songs that are generally the common denominator between all those different iterations. (Nor do we, by the way, review unrated versions of movies when they come out on DVD.)

 

Third, generally speaking, the three or four bonus songs on a deluxe or exclusive version tend not to deviate radically—in positive or negative ways—from the balance of the content on the standard version. In other words, those additional songs typically would not sway our review decisively one way or another.

 

Every now and then, however, there's an exception to all those rules. And Jason Mraz's album proved to be exactly that—including a song on the deluxe edition with content in marked contrast to the mostly upbeat, positive tone of the standard edition.

 

Specifically, I'm talking about the inclusion of a live version of his song "You Fckn Did It," which includes about a dozen f-words. That content was so jarringly out of step with the generally positive tenor of our review that we felt it important to go back to and amend our take with information about that bonus track's harsh profanity. We wanted to let you know that we'd made those changes, in case you checked out our review before we made those amendments.

 

We look forward to continuing to provide you with thorough, accurate and insightful analysis when it comes to today's popular music. And we're committed to updating our reviews when it comes to our attention that we've missed anything that might make or break your music-buying or music-listening decisions.

2 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: music, surprise, review, profanity, jason_mraz, love_is_a_four_letter_word
Paul_Asay
19
avengers2.JPGA few weeks ago, Forbes magazine declared that Tony Stark—a.k.a. Iron Man—was worth a whopping $9.3 billion, making him the world's fifth richest fictional character (one slot behind The Beverly Hillbilly's Jed Clampett).

 

If real-world dollars count on this fictional list, methinks that Mr. Stark may be moving up.

 

The Avengers, starring Stark and a bevy of other Marvel superheroes, officially crossed the $1 billion mark worldwide this weekend—one of just 12 films to reach that lofty threshold. I think that'd be enough to buy some scrap metal for a new suit, don't you?

 

The film scored big domestically, too (the figures we typically chart here on "Movie Monday"). In its second weekend in theaters, The Avengers earned an estimated $103.2 million in North America to set another record (the best second weekend ever, blowing away Avatar's $75.6 million mark set in 2009) and easily held onto first place. It's made $373.2 million domestically so far—making it the 18th most lucrative film of all time. And even though The Hunger Games is still making millions in theaters ($4.4 million this week for fourth place), there's little doubt that The Avengers will overtake Katniss's troupe of tributes to become the year's biggest money-maker—perhaps by the time you read this blog.

 

Given the superhero firepower on display at the box office this weekend, Dark Shadows didn't really stand a chance. The gothic horror comedy tripped on its own cape and earned just $28.8 million in its opening weekend—nearly $90 million less than Tim Burton/Johnny Depp's last collaboration, 2010's Alice in Wonderland.

 

Think Like a Man sidled into third place with $6.3 million, just ahead of Games. The Lucky One squeaked into fifth with just a little more than $4 million.

 

Now all attention (well, at least mine) turns to next week, when the three-week-old Avengers takes on another CGI leviathan, Battleship. Will Iron Man et al torpedo this cinematic flotilla? Or will Marvel execs say, with furrowed brow, "You sank our movie!"?

19 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: movie, box_office, iron_man, avengers, dark_shadows
Adam_Holz
10
projector 4.JPGHave you ever had this experience? You go to a movie with a friend, a movie that perhaps has some content that's a bit edgy. But as you walk out, you're thinking something like, That wasn't too bad. It didn't really bother me at all.

 

In fact, you're already thinking about where you're going to go eat when you ask what your friend thought of the flick. Your friend seems quiet. A bit withdrawn, even. "Man," he finally admits, "there were some things in that movie that really disturbed me. I'm not sure I should have seen it."

 

Suddenly you find yourself wondering, Should that movie have bothered me more? Am I just totally desensitized? Or are my friend and I just different people with different sensitivities?

 

Thoughts like those raise some larger philosophical questions that all of us should grapple with:

 

1) What experiences and convictions inform my standards when it comes to movie content?

 

2) How can I tell if I'm being desensitized and/or negatively influenced by what I've seen?

 

3) Am I willing to actively engage with my motives (and possibly my rationalizations) for seeing certain films, as well as actively engaging with the ideas and images I see there?

 

Let's talk first about our experiences and convictions, and how they relate to our movie choices. Some of us already have very defined parameters regarding our entertainment choices. Others may not have ever thought too deeply about what we see—we just kind of go with the flow. Wherever we're at on that spectrum, I think it's worth reflecting on what has influenced our decision-making grid when it comes to content issues.

 

A helpful passage of Scripture for me, personally, is the Apostle Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 10:23: "'Everything is permissible'—but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible'—but not everything is constructive." At the very minimum, this passage prompts me to ask the question of a particular film, "Is my watching this going to be constructive or beneficial?" Sometimes I can easily answer that question. But it's a good, quick and accessible starting point for my initial process of discernment.

 

(As an aside, Paul also deals with the issue of different people's convictions in the balance of 1 Corinthians 10 as well as Romans 14. In both places, he warns against harshly judging someone who has come to different conclusions in a grey area than we have.)

 

As far as experiences go, one watershed movie experience for me was watching American Beauty in 1999. This critically acclaimed film about a middle-aged man trying to find meaning in his vacuous suburban life won Best Picture that year. It's a disturbing story about the emptiness of the American dream, and it's a brilliant depiction of depravity. But some of the film's images were pretty disturbing to me, and they stayed with me a long time—so much so that I began to ask the question, "Do I need to see a brilliant depiction of depravity to know that depravity is depraved?" Much, if not most of the time, the answer is no.

 

Next, it's critical to deal with the reality of desensitization and influence. It may be that certain content truly doesn't affect us. But before we insist that that's the case, we need to take some time to determine whether it's actually true or whether we might be more hardened, more desensitized to certain things, than we want to admit.

 

In our culture, we're deeply invested in the idea that we know what's best for us. If we say that something doesn't affect us, we believe it doesn't. The classic case is the adolescent responding to his parents' objections about a certain song: "Mom, I don't listen to the lyrics, I just like the beat." And yet he can sing every lyric word for word. Whether he realizes it or not, those lyrics are going in. The same thing can happen when it comes to movies.

 

Recent academic research consistently indicates that there is a strong correlation between what we ingest, entertainment-wise, and what we think and do. (I chronicled some of the latest research on this connection in my article "See the Show, Be the Show.") But what about us individually? I think there are some questions each of us needs to ask ourselves to begin to determine whether and how much we're being influenced by what we see on the big screen:

 

1) Do you continue to have images from a movie (or a certain kind of film) coming to mind days or weeks after you've seen it? If so, that's a big indicator that a particular movie, type of movie or content is having a real impact.

 

2) Are you slipping into thoughts, attitudes or behaviors that you know aren't right? If you've seen a bunch of films filled with foul language, for example, and you find yourself swearing more, that might be an indicator of how those movies are influencing you.

 

3) Do you find yourself dismissing or minimizing content that's blatantly at odds with what Scripture teaches, simply because you want to be entertained? I think this is an especially useful question when it comes to comedies that generate a lot of buzz. It's easy to say, "It's just a dumb comedy. It doesn't matter." But if we're just letting ideas and images counter to God's truth sweep over us because we want a laugh or we want to unwind and veg out without thinking, we become quite susceptible to being influenced by the world's point of view.

 

I love how Eugene Peterson addresses this issue in his paraphrase of Romans 12:2 in The Message: "Don't become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You'll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you."

 

Finally, if you've considering watching a movie that you know ahead of time includes harsh content, I think it's well worth considering why you want to do that—and whether it's really good or necessary to do so. What do you hope or expect the outcome to be? How might it influence you negatively? Sometimes, if we're honest with ourselves, we may find that we're succumbing to temptation to see something that, deep down, we know we shouldn't set before our eyes. I'm not saying that potentially difficult content in a film always pushes it out of bounds in all cases. But we need to be willing to engage our motives on a case-by-case basis.

 

And if we do decide to engage with something with tough content, I think we've got some work to do on the other side as well. What were the messages? What images affected you and why? In short, are we willing to engage critically, reflectively and personally with what we're watching? Because if we're not talking about it and thinking about it, it increases the odds of us being influenced and desensitized by it.

 

And we may not even realize it.

 

This post is the fifth in a series. Feel free to click on these related posts:

 

Don't Watch. But If You Do ...

Sorting Out the Good, the Bad and the Excellent

How Come They Get to Watch Bad Movies and I Don't?

Getting to the Very Art of the Matter

10 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: discernment, movie, influence, series, desensitization, self_evaluation
Bob_Hoose
7

The 'Shut Up' Label

Posted by Bob_Hoose May 10, 2012
hater.JPG"Don't listen to him, he's just a [fill in blank here]"

 

You may not have noticed as the world has subtly changed, but labels have taken on a new role—especially when we stick them on people. We used to think an identifier simply helped clarify who a person was. And I guess things like, "He's a philanthropist" or "She's very creative" still do. But nowadays it's more and more common to have labels serve a completely different function—they're a simple, shorthand way of getting people to shut up. Think about it.

 

I recently spotted a blog, for example, that was commenting on negative Hunger Game movie reviews. The blogger complained that he had almost not gone to see the movie because of some of the critical reviews he had read. And when he did see the flick, he realized how "moronic" those reviews had been. Instead of debating the merits of any pros or cons made, though, the blogger simply railed at those who had written the reviews, saying, "Haters, please go choke yourself to death." And many fellow bloggers cheered the idea.

 

Now that's just an isolated anecdote about a fairly innocuous rant, but let's face it, his "hater" label certainly isn't limited to being used on the blogosphere. You can find it and dozens of other sneering tags leveled in all manner of official statements, personal posts, political jabs and opinion articles all over the Web. Sometimes the most vociferous users thrive in the world of entertainment: Not thrilled with the sexuality shown in HBO's  Girls? Question Cam and Mitch's relationship on ABC's Modern Family? In some people's eyes, you'd be a hater.

 

And the label serves its purpose.

 

If you're labeled a "hater" or worse, well, then your opinion is automatically deemed invalid, no matter how untrue the label may be. Who's going to listen to one of those people? For that matter, who wouldn't be reticent about being tagged as one of those? It makes sense that if you get hit with that kind of verbal flagellation often enough—even if you have a perfectly valid point—you'll most likely just start keeping your opinion to yourself. And that's where the labeling ploy hits its full stride.

 

Even if a TV comedy shows gay teens hooking up every week, does anyone want to complain about it and maybe risk being labeled a "homophobe?" Or, for that matter, do you really want someone thinking you're a "narrow-minded fundamentalist" because you might want to voice an irritation over Hollywood making PG-13 movies fouler and fouler? Probably not.

 

And that's too bad. For once the vocal dissent fades away and reasonable discussion, or even disagreement, is quashed under the weight of a distasteful label, then the next phase kicks in. That's when the labelers start saying:

 

"Well, everybody knows that [fill in blank here]"

7 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: entertainment, discernment, television, movie, peer_pressure, dissent, intimidation
Kevin_Simpson
8
video game art.JPGWhat if you walked into the Smithsonian American Art Museum and on display was … wait for it … video game art?

 

Well, wonder no more. That's right, an exhibit called "The Art of Video Games" is already here—and will be at the Smithsonian through September when it takes off on its own national tour. Among the popular games getting attention for their visual flare are the likes of Pitfall, Earthworm Jim and Bioshock to name a few.

 

Frankly, I think it's about time. I do a bit of doodling myself and I'm a gamer, so I've been thinking that the work that goes into games gets its proper due. Personally, I think it can be art—even if the game's content and game play sometimes makes it art you should avoid.

 

Sometimes, playing a game can feel a little like walking through an art gallery. I just recently played through the Sony PlayStation download exclusive title Journey, and the best I can describe the experience is that it's like interacting in a piece of fine art. No slick realistic CGI, just stunning visuals that really could be framed. The music only adds to the calming experience.

 

They say that art is in the eye of the beholder, and maybe that's even true for funny little animated men named Mario. What do you think? Should a picture of he and Luigi be hanging next to John Singer Sargent's Madame X ?

8 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: art, video_games, gaming, museum, artistic
Paul_Asay
2
scandal.JPGI'm in the middle of reviewing the ABC show Scandal—a strange little drama that's a little hard to box inside a recognizable genre (look for the full review tomorrow). It's part episodic procedural, part serialized mystery. It's got a little West Wing going on, without the idealism. It's a little Law & Orderish, too (though without really any law or order). It even has a dash of 24 to it, but without the fun of watching Jack Bauer grind his teeth.

 

Really, though, the genre it might fit best is that of the "earnestly immoral."

 

Now, I don't mean that as a slam. Immoral is such a loaded word, but for the moment I want to use it as a mere descriptor, not as an insult. After all, Scandal—at least what I've seen so far—seems populated by nice enough people, folks who want to do what's right. They want to protect their clients and ferret out the truth and often get very, very angry when they learn that one of their clients has been killed. "Murder is murder!" Olivia Pope (played by Kerry Washington) exclaims to someone she believes may be the murderer. She's clearly quite irate.

 

But in the course of their protecting and truth-ferreting and irate-fuming, Olivia and her cohorts lie and steal and sleep around and occasionally torture people. They see all this as tools of the trade: Their "good work" involves loads of bad behavior.

 

My review of Scandal comes a week after I tackled CW's The L.A. Complex, which featured a lot of nice, wannabe stars engaging in some pretty questionable activities to get ahead. And that was a week after viewing ABC's Revenge, which centers on main character Emily Thorne's wickedly convoluted and deeply underhanded scheme to find some sort of postmortem "justice" for her father. Before that was HBO's Game of Thrones, which features a sordid lot of sword-carrying, power-hungry nobles scrambling for the crown in the fantasy world of Westeros.

 

The characters we see in these programs couldn't be more different. But a common thread weaves through most of 'em: They're flawed, and they know it. Some of them even relish it. And it can leave us a little unsure of who to root for.

 

It's a (ahem) stark contrast to our superhero-laden movie theaters, wherein our most popular films feature clear heroes and villains. I mean, no one's going to mistake Captain America for Loki in The Avengers. Sure, these heroes have their flaws. But our rooting interests are clear.

 

In television these days, not so much.

 

Granted, TV has room for more complex characterizations: Movies have about two hours to give you a compelling story, which means the protagonists often have to be more delineated. A successful television show has several seasons to work with, which gives creators more leeway to craft more complex, nuanced characters—characters not so firmly entrenched in the camp of "hero" or "villain."

 

And that's not all bad. After all, none of us land firmly in either camp ourselves. Our motives are often mixed. While most of us really want to do the right thing, sometimes our follow-through isn't the best. And I think the creators of most of these shows (with the possible exception of L.A. Complex) want us to wrestle with these imperfect people—to weigh their motives and actions and to, frankly, judge them.

 

But here's the thing: Just as television allows writers more leeway with how they build a character, it gives us, the viewer, far more opportunity to get to know said character. We can become as familiar with Olivia Stone and Emily Thorne as with our Facebook friends. We see parts of us in them. We grow to like them. And almost inevitably, when we grow to like someone, we try to excuse or rationalize some of their worst actions—just as they do themselves. How can this not affect how we then excuse or rationalize our own?

2 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: television, good_and_evil, influence, scandal, heroes, revenge, game_of_thrones, villains
Paul_Asay
13

Movie Monday: The Avengers

Posted by Paul_Asay May 7, 2012
avengers.JPGWell, we knew it was gonna be big. But this big?

 

The Avengers, Marvel's supersized superhero flick, didn't just win the weekend box-office crown. It didn't just make history. It pounded the record books like the Hulk tossed around poor little Loki.

 

The Avengers' opening weekend is so big, in fact, that we're not even sure how big yet. Disney estimates that the cinematic colossus will earn $200.3 million in its Friday-through-Sunday run, according to Box Office Mojo. But some prognosticators believe that Disney's being extraordinarily cautious and that the total take may land somewhere north of $205 million.

 

But hey, when we're talking numbers this massive, what's a couple of mil here and there?

 

Regardless of where the final tally lands, there's no question that The Avengers set a bevy of records, including the highest opening weekend ever (beating last year's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2) and the fastest film to reach the $200 million mark (three days; previous record-holder The Dark Knight took five).

 

And here's a bit of trivia for you: The Avengers has already surpassed the total box-office take of Thor ($181 million) and Captain America: The First Avenger ($176.7 million), Marvel's two big releases last year. In just three days!

 

Not that The Avengers had much competition. Studios fled from this mighty band of superheroes, leaving the weekend free of major new releases. The only other newcomer to make the Top 20 was The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which earned $750,000 in extremely limited release and (with all due respect, of course) wasn't probably hoping to compete with Marvel's big boys.

 

Think Like a Man put up the best fight among the also-rans, scoring another $8 million to finish a very, very distant second. Katniss and her ever-feisty Hunger Games landed in third with $5.7 million, bringing the film's 2012 cumulative total to a whopping $380.7 million.

 

Which makes me wonder … will The Avengers overtake the Games by the end of the year? The end of the week? Will one of those two films wind up winning the 2012 box office crown, or will the eventual champ be a contender still in the wings? Remember, we've yet to see The Dark Knight Rises (July), The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (November) and the first installment of The Hobbit (December) take the field. I'm not convinced that even the mighty Avengers can resist all those comers.

13 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: movie, box_office, records, hunger_games, avengers
Paul_Asay
3

For the last few weeks, we've been talking about seeing problematic or challenging movies. Not so much about how to decide whether you see them, but rather how to process them when you see them. Last week, I told you about some of the tools we use to handle the films we see—everything from praying beforehand to talking afterward to taking notes right in the middle.

 

The post triggered Kevin to write back, wondering whether this note-taking was spoiling an integral part of the movie-viewing experience—and whether something might be getting lost in the process. He wrote:

 

But what about receiving films as art? If you're taking notes and always trying to keep yourself from getting sucked into the film, then you're not really experiencing it as art, are you? If, for example, you watch The Passion of the Christ and are continually taking notes at each crack of the whip, are you able to really understand the story? Yes, there are horrific images in that film, but they serve a purpose. If you're always keeping the story at arms length, aren't you preventing it from really working in you? Just some thoughts.

 

filmprojector.jpgAnd great thoughts they are. The answer is ... maybe. There's no way for me to know for sure, Kevin. But I can tell you this: When I reviewed Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close last year, my notebook got a little damp from all the tears I shed. Frankly, if I was any more involved in the story, I might've needed a tissue box.

 

But the overarching premise of the question is an important one: Where and when does the quality of a film factor into what you see and, if you do, how you should engage with it?

 

It's a gigantic question—one that would really require a book, not a blog post, to fully process. But that doesn't mean we can't blast through at least two major points.

 

1. Art is important. In the second post of this series, I suggested that everything around us is touched by God, and that goes for the movies we make and see, too. Granted, they may be bad or problematic. But because we're God's creation, we can't help but reflect a bit of Him in what we ourselves create, even (and often) unknowingly.

 

I'd argue that part of that reflection can be found in the quality of a given work. God, as we know, is the best artist or author there is. And when we create something—a book, a blog post, a movie—we indirectly pay homage to the One who created us. The better and more beautiful a piece of work is, the more clearly it reflects the One from whom all beauty and goodness radiates. And here's another important truth: He always deserves our best. After all, He gave all of us our talents—even those who haven't found Him yet. It'd be a sin not to use them, and use them as effectively as we can.

 

But this isn't to say that the "better" the art, the more pleasing to God it is. Why not? Because ...

 

2. Purpose is important, too. LK, commenting on my blog entry last week, made a very cogent point by bringing up a great quote from G.K. Chesterton, who just so happens to be one of my favorite authors: "Sometimes the best part of a painting is the frame ... without the frame of Scripture it isnt art its garbage."

 

Here's the exact wording of the passage that I think LK is most likely remembering:

 

It is impossible to be an artist and not care for laws and limits. Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. 

 

In other words, art to be art requires a boundary. Giraffes must have long necks in order to be giraffes. If you draw a giraffe with a short neck, it isn't a giraffe at all, but something else.

 

So what, then, is art? An act of creation—one (as we've said) that inherently reflects our own Creator. But what if we deny that Creator in our art? What if we ignore the boundaries and shed the frame? We've got a mess on our hands, that's what. And while it's not possible to hide God's reflection entirely, it is possible to hide it enough so it's not worth our while to try to hunt for it. A film, however well made, has to have a good heart to it—one that somehow points back to God and all that He is.

 

Now, let's call a time-out and acknowledge that few of Hollywood's great artists are intentionally trying to reflect our Creator. Some might laugh heartily at the very thought. But even if they don't know God, many of these artists unintentionally point to Him by showcasing the truth and beauty for which He so perfectly embodies.

 

Let me offer an example or two: The Tree of Life, last year's artsiest entrant in the Oscar derby, is an explicit rumination of faith. It was built, in some ways, to fit in the frame—even as it challenges some of what we think about God. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, on the other hand, is not a religious movie at all. But we see in it a beautiful example of a mother and father's love for their son, reflecting our Father's own love for us. It doesn't need a frame to work as a movie ... but when you wrap it with that frame, it doesn't fight it: In fact, it becomes a more powerful film. The frame gives it extra dimension that raises it to another level.

 

Both films boast some difficult moments, of course. And neither is a must-see movie. No film fits that definition, at least not in terms of bettering one's life or deepening one's relationship with God. Movies don't "save." Only God does that.

 

But they can move us. And, ideally, a movie's art and heart must work together.

 

And that's why there are some (not all, but some) very nice, sometimes overtly Christian movies that leave me a little cold. Their art just doesn't resonate with me. Their frames may be great, but the painting inside feel a little trite. A little blocky. Conversely, I can appreciate a well-crafted secular film. But unless it gives me something to embrace—something that I find somehow reflects the image of God, I walk away feeling numb or sad or even outraged. It's art without the frame, and as such it feels useless.

 

When a beautifully crafted movie fits the frame, that's when I walk away challenged or inspired or moved. That's when I feel not just its technical excellence, but the hand of God hidden behind it, working on me. And maybe working on others, too.

 

This post is the fourth in a series. Feel free to click on these related posts:

 

Don't Watch. But If You Do ...

Sorting Out the Good, the Bad and the Excellent

How Come They Get to Watch Bad Movies and I Don't?

It Didn't Really Bother Me at All

3 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: art, christian, discernment, movie, series, tree_of_life, extremely_loud_&_incredibly_close
Bob_Hoose
14

Have Movie, Will Text?

Posted by Bob_Hoose May 3, 2012
texting-1.jpgMy wife and I both like going to a good movie. She may not ramble on afterwards about a pic's artistic nuances and production values like I do, but we both dig that immersive moviegoing experience. When it comes to obnoxious seatmates at the cinema, however, our viewing public sensibilities diverge.

 

Where I usually bite my tongue and shift about in my seat, she has no problem telling the teen girl popping her gum next to us that she's ruining everyone's evening. And she won't hesitate to tell the 6-foot-6, bald-headed refugee from a steroid test program that he needs to shut up. (While I silently try to indicate that I love a muttering underscore to my movies … sir.)

 

But regardless of how we might approach theater disturbances, there is talk of one possible change at the cinema that could be a deal-killer for a lot of people: Texting. Apparently some theater bigwigs, at least those who attended the recent CinemaCon convention in Las Vegas, are debating whether to allow those thumb-twitching texters into theaters with open arms. A blogger for the Los Angeles Times blog 24 Frames wrote:

 

Several prominent industry figures seemed to endorse the idea that, at a time when teenagers are going to the movies less and less, it might be time to relax our prohibitions against texting in theaters.

 

The writer also went on to mention how more and more cellphone applications are being developed to facilitate getting young people into the moviehouse—from an app that coordinates meeting times with friends at the local theater to an app that tells you the best times in any given film to run to the restroom.

 

Now I understand that today's tech-savvy world finds it hard to disconnect. The last time I went to a movie with my youngest daughter she found it almost painful to shut off her phone for a full two hours! I mean, how in the world will she know what her friends are thinking at any given moment? Why, Jackson may have decided to stop playing Skyrim for awhile. Or Sarah Beth could be needing help picking shoes. But somehow I can't help but think that a two-hour break won't ruin anyone's life or bring modern society to a screeching halt.

 

Why, when I was a kid we had to walk three hours to get to the local theater in a swirling snowstorm … with bare feet … and no coat. OK, overkill. But still, going to the movies is supposed to be a special experience, isn't it? A two-hour respite from shoe-shopping and who's going out with whom-ing? I can't help but think that this kind of enjoyment will be stunted if you've got your eyes glued to more than one screen at a time. (Not to mention all the tongue-biting and seat-shifting noise that I'll be making from behind you when your smartphone screen blazes in my direction.)

14 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: discernment, movie, texting, cell, phones, smartphones
Adam_Holz
16
battleship.JPGIn its first five days in foreign theaters, Marvel's The Avengers raked in a whopping $185.1 million.

 

That's right. By the time the latest supersized superhero flick spools up in American theaters this Friday, it will likely have pocketed somewhere north of $200 million—all before a single ticket in the good ol' U.S. of A. has been torn in two.

 

Not so very long ago—as in, earlier this year, actually—a big-budget blockbuster like The Avengers would unquestionably have opened first in the world's most lucrative movie market, then steadily rolled out to overseas (read: secondary) markets.

 

Then came John Carter.

 

Disney's epic Martian tale of war morphed into an epic monetary tale of woe. Industry experts estimate that the $250 million bomb could become the biggest money-loser of all time. In the words of an old cliché, it started off slow then tapered off altogether.

 

To be sure, the film suffered from poor reviews and lack of audience awareness. But when American moviegoers responded tepidly right out of the gate, it seemed to prime foreign markets to perform similarly.

 

Eager to avoid a similar fate, Universal executives decided to try a novel marketing tack with their latest bombastic CGI spectacle, Battleship. Like John Carter, the film was already listing after critical torpedoes to the midsection. And like John Carter, Battleship sports a Titanic budget, reportedly more than $200 million. (And we know what happened to the Titanic—the ship, not the movie).

 

Unlike Disney's Martian misfire, however, Battleship will likely float long enough to put Universal in the black, because it was released in foreign theaters more than three weeks ago and won't actually drop anchor here in the U.S. for another two weeks. Result? It's already raked in $170.9 million from 50 overseas territories such as Bulgaria, the Philippines, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates—probably enough to keep it from sinking even if it U.S. audiences strafe it.

 

Disney (which bought Marvel in 2009) quickly adopted the same strategy with The Avengers. And it's paying off handsomely as well.

 

Envious American moviegoers may shed a tear or two over their loss of cinematic hegemony. Indeed, after the overseas succes of Battleship and The Avengers, we may have been shuffled permanently to the back of the ticket line.

 

More significantly, however, the increasing stature of the foreign box office illustrates the truly global nature of pop culture these days. By the time American films like Battleship reach our shores, they will already have unloaded their 16-inch box office guns at practically every other country on earth.

16 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: movie, box_office, john_carter, battleship, avengers, foreign
Bob_Smithouser
17
jennifer love hewitt.JPGEvery parent of a teenage daughter has, at some point, wrestled with the makeup issue. Should it be allowed? If so, when? What kind? And how much? Contrary to popular belief, World War III will not be waged with nuclear warheads; it's already being fought in homes around the globe with lipstick, mascara and rouge.

 

Well, if you've ever uttered the words, "You're not going out of the house looking like that," it might comfort you to know that several celebrities have endorsed a more natural look.

 

Ashley Greene, the 25-year-old actress who plays Alice Cullen in the Twilight series, says she forces herself to go without makeup from time to time. "I think it's dangerous to get too comfortable with needing makeup," she explains. "You kind of lose yourself, and you don't think you're pretty without it. It creates this whole downward spiral."

 

Recently, actress Lily Collins shared her feelings about makeup with us on the Official Plugged In Podcast. Here's what Mirror Mirror's Snow White thinks about that issue: "During my day-to-day life, less is more. I wear very minimal makeup because I'm all about keeping my skin healthy, hydrated and moisturized. You do wear it a lot when you're working and doing photo shoots and press. And I do like to keep those moments when I put it on as being special 'getting-ready' moments. … The less there is on, the less there is to go wrong."

 

Greene and Collins make a lot of sense. It's important for a woman to protect her skin and her self-image. It's also great when a celebrity is confident enough to invite fans to see her without all that icing.

 

Jennifer Love Hewitt (TV's Ghost Whisperer, The Client List) recently tweeted a photo of herself sans makeup (you can see it to your right) to her 200,000 Twitter followers. In an age when paparazzi pride themselves on catching female celebs unaware and selling those not-so-glamorous photos to supermarket tabloids, Love Hewitt's bold, proactive move impressed me. She vulnerably told the world, This is who I am. The real me. Take it or leave it. I can't applaud a lot of the photo shoots this actress has posed for, but I really respected this one.

 

I'd love to know what you think of the makeup wars—raging both at home and in pop culture—as well as these actresses' declarations of independence. Personally, I love it when celebrities give our daughters an excuse not to follow the crowd. As I continually remind mine, the best foundation is natural beauty that radiates from the inside out.

17 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: twitter, appearance, makeup, self-image, jennifer_love_hewitt, lily_collins, ashley_greene, make-up
Paul_Asay
2

ThinkLikeAMan.jpgIt was supposed to be a busy weekend at the multiplex. With the spring movie season winding down and The Avengers just around the corner (May 4), four new films rushed to theaters this weekend to beat the summertime rush. None were expected to be Hunger Games-like smashes, of course. But all hoped to be a nice springtime surprise and snag an April shower of cash.

 

Alas for them, it was not to be. The romantic ensemble Think Like a Man triumphed for the second week in a row with an  $18 million performance, which left the newcomers feeling a waterlogged.

 

The Pirates! Band of Misfits had the best debut of the bunch, battening down $11.4 million worth of hatches for second place, according to early estimates. But fellow newcomer The Five-Year Engagement was fighting hammer-and-tongs against a pair of holdovers—The Lucky One and, predictably, The Hunger Games—for third place. According to initial estimates, Five-Year Engagement is tracking behind both of its rivals with $11.2, million; both Lucky One and Hunger Games are expected to finish the weekend around $11.3 million. Box Office Mojo said Five-Year's performance was "easily" the weekend's biggest disappointment. Star Jason Segel just doesn't have the same audience attraction without a bevy of Muppets in tow.

 

Still, Five-Year outperformed Jason Statham's Safe ($7.7 million) and John Cusack's bizarre The Raven ($7.3 million), which finished sixth and seventh, respectively. My guess is we won't see either of those films sneak into the year's top-grossing films list.

 

The same cannot be said for The Avengers. The comic-book actioner featuring Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk, among others, opened practically everywhere but the good ol' U.S. of A. last weekend and has already amassed an estimated $178.4 million.

2 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: movie, think_like_a_man, box-office, pirates!_band_of_misfits
Paul_Asay
31
Shortly after we started this series of blog posts on how to engage with problematic films, I came across a comment from Josh, one of our readers, essentially calling us out in the best possible way. Here's what he wrote:

 

The thing that get's me in this particular post is the idea of movies being "unhealthy", and causing people to "stumble." You're the reviewer, you get to throw out the ideas you have about whether a movie is good for Christians to watch, or not. But you're exposing yourself to this entertainment as well. So, does the unhealthiness apply to you? Do you even watch the movies, or read other reviews? And, if you watch the movies, why is it ok for you to watch un-Christian kinds of things? Is it for the pure reason of critiquing things to be sure others don't see it? I find this dichotomy kind of strange. Why not just let [people] watch, as you're doing, and decide for themselves, as you're doing?

 

It's a fantastic question—one I'd be asking myself if I was in the audience. What gives you the right to do what you do and then say what you say? Are we being hypocritical—like a fat-and-happy medieval taster with no assassins in sight? ("The filet mignon tastes a little funny, king … I'll polish it off just to make sure it's OK.") Or, worse, are we risking our own spiritual health to do this job? I mean, if we're right in saying that A) movies can be unhealthy and B) affect everyone, and then C) watch a lot of them, we'll naturally feel some ill effects, right? And if so, why do it?

 

projector 3.JPGThe answer is both simple and complex—and I hope that, when we finish, you'll have some tools to help in your own movie-watching. So let's start simple:

 

We do this job because we feel that someone should. Some of us call it a calling. Others a desire. I've even heard the word compulsion thrown around once or twice. But all of us have made a decision to put ourselves in a particular place to do a job that we think God wants us to do.

 

We've already talked about the fact that Christians, whether they should watch problematic movies or not, often do. And since they do, we want to give them as much information as we can. Some compare us to watchers on the wall—a comparison with which, frankly, I've never been wholly at ease. I mean, I review movies for a living: Whatever risks I take aren't comparable to those taken by soldiers or policemen or society's real watchers.

 

But there is, I think, a bit of metaphorical truth there. See, we really do believe films can harm us—not like an arrow to the knee would, but more like mold in the basement. So maybe we should be thought of as a little like home inspectors: We tromp around and look for problems. And if we find 'em, we tell you. And we think of it as a pretty important job (if not all that glamorous).

 

Like pockets of mold, movies aren't particularly picky about who they attack/annoy. No home inspector is (as far as I'm aware) born with mold-proof lungs. Neither are Plugged In reviewers blessed with Teflon-coated minds from which negative content simply slides off. We're affected by films just like everyone else is. And perhaps one of the reasons we believe that movies do influence us is that we've seen that influence in our own lives—both in our experience before we took this job … and after.

 

But just as a home inspector might slap on a mask or respirator when checking out a suspicious basement, we have tools at our disposal, too. By sharing them here, we hope they might help you navigate your own problematic movies.

 

1. We pray. Working at a Christian ministry, prayer is a pretty regular part of our workday. We're always asking for God's help and blessing in what we do, and when we're assigned a particularly problematic movie we ask for extra protection. I think it helps—both because God hears our prayers, and because the act of praying helps us focus on the task at hand: It reminds us that we're not watching the film for our own benefit, but for yours and (hopefully) His. We can't afford to let y'all down.

 

I kinda think that whenever we pray, it helps remind us that we Christians are a little different: We're God's, not the world's, and we're not supposed to be too terribly comfortable around here. We serve up a reminder whenever we serve a meal and say Grace. And if it's natural for us to pray before we consume a plateful of food, it also seems entirely appropriate that we would do so before consuming a two-hour movie. Prayer not only welcomes God into our presence, it reminds us that He's there already.

 

2. We take notes. Sure, we take notes primarily so we can write accurate reviews. But there's more at work here. We reviewers wage a two-front conflict regarding the movies we see: On one side, we risk being overwhelmed by the content (growing ever more miserable). On the other, we risk becoming desensitized (growing ever more cynical). The act of note-taking allows us to distance ourselves a bit from what we see. (It's hard to get too emotionally involved with a disembowelment when you're physically, clinically writing, "horrifying disembowelment.") And it reminds us that the content we're documenting is, well, problematic. If it wasn't we wouldn't be writing it down, and that keeps us from excusing the issues we see.

 

And even if you forget your pen in the car (as some of us have from time to time), you can take mental notes of what you see: Concentrate on (as I wrote last Friday) whatever seems to be worthwhile in the film, but don't let the language or violence just wash over you either. See it not as something to forget or to obsess over, but for what it is: a problem.

 

3. We outwardly process what we see. For me, this is the silver cross worn to ward off cinematic vampires, if you will. The process of pounding out a review allows me to really grapple with what I've seen—the good and the bad. That helps me both enjoy and appreciate a given film more. But it also helps me sift through whatever might've bothered me, too. Or what should've bothered me. It's like therapy.

 

There's a reason why, when you go to a therapist, you spend most of your time talking. Just the act of regurgitating what's rolling around in our brains helps us deal with our lives and experiences. And make no mistake, we all "experience" movies. When you go to one, try not to go alone if you can help it—and set aside time to talk about what you've seen. Grab a coffee or dinner and delve into the movie's messages. Recount the funny lines. Pick apart the plot a little. It's fun and helpful. And if you can't talk with someone about what you've seen, I'd encourage you to actually put pen to paper—or fingers to keyboard—and write about it. Whatever you do, don't let the movie just sit in your noggin like a curio: Pick it up. Squeeze it. Dissect it.

 

4. We regroup … and if need be, reject. One of the most insidious ways films affect us is by pushing us toward a new sense of "normal." See enough sexual promiscuity onscreen, and there's a chance you might think that casual sex is quite normal after all—and you start wondering whether your promise ring makes you freakish. Hear loads of f-words in films, and eventually those same words start to slip into your conversations if not counteracted. It's just common sense: We're influenced by those we spend time with. And most of us spend lots of time with movies. (TV, music and video games are part of this picture, too, of course.)

 

So how do we keep the undesirable elements we see in those films from eventually looking normal or desirable to us? We  hang out with people who push back on those elements. At Plugged In, obviously, I spend much of my workday with folks who share my values, and we talk about those values all the time. If I ever started thinking, "Wow, all that casual sexuality I saw in The Five-Year Engagement felt so right!" I'd have a whole bevy of influencers who'd beg to differ.

 

As influential as movies can be, our friends and family can be far, far more influential. People move us more than pictures.

 

This post is the third in a series. Feel free to click on these related posts:

 

Don't Watch. But If You Do ...

Sorting Out the Good, the Bad and the Excellent

Getting to the Very Art of the Matter

It Didn't Really Bother Me at All

31 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: discernment, movie, influence, series, r-rated, tools
Bob_Hoose
6

The Fine Print'll Cost Ya

Posted by Bob_Hoose Apr 26, 2012
papers.JPGMax Schrems is telling you to watch out.

 

Earlier this year The New York Times reported Max's ongoing battle with Facebook. It seems that after two or three years of using the social networking page, the Austrian law student suddenly sat up and said, "Hmm," and began thinking about his personal data. What kind of information was Facebook keeping on him? And, for that matter, what was the company doing with it?

 

So the 24-year-old Max started asking questions and finally had to file a legal grievance to get a copy of everything that Facebook had on him. Lo and behold, the company sent him a disc containing 1,222 pages of information. The Facebook folks were routinely collecting data that he didn't think he ever consented to give them—such as his physical location and tons of stuff that he had long ago deleted from the site.

 

That might sound like a random little anecdote that doesn't have much to do with you. But if it even makes you pause for just a second to think about your own Facebook stockpile, you probably need to think a little bigger. What about all the other sites you visit during your Internet surfing? Let me ask you, have you ever actually stopped to read any of the privacy policies from sites that asked you to click "I agree" before you ventured in? Probably not.

 

Researchers Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor put together a little study called "The Price of Reading Privacy Policies" that pointed out how people rarely ever read the online policies, mainly because they're so ridiculously dense and cumbersome.

 

In fact, if you check out their paper here you'll see that McDonald and Cranor estimated that to actually read all those pages of stuff that we instantly click through, it would take everyone about 244 working hours per year. That's just a hair over 30 work days—or one month out of every 12 just reading lawyereeze. They also estimated that if you extrapolated that out to the whole nation in terms of total cost—in time alone—it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $781 billion a year.

 

On the other hand, since we're not reading all that stuff, we really don't know what kind of permissions we've handed over, do we?

 

Here's what Cranor told NPR recently:

 

When you go into a shopping mall, there's nobody following you around," Lorrie Faith Cranor said in an NPR article. "Imagine that as you go around your shopping mall, you have someone who is not only looking and commenting—but actually recording everything that you look at, every time you hesitate, every time you remark about something. And then, after you leave the shopping mall, and you go to your dentist's office, you go to the doctor's, you go to pick your kids up from school, they continue to follow you around, and everything is being recorded. I think that is what you have on the Internet.

 

Almost makes you think Max is on to something, doesn't it?

6 Comments Permalink Twitter Facebook Tags: discernment, internet, facebook, legal, privacy, policy, spying
1 2 3 ... 45 Previous Next

Actions

Popular Blog Posts

Incoming Links