It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Ugh, why give these people free publicity?
Agreed.
Never mind the bollocks.
I guess you eventually hear everything.
I LOVE the Potter books. Anyone that reads too much into them? I would say needs some help.
Harry an evil guy?
No chance in hell.
I think you can read a bit into the Potter stories and find some commentary on current world events. But I’ve never gotten even a hint of religion, good or bad, from the books.
This is another case of people not understanding the concept of ‘metaphor’.
How does America get brought into this? JKR is a Brit.
And I thought people loved this series because it got so many kids hooked on reading.
The books are a great series.
I like this series because now the young generation will develop a soft spot for Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Gary Oldman, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Richard Harris, John Hurt, John Cleese and a ton of other British greats most of us have adored well before these films.
Now if only we can find a role for Michael Caine…
Vey?
Michael Caine will work for beer.
What a jackass. Could this guy and people like him possibly make themselves look any more foolish? It’s called “fantasy” for a reason.
Do these same people forbid their kids from reading/watching The Wizard of Oz? The Chronicles of Narnia? The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings? How about Star Wars, while we’re at it. (Jedi abilities could easily be called “magic.”)
Someone should hand these people a dictionary open to the definition of “metaphor.”
The Jedi aren’t real???
What have I based my life around?
Kids should stay home and rent Battlefield Earth instead. God bless Xenu.
Oh wait, I think God is Xenu. So that doesn’t quite make sense. Apologies for my ignorance.
It still makes sense when you consider omnipotence. It makes all kinds of wacky things possible.
Obviously the people in Dover, PA, are big Harry Potter fans. How did Pat Robertson miss that?
This claptrap has been going on for six years now. Not only have these nuts lost, they keep losing, big time.
Cultures that grew up on the Wizard of Oz, and quickly embraced this series along with the Lord of the Rings and Narnia throughout the years just aren’t going to take this nonsense to heart.
There is no ‘some’ Christians about it. People of all walks of faith, in HUGE crowds, have read and watched Harry Potter with rapt attention and enjoyment. The final book is going to be a massive success, and the movie series has nothing much at all to be concerned about, even with mounting rivals.
Potter (300 million copies worldwide sold) faced Lord of the Rings (80 million copies worldwide sold, 25 million of those during the movie releases), and so Narnia (85 million copies sold) is just another friendly rival to keep the genre alive and well into the century.
Goblet of Fire is going to be fantastic!
I have a great deal of time for Christians and Catholics who feel maligned and ridiculed by Hollywood and popular culture. They are routinely stereotyped in films in the most vile ways (cannibals, inbreeders, rapists, bigots etc.) that would never be tolerated of any other demographic.
The Harry Potter films are not one of these films. The Potter films are exactly what Hollywood should be doing more of. Intelligent family fantasies that neither insult the intelligence of or ridicule the average person.
Sadly, when people like Steve Wohlberg go on a rant they hurt their own cause and give people in Hollywood just another excuse to justify thier own stereotypes of Christians. Wohlberg typifies a type of Christian that is not mainstream yet is portrayed as such.
What the Steve Wohlberg’s forget is there is no shortage of journalists and media types who jump at the chance to take an extreme view of a Christian or a Catholic and turn it into the mainstream, when it is not.
The Steve Wohlberg types should choose thier battles better.
I look forward to seeing Potter this weekend. I’m sure there are many Christians and Catholics who will do the same.
In his op-ed today, George Will describes the Kansas Board of Education as “the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people.” That applies just as well to this tool.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_16_05_GW.html
By the way, Nicol D writes, “I look forward to seeing Potter this weekend. I’m sure there are many Christians and Catholics who will do the same.” Catholics are not Christians? Since when?
Blackcloud,
Yes, Catholics are Christians. But Catholic philosophy is much different than that of the average Evangelical. There are many areas of similarity but it is also a different worldview. It is also extremly misunderstood.
I tend to differentiate between the two in my writing because they are in fact different.
By the way, the movie is actually fantastic. I had the pleasure of seeing it Monday night. It’s dark, violent, and actually not even close to a PG rating. After the initial misstep of hiring Columbus, Warner is taking this franchise in the right direction (although you can’t argue with Columbus’s casting choices).
Nicol D,
I kinda figured that’s what it was. It has been that way since 1517. But is that distinction used by both Catholics and Evangelicals, or just one of them? And where do mainline Protestant denominations fit? And Orthodox Christians? But they get ignored most of the time, anyway.
This reminds me of an article from Slate last year that argues Harry Potter is Catholic and Left Behind is Protestant.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100637/
“I have a great deal of time for Christians and Catholics who feel maligned and ridiculed by Hollywood and popular culture. They are routinely stereotyped in films in the most vile ways (cannibals, inbreeders, rapists, bigots etc.) that would never be tolerated of any other demographic.”
You could make the same argument about white people. “The majority of murderers and rapists on TV and in movies are white people. Obviously, white people are ridiculed and stereotyped by Hollywood.”
Or maybe — the majority of characters on TV and film are white people. Therefore they are likely to be the majority of bad guys as well as good guys.
I am tired of this “we’re so persecuted” attitude.
Christians are an overwhelming majority in this country. Christians dominate Congress, the White House and government in nearly every way imaginable. In the media, every character is presumed Christian until demonstrated otherwise. How many prime time network shows have leading characters who aren’t Christian? (I can think of… one.) How many movies in the past year? You don’t get to be the majority of pretty much everything and still claim persecution.
Jon Stewart making a joke about what a jackass Pat Robertson is does not constitute the persecution of Christians. It constitutes making a joke about a jackass who uses religion to justify his extremist views. And if some Christians don’t like the way that people like Pat Robertson represent their faith, maybe they should stand up and say so.
I think every Christian (who isn’t a person of color) and who feels persecuted should spend a week walking around in a yarmulke or a Muslim head scarf. Then they can talk about what persecution actually feels like — and it isn’t someone who happens to share your religion looking foolish on TV.
First, let me start off by saying that I think the guy profiled in the article is an alarmist and borderline wacko. He
“NOT A CHRISTIAN! I give it up to God I’m a GOD WARRIOR!”
Lynn,
“In the media, every character is presumed Christian until demonstrated otherwise.”
I think you are the only person along with a few on the hard New Left who assumes this.
Similarly, your likening of Christians to being white is also superfluous and perhaps even a little bit ignorant. Christianity is not indiginous to just the white population…it is a faith that has its origins in the middle east with practitioners around the world who are African, Asian, Indian etc. and come from all corners of the world.
Again, I think many people in Hollywood would find it very funny indeed that you assume that every character is Christian unless proven otherwise. Quite the opposite. Most assume they are not…unless proven otherwise.
I do not want to belabour the point Lynn, but it is a big wide world out there and different faiths come in different races. An aqaintance of mine is white and just converted to Islam after much study.
I suggest perhaps you quit letting John Stewart, ‘Marxist oppression theory’ and ‘identity politics’ be your window into the world and perhaps start talking to people on a real level…Christian and otherwise.
Your implicit assumption that all whites are Christian and all ethnic people are not betrays a level of non-worldliness that is rather naive.
Best.
“I think you are the only person along with a few on the hard New Left who assumes this.”
Really. So, I guess it’s a coincidence when TV characters celebrate Christmas in very special Christmas episodes every year? When they get married in churches? When their kids are baptized there? Yes, crazy me for assuming those people are, indeed, Christian. I don’t see TV families celebrating Ramadan or Passover or getting married in ashrams or mosques very often. I guess I’m missing those shows.
“Similarly, your likening of Christians to being white is also superfluous and perhaps even a little bit ignorant.”
I did not say that all Christians are white. I am well aware there are Christians of every race. You missed the analogy entirely.
I said that Christians in this country — like whites — constitute the majority. Therefore, they are likely to be the majority of “bad guys” in the media as well as the majority of “good guys.” Making the assumption that portraying a bad guy as a Christian is stereotypical or constitutes persecution of Christians is as dumb as assuming that portraying a white person as a bad guy stereotypes or persecutes whites.
“I suggest perhaps you quit letting John Stewart, ‘Marxist oppression theory’ and ‘identity politics’ be your window into the world and perhaps start talking to people on a real level…Christian and otherwise.”
Thanks for your suggestions. I watch Jon Stewart because he’s funny. As it happens, I get my news from a variety of sources, and I’m quite capable of reading them critically. Political theory is not my area, so I have never heard of “Marxist oppression theory” and have only the vaguest sense of what “identity politics” is. Neither is my window into the world, but thanks for trying to shove me into a pigeonhole where you can feel free to belittle and ignore me because I disagree with you.
I have friends of many backgrounds, including devout Christians of several varieties. One of my closest friends is very active in her church. I’ve never heard her claim, however, to be persecuted in the country where people who share her religion constitute the vast majority.
I think the bone of contention is this: Wohlberg believes in the reality of witchcraft. A sugarcoated portrayal of this evil, directed at youth, may unintentionally pique their interest in real witchcraft. In that context, his assertions aren’t beyond reason.
Lynn, I mostly agree with everything you say to rebuke the “Christians are persecuted by Hollywood” rap. I do think, though, that there is a certain knee-jerk Christian-bashing in some circles — I would never go as far as to say all of Hollywood, or even most of it, because very little in Hollywood is strongly opinionated enough for that. Nor is this to say I agree with any Christians who complain about being persecuted, because, as you say, they (we, I guess I could say, as a non-practicing Catholic and, as such, a Christian in the broadest sense) are the majority in this country. It *is* like accusations of “reverse racism.” Is it possible for a minority to be unfair or cruel to a white person? Sure. But that doesn’t mean that white people are subjected to any genuine institutional racism. Same thing goes for Christianity in this country, as far as I’m concerned.
However, I do get annoyed when anyone displays a smugly anti-Christian viewpoint. For example: I know a lot of people who were delighted by the movie Saved!… as far as I can tell, almost entirely because the movie makes fun of Christianity. This is not to say it does this in a particularly clever or even daring way; just that it does it at all is somehow considered subversive. And I have friends, who I consider oversensitive, who consider anything with any film or book with kind of Christian component to be “Christian propaganda,” basically. And I do find that tiresome — the sense of superiority towards Christianity.
My problem with a movie like Saved! is not that it makes fun of Christians, but that it’s so toothless about it (and attracts so many admirers who think anything that makes fun of Jesus is “edgy”). A genuine satire of Christianity, like Python’s Life of Brian, would not strike me as anti-Christian at all. It just bugs me when toothless anti-Christian posturing is considered hip.
(And, again, this is not something I believe that “Hollywood” as a whole practices.)
My problem with movies like “Saved” is that they’re not any good.
Nicol, I think the points Lynn has made are extremely accurate. I have been amazed at the number of times in the past couple weeks that I’ve seen major characters on a network TV show pray or talk about their faith in God or Jesus. It doesn’t bother me at all, but it’s definitely something I’ve noticed. I think it is just assumed that most of these characters are Christian, unless stated otherwise. Jesse makes good points as well. Saved is garbage, and just being anti-Christian for the hell of it is really narrow and pointless. But overall, Christians are the majority in this country, and I really feel like it is only the totally off-the-wall ones like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell that receive the vast majority of the persecution, and rightfully so. I don’t really see a vast anti-Christian conspiracy in Hollywood.
A Christian conspiracy? Now I’ve heard it all.
I could think of one TV show where the lead characters are of a non-Christian religion: Numbers (aka Numb3r5, aka CSI: Jew).
Eric N’s analysis is very interesting. It’s too bad that it’s so incredibly far removed from what is generally perceived as the Christian ‘problems’ with Harry Potter.
Last I checked a lot of Christians were buying the Potter books. And even reading them.
in how many tv shows is the main characters religion a factor in the show? 7th heaven? thats really about it.
“I could think of one TV show where the lead characters are of a non-Christian religion: Numbers (aka Numb3r5, aka CSI: Jew).”
Yup, that was the one I was thinking of, too. Not that they make a big deal about it — which is actually kind of nice. They are Jewish characters who don’t have to be Jewish and aren’t about being Jewish… the religious equivalent of color-blind casting.
One of the more interesting portrayals of a character’s religion I’ve seen in recent years was Bruce, the CSO on Judging Amy. He was a devout, unapologetic Catholic who questioned a lot of Amy’s assumptions about religion and religious people. It was interesting and honest without feeling heavy-handed or like it belittled anyone’s beliefs (or non-beliefs). Barbara Hall & Co. did a similarly good job with the mom on Joan of Arcadia and her return to Catholicism.
who actually watches numbers and judging amy?
Religion is a good character trait for characters. If they have faith or not. Gives actors something to play with. Certainly works better for Catholics and Jew’s on tv. A lot of different areas they could mine for stories.
I believe Numbers is the #1 rated show on Friday night. Granted, that’s a weak night for viewership.
“who actually watches numbers and judging amy?”
I like Numbers… so do most of my friends. It got an 8.0 rating last week, so I guess about 9 million people are watching it. Not counting those of us who TiVo 🙂
Another good conversation in here… and I love the tag CSI: Jew!
OK, here’s a question:
Does the fact that the media is still hyping Kong and Harry Potter as the two big box office movies of the season and not Disney’s Narnia reveal their anti-Christian bias…or just their inability to learn from what everyone else should have learned from Passion?
Narnia’s going to be HUGE, like War of the Worlds, maybe even Episode 3 huge and yet it’s getting largely ignored (e.g., see the three paragraphs in EW’s Holiday preview).
Assuming your premise is true, why assume this has anything to do with Christians? Narnia’s not exactly Passion of the Christ or Left Behind. While it’s certainly an allegory, that allegory can be ignored by those who wish to do so without negating the fact that it’s just a good fantasy story.
I’m also not sure your premise is true. Newsweek had a big article recently, and I know I’ve seen others. If Narnia isn’t getting covers and big spreads, could that simply be due to its lack of big names, or the perception that it’s mostly for kids?
It’s been no secret for decades now that Lord of the Rings has a lot of Catholic elements in the story. Yet it didn’t seem to suffer a lot of problems getting publicity, especially after the first movie was such a hit, both critically and at the box office.
Harry Potter is a movie proven franchise, and King Kong is “from the director of Lord of the Rings” and a remake of a beloved classic. In contrast, Narnia is merely a new adaptation of a classic book, with no stars bigger than Tilda Swinton. It’s starting at least one step down from the other two movies.
Narnia looks like a whiter shade of Willow. The Christian angle is the only talking point as far as I’m concerned. Andy Adamson made two cartoons, with all the heart and soul of a Happy Meal. The dark brooding Harry Potter I’m afraid is going to be the real obstacle. It may be like following a Henry Rollins song with one from Enya.
Eric, your post was very enlightening.
If anyone wants to talk religious symbolism, how about the Superman Returns teaser? Was Jor-El sending us Kal-El, or was he sending us JC?
Definately JC!
Lynn,
Thanks for your comments.
“So, I guess it’s a coincidence when TV characters celebrate Christmas in very special Christmas episodes every year? When they get married in churches? When their kids are baptized there?”
What exactly are you watching? A very special episode of Will & Grace where they all gather around a tree is not what I call Christmas. It’s what I call selling time to advertisers. Find me a show where the Christ child is mentioned and I’ll say it’s a Christian depiction…other than that, it’s only Santa Day.
As for married; I haven’t seen a film in years where characters get married in a church that is shown in a positive light. Usually the depiction is of a generic chapel with nary a cross in site or the ever typical outdoor wedding by some arches in a backyard with a justice of the peace in a suit.
As for baptism? What…The Godfather?
Most of these sacraments are usually only depicted in the context of a family that is ethnic (Irish, Italian) and then afterward they go off and whack somebody because they are part of the mob (ie. Mystic River and first communion). Virtually always in a negative, ironic light.
“Making the assumption that portraying a bad guy as a Christian is stereotypical or constitutes persecution of Christians is as dumb as assuming that portraying a white person as a bad guy stereotypes or persecutes whites.”
I try to be patient and polite with these things Lynn…I do try. But then you have to go and do the cliche…Christian argument ‘dumb’ routine. It is so boring.
Your argument is not based in logic. As with everything, context is key.
It is not the what…it is the why.
When a character is good or bad because he/she is white the inference and implication is never that they are good or bad because they are white. The character is written with a history indiginous to the story. These circumstances then provide the reasons why they are good, bad or indiffernet…not their race.
Conversely, 9 times out of 10 whenever it is brought into the story that a character is Christian or Catholic, it is to either show them as a hypocrite or depict that their crime is directly caused by their belief in Christianity. (ie. Sin City, The Cell, Mystic River, Magdalene Sisters etc.)
Now I have no problem with someone doing this from a free speech perspective…but I can rarely find an alternative. Similarly, one is allowed to portray the negatives of Christianity to an extreme and visciousness that would never be allowed of another group. On E-Ring the other night I read the villains were evil Christians trying to blow up a mosque. Is that true? Let’s hear it for reality programming. Do you think they would allow that depiction of any other group…
This is the difference.
An actor being chosen for a role who is white is made for many reasons that are aesthetic. To write a character as deliberatly Christian or Catholic is a character/story choice…just like writing a character who is gay, ethnic or what have you. It informs the choices of the character.
That these choices can more often than not be seen as a negative, points to an entertainment culture that is ignorant at best, overtly malicious at worst.
Also, the assumption that you and some others make that all characters in every movie and TV show are to be assumed as Christian unless otherwise stated is quite frankly one of the most bizarre ideas I have ever encountered in my years studying film.
Why? Well you say that it’s because Christians are the majority. OK, let’s take this notion seriously. At best then you should assume that a majority of characters are Christian; not all. Which ones? Do you also assume ten percent of all film characters are gay? What percentage are pagan…atheist…agnostic? This is an illogical argument.
Even more to the point, by doing this you rob the artist/author/actor/director of their authorship over a character and story. If no info is given…why would you assume they are Christian? Do you assume a Barbra Streisand character is Christian unless she specifies? She might have issue with that. Howabout Tom Cruise? Jodie Foster?
Also…your core priniciple, that a majority cannot be persecuted is also flawed. Now, first off, I never used the words ‘conspiracy’ or ‘persecution’. But in principle, of course a majority can be persecuted by a minority; that is the root of communism and fascism. Now I am obviously not saying this is true of America, but the truth is so much more complex than the B&W world you have depicted. It’s more nuanced than that.
There is no conspiracy in Hollywood, only a culture of assumption. Do you actually think any other groups other than Catholics could be depicted as literal cannibalistic flesh eaters in this day and age. Jews, gays, Muslims…? Really? Al Pacino wouldn’t touch The Merchant of Venice unless it addressed the offensive elements. 24 has also always made to sure to qualify and apologize for any questionable depiction of Islam it might have.
As for your other question about why are there no depictions of Ramadan and Passover? That is a very good question. You are asking the wrong person however. You should direct you question to the powers that be in Hollywood. Last time I checked, it wasn’t being run by right-wing-Bush- loving-Christian Fundamentalists. Or maybe I just didn’t get the memo.
Finally…and I acknowledge that this is a totally inappropriate forum for this subject matter but seeing as you brought up the phrase ‘persecution’ and not I…I humbly suggest you do some research into the state of many University and high school codes of conducts in America. You may be very surprised at who gets ‘persecuted’ in these institutions and who does not.
Best.
Cinema is its own religion guys. More so than being raised Catholic is to me now and, not to put words in his mouth, I’m sure DPs connection to movies is at least as deep as his Jewish faith. It has a similar effect, with it’s own history and dialectics… saints and demons… ambiguous truths. But above all it inspires!
And in this context of “movies as religion,” Narnia is too much in the friendly middle (Episcopal?) to make waves in the media. At least this week. As soon as it shows to be something “industry signifigant” the ball will certainly roll. But until then we’re left with chatting around the film.
Anyway, let’s hear it for Superman!
Nicol, you make a strong case, but you are also clouded by emotion.
You say that movie characters are typically only presented as religious in order to then demean that religiousness as hypocritical or perverse, as with various serial killers, etc. But the same is true for any group. You don’t see characters who are atheists in movies unless their character arc is to bring them towards some new understanding of faith. For example, Laura Linney’s character in The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
As far as the idea about how characters are implicitly presented in movies, I think we could all agree that mainstream movies want their characters to be as identifiable as possible for their audiences. As a result, characters are non-denominationally ‘religious’ so as to not rock the boat. As a result, if you’re a fundamentalist, you’re probably going to be disappointed that movie characters seem too secular. And if you’re a hardcore atheist, you’re going to be disappointed that movie characters are too religious. Movies play to the middle, more or less.
By the way, one of my favorite religious movies of all time is on MCN’s front page right now: the original War of the Worlds.
jeffmcn-
I think you’re right about movies playing the part of the middle man…rocking the religious boat isn’t something Hollywood has sought out much. I disagree with your comment that Nicol is being emotional. I thought her posting seemed quite composed and rational. People who put themselves on the side of the religious in conversations like this are often labeled as emotional…sometimes justifiably. I wonder if there was any way Nicol’s point could have been made so to avoid the emotional charge.
Anyway, I think Nicol’s post is certainly good enough to merit that responses to it engage the ideas not just throw out names because you assumed to know the motives behind the post.
Thanks, Nicol. You got me scouring my brain trying to recall specific references overt, traditional religious symbolism in film…Shyamalan’s Signs was an exceedingly popular film which cuts against the grain of your point…Serenity/Firefly is another…but I think that these stick out to me because they are so much an exception to the rule.
I’m pretty sure my list of movies which portray deeply Christian characters as a positive model for religious life would be shorter than my list of movies that portray deeply Christian characters are ironic people whose live in a world of paradox between their religious beliefs and their actions (e.g., the Catholics in Saving Private Ryan or Boondock Saints).
…and what about that Superman trailer? Wow, if I were take the name Kal-el out of Brando’s voiceover and hand out its text out on the street, 9 out of 10 people would assume that was taken from the Bible. Should Warners hire that marketing firm that did Passion and Narnia? I think the story in Donner’s Superman made it open to such an marketing approach. Assuming Singer is on the same page as Donner…and he’s given every indication that he is…he might be missing a huge market if they don’t bang on the doors of churches.
Eric N – “Should Warners hire that marketing firm that did Passion and Narnia?”
If I were to be in charge of this decision, I would be venture to say no. Warner Bros. by now clearly has a growing, if not full, marketing team for this project already.
The firm’s current approach still looks anemic at best, and like exploitation at worst. The allegory of Narnia as worthy of being held beside a biblical story doesn’t impress many, and looks hamhanded to others. This firm thinks that they have found a new audience to use, and results will likely show that this audience has already been attending movies like any other crowd before.
Can Narnia open first before we place it at the top of the marketing decision chart?
“What exactly are you watching? A very special episode of Will & Grace where they all gather around a tree is not what I call Christmas. It’s what I call selling time to advertisers. Find me a show where the Christ child is mentioned and I’ll say it’s a Christian depiction…other than that, it’s only Santa Day.”
You’ve now changed the question from whether the characters are Christian to whether you consider it to be a Christian depiction. My argument was that characters are Christian until depicted otherwise, and that showing them celebrating a religious holiday further demonstrates that. So if they have a tree in their house and exchange gifts and have Christmas dinner? I pretty much consider them Christian, whether you consider them to be sufficiently religious or not.
“As for baptism? What…The Godfather?”
The TV show Close to Home, about two weeks ago, had a church baptism of the lead character’s daughter. Judging Amy had a church baptism as well, and other storylines incorporating religion that didn’t belittle anybody. Joan of Arcadia did, too. The West Wing has a devout Catholic as the president. We’ve seen him and his family attending mass and taking communion.
I think TV actually provides better examples than movies because (good) TV shows deal with different aspects of characters’ lives over time. Movies usually don’t have time for matters about the way people live their normal lives unless critical to a plot point.
“Conversely, 9 times out of 10 whenever it is brought into the story that a character is Christian or Catholic, it is to either show them as a hypocrite or depict that their crime is directly caused by their belief in Christianity.”
See above re plot points; but I could come up with plenty of counterexamples. The priest in Exorcism of Emily Rose comes to mind, as does Susan Sarandon’s character in Dead Man Walking, and Matthew McConaghey’s character in Contact, off the top of my head. I’ve never watched the show but I seriously doubt the preacher-dad on Seventh Heaven has been depicted as a bad guy for the past nine years. Law & Order has shown compassionate, devoted priests. The Skeet Ulrich character on the (sadly quickly canceled) show Miracles was a person of deep faith, brought up by a priest who was like a father to him. So yeah, I think there are plenty of examples of good Christians and Catholics out there, neither hypocritical or evil because of their religion.
“Similarly, one is allowed to portray the negatives of Christianity to an extreme and visciousness that would never be allowed of another group. On E-Ring the other night I read the villains were evil Christians trying to blow up a mosque. Is that true? Let’s hear it for reality programming. Do you think they would allow that depiction of any other group…”
Oh, please. That show — in its short life so far — has had Muslim extremists and Colombian drug dealers, among others. The villians were based on right-wing militias (are you saying they don’t exist?), and it was very clear — in fact, explicitly stated — that they did not represent all Christians.
“Even more to the point, by doing this you rob the artist/author/actor/director of their authorship over a character and story. If no info is given…why would you assume they are Christian?”
Actually — most of the time I don’t think anything about it unless it has something to do with the story being told. But in general? Sure, I assume most characters on TV are Christian, probably Protestants of some variety — just like I make the very realistic assumption that characters are heterosexual unless told/shown otherwise. Because most people in the United States — a vast majority — are both. Yes, that means sometimes I’ll be wrong. But usually, I’ll be right. Most of us who aren’t Christian (with certain specific exceptions) have grown up in this country surrounded by people who are. It’s just a fact, and not a negative one, either, but a fact nonetheless.
“There is no conspiracy in Hollywood, only a culture of assumption. Do you actually think any other groups other than Catholics could be depicted as literal cannibalistic flesh eaters in this day and age. Jews, gays, Muslims…?”
I don’t know what you’re referring to with the cannibalistic flesh eaters, so I have no context for that. But Muslims are depicted as terrorists in the entertainment media all the time, just as Central/South Americans are depicted as drug dealers. I’d expect those stereotypes have found their way more deeply into our cultural stereotypes than the Catholics-as-flesh-eaters. If it was that deeply ingrained, I think I’d have heard of it.
“Last time I checked, it wasn’t being run by right-wing-Bush- loving-Christian Fundamentalists.”
You’re certainly right there. It’s run by corporations whose primary agenda is profit.
“Finally…and I acknowledge that this is a totally inappropriate forum for this subject matter but seeing as you brought up the phrase ‘persecution’ and not I…I humbly suggest you do some research into the state of many University and high school codes of conducts in America. You may be very surprised at who gets ‘persecuted’ in these institutions and who does not.”
I’ll start with the Air Force Academy.
You’re right, this is not the forum to get into this. And anyone can come up with extreme examples of anything — that still doesn’t mean there is institutionalized, insidious persecution of Christians in the United States. You want to tell me it exists in China or Saudi Arabia? I will totally agree with you. But here? Sorry, no.
JeffMCM,
Thanks for your response.
You say my response is emotional; but you do not say why. Merely labeling my response as emotional but not explaining why does not make it so. Instead, I think I am going upstream against a stereotype that defacto states all arguments in favour of religion is emotional.
As far as movies playing to the middle. I respectfully disagree. If this is true, then on average I should be able to find a film on virtually every important subject matter regardless of ideology. Yet