Confidence or resignation?
posted by CS | 5:14 PM 
Queen Spoo sent me the link to an interesting commentary by Michael Medved. The crux of the biscuit is his assertion that the public response of Christians to entertainment media which are antithetical or antagonistic toward Christian values is quiet these days, because it is a mature movement. That is to say that Christians have grown in their tactics so as to not descend into the traps supposedly set for them by their antagonists.
This new confidence on the part of conservative Christians highlights the vast gulf between this nation's religious conservatives and the vulnerability and hysteria of Islamist militants in the rest of the world. Widespread rhetorical and real-world violence in response to rude caricatures in an obscure Danish newspaper doesn't express religious strength or zeal but reflects, rather, an underlying sense of powerlessness and desperation.But is it really confidence through maturity... or the ambivalence of resignation?
2 Comments:
Yes, when I read the article, I hadn't thought about the lack of response as being a sign of maturity so as to not look "childish" with the protests, like with "Last Temptation of Christ."
However, the silence may rather indicate either the subtle approval/tolerance attitude of the more liberal Christians vs. the ho-hum/defeatist attitude of the more conservative ones.
It could be either, or both.
A third alternative: Silent protest by not attending. Most of the recently nominated Oscar movies had a relatively low box office, which shows that the MPA obviously is biased using theme, rather than $$$/public popularity, for their nominations. Considering that especially when the combined numbers of attenders of these several movies didn't even equal the attendance of one movie alone: "The Chronicles of Narnia/The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." Perhaps lack of funds = Lack of "unacceptable" movies.
I actually do not have the slightest of problems with the MPAA or whomever choosing to honor whatever films it desires. The last thing I want to see happen is anything further toward a simple majority ("true democracy") in awarding merit. Quantifying the artistic merit of a film based on box office receipts does not seem reasonable.
What I do not like is the universal merit afforded by the receipt of an Oscar. It is as if to say, since a film receives one award for "best picture", it must actually be the finest film produced that year.
There have been enumerable awards created, in part, to deal with this very issue.
I must admit, if I hear or read a film has received an Oscar for "best picture" or "best director", I am inclined to consider it more closely as something I might see, if I have not already. Yet, I take this only as a recommendation, from a group whose pronouncements are inconsistent.
"Brokeback Mountain" may very well be the best film it could have been. I think this is what tends to get rewarded. It may be a disturbing story (?) and the choices of those portrayed may have been terrible for themselves and their families... and society in-general, but it may still actually be a well-made film.
And I can logically hold in my mind the concept that a film is well-made, yet one I will never see based on the content.
There's probably plenty of well-done pornography.
There's probably one 200 proof grain-alcohol that is heads above all the rest.
There's clearly some gangster rap that rises above the rest. Some is almost musical.
For me, it comes down to what is profitable for the spirit. Particularly via Philippians 4:8 ("Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.") and Titus 3:8 ("This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.")
Post a Comment
<< Home