A lot of you just stay home and
lament, “There is nothing worth seeing at the movies anymore.”
If you love movies as much as I do you keep going and
looking and hoping. You share my frustration over getting
ambushed over and over again.
I’m not talking about R-rated
movies. We expect to get assaulted if we step across that
line. You can’t call willful risk an ambush. If we go into
the pass having been warned there are bandits hiding in the
rocks who want to steal our souls — well, we get what we deserve
I guess.
But I am talking PG-13,
PG and even G! Last night a young father was lamenting the
fact that all three G-rated animated films to which he took
his little kids this summer included flatulence as “humor.”
It may not be an issue of value but it is certainly an issue
of class. And we wonder why the dignified fringe of culture
is frayed and falling apart.
Movies are one of the most powerful
influences in our culture. Much of our perception about people,
places and ideas comes from the movies. Like it or not, what
happens at the movies influences our culture our lives and
the lives of our kids and grandkids in significant ways.
We all love those great movies
that keep us on the edge of our seat and make us laugh and
cry and leave us cheering for the hero with a lump in our
throat — the kind of movies that celebrate courage and conscience,
respect women, family and fidelity. There are far too few
of these films anymore that don’t ambush our values
somewhere along the way.
Even the “good movies” all seem
to have those “two or three inappropriate to awful scenes
or obligatory character” that ruin it — and rarely important
to the story.
Special effects may be getting
bigger, but virtues and values in most movies have gone missing
altogether. We need to do something about it.
We have a bold and workable plan
to do just that — Audience Alliance Motion Picture Studios
(AAMPS) . I keep talking about
it. We promised an announcement November 17. The buzz began,
the word went out and the positive response from a few top
producers in Hollywood prompted us to retool our plans just
a bit. Some seasoned pros in the main-stream movie business
are likewise sick and tired of Hollywood’s R-rated agenda
and would love to make some great movies their kids can watch.
Is it possible to infuse great
stories with the virtues and values of godliness — and
all that that implies — without depreciating the premise
the power or entertainment value? I asked that question in
Write the Truth, (See Part II )
The answer is absolutely!
For some writers and directors it may require a serious paradigm
shift. From seeing man as animal to man as trailing clouds
of glory. From envisioning man as beast
to man as god in embryo. But I am convinced that using
a matrix of virtues and values to evaluate a story, measure
a theme or re-define a character can significantly enhance
a motion picture and ultimately provide a more positive, richer
and more satisfying experience for all the audience.
(AAMPS matrix
of virtues and values)
Consider Violence
The core of all conflict has
seeds in the cosmic war of heaven. The struggle between good
and evil is truly universal. Conflict is the essence of drama.
Struggle demands action and action can turn violent.
The issue becomes one of how
to depict conflict and violence, not whether it belongs in
a story. When considered through a lens of values, the depiction
is no longer seen in graphic detail and the splatter of blood
but as reactive horror on the faces of the witnesses.
The audience will carry the story in their imaginations without
the graphic details.
I know it is possible. I have
done it. I filmed the fierce and bloody battle of the Alamo.
I recreated the terrible conflicts of the Civil War. Both
depicted violence, conflict, injury and death. Either
film is suitable for a general audience.
What a filmmaker believes about
who and what man is makes a significant difference in how he
thinks about life, how he treats death, and the way he depicts
conflict and violence when it is essential to the story. Stories
of great conflict can be told without gory special effects
and graphic images on screen.
There are challenges, of course.
The depiction of war is not easily handled in ways that protect
the audience from disturbing images without minimizing the
suffering and sacrifice that may be crucial to the story.
Mormons often quip — nervously and humorously, of course —
that the horrific atrocities and battles of great slaughter
reported in the Book of Mormon [Moroni
9:8-10] would require an R-rated movie if accurately depicted
on the screen. Even that great conflict can be depicted without
ambushing the audience and elevated by the imposition of virtues
and values — but that is a discussion for another day.
The question in the portrayal
of violence must always be the integrity of the story versus
gratuitous images for some other purpose. Being ambushed at
the movies is most often the filmmakers going beyond the mark
and far beyond what is essential for the audience to “get
it.” Clint Eastwood’s decision to roll a severed head across
the beach in Flag of Our Fathers is the perfect example
of way beyond the mark. No one needed that image to
“get it.”
The discussion over violence
in films and its impact on the audience will rage on. There
are several particularly violent films at theaters as we speak.
Anne Thompson, writing in the Hollywood Reporter, asks
the pertinent question, “Where is the line between violent
and too violent?”
The debate between authentic
versus contrived and accurate versus gratuitous finds esoteric
ears in Hollywood, while 70% of mainstream America will stay
away from these movies altogether. Apocalypto, Blood Diamond, and Flag of our
Fathers have audiences covering their eyes and feeling
ambushed by even more gore and violence than they agreed to
going in, but Happy Feet is making all the money. Why
doesn’t Hollywood get that?
Martin Scorsese is being touted
for an Oscar as “American Cinema’s most vigorous classicist”
for directing his absolutely worthless — and violent as always
— new film, Departed, which arrived in theaters this
fall on the magic carpet of Hollywood hype. It is violent,
amoral, and populated by characters we just can’t ever quite
care about. They all get killed in the end anyway. So what?
As a voting member of the Academy,
I get these movies sent to me on DVD by the studios. Departed
is now in the trash compactor. While I argue that most stories
can be told in ways that endow them with value and the characters
who populate the tale with real virtue,
it has to be said that there are some stories that just don’t
deserve to be told.
It is movies like Departed
and the other 60% of Hollywood’s R-rated movies that truly
remind us of the chasm between Mainstream Hollywood and Main
Street America. This film is what we hate about Hollywood.
Welcome to the religion of the primordial slime. Man is an
animal. There is no god.
Martin Scorsese has managed to
make an incredibly well crafted, well-photographed and well-acted
movie that has zero redeeming social value. This movie was
not made for that 70% of the audience who say Hollywood is
out of touch with their values. It is packing theater in foreign
countries and we wonder why the world’s perception of America
is so negative. Shame on you, Marty!
Recognizing the religion of Hollywood
in movies like Departed is easy. Frontal assault, full salvo with plenty of advance warning.
Unreliable as it may be, the MPAA rating board does wave the
red flag on movies rated R. We are warned. We can duck or
get out of the way. We can simply stay out of the pass ‘cause
we’ve been told the bad guys are hiding inside. It is the
subtle subterfuge and unexpected ambush so often hiding in
movies rated PG-13 or even PG may be even more dangerous.
Consider Love and Sex
In Hollywood, of course, “love”
and “sex” have long since become the same thing. When a movie comes along
that understands the conspicuous differences between Agape,
Philia and Eros, we want to stand up and cheer.
The depiction of sex in movies
reflects the core belief of the filmmaker(s). End of story!
If we are creatures evolved by fate to “a higher form of organism
in the Kingdom of Animalia,” our
basic instincts are justifiably animal lusts to be acted upon
and our urges restrained only by rapidly diminishing social
mores. It is disturbing that the religion of Hollywood discounts
any modicum of lingering social restraint as outdated Puritanism
and reason that since “there is no God,” chastity is outmoded
superstition.
If we are created in the image
of God, commanded to subdue our carnal nature and treat our
mortal bodies as temples destined for a resurrected eternity
our instinct to procreate is seen as a divine appointment.
Sexual expression must be coupled with love, faith, fidelity
and marriage.
When you willingly go see — or
are unexpectedly ambushed by — an illicit love scene or depiction
of “love” portrayed as sex that is inconsistent with your
values, you may rightly surmise one of three things. The filmmakers
— beginning with the writer — are exposing their core beliefs
and values. Or the filmmakers are endeavoring to satisfy
what they believe to be the core beliefs and values of those
empowered to get their movies made. Or the filmmakers are
exploitive without conscience or care of consequence.
The Guardian (PG-13) is
the story of Ben Randall (Kevin Costner), an aging United
States Coast Guard rescue swimmer. His team is killed during
a horrific rescue mission. His wife is leaving him. He struggles
to cope. He is asked to retire or become an instructor at
the USCG training school in Louisiana. He takes the latter.
Enter the young hot shot, Jake
Fischer (Ashton Kutcher) — determined to be the best and beat the old man’s
records. The movie offers little we’ve not seen before. Some
call it Top Gun meets Officer and a Gentleman.
There are great special effects. The training goes on too
long. The second act lasts forever, but it was a good Friday
night date with Dagny — “except
for a couple of inappropriate scenes.” And there it is
again!
Jake bets his buddies he can
persuade a girl at the bar to leave with him. The girl, a
local schoolteacher (Melissa Sagemiller), has heard every pickup line before, of course.
She agrees to leave with him only if he’ll split the bet but
reminds him, “You’re not the first Coast Guard Cadet that’s
ever come to town.” In spite of not wanting to get involved
with a guy shipping out in six weeks, she agrees to sleep
with him anyway. But only on one condition. “We keep it casual.”
That is the dominating theme
of the love story subplot. She agrees to “casual sex” as long
as there is no emotional entanglement. This is PG-13! Is
there a worse message a movie could send to teenagers? It
is a tenant of the Hollywood religion: “Sex is OK as ‘casual’
recreation, as long as love, affection, service, unselfishness
and chastity are avoided at all costs.” Yikes!
What if the filmmakers embraced
the Judeo-Christian belief in man’s immortal soul? What if
the screenwriter, Ron L. Brinkerhoff, had had the courage
to endow these lovely and likable characters with the values
and virtues of a lovely garden rather than a muddy slough?
Nothing would have been lost.
A wonderful layer could have been added by replacing casualness
with commitment, promiscuity with purity, and animal lust
with the restraint of “pure and chaste from afar.” The movie
would have been PG and much more romantic.
A film I liked a lot this year
is The Illusionist. Todd McCarthy of Variety
called it “a bizarre story of intrigue, magic and murder in
turn-of-the-century Vienna.” It is the tale of a stage magician
named Eisenheim, who has extraordinary
powers. He falls in love with a woman who turns out to be
the girl from his teenage infatuation. She becomes engaged
to the prince, and Eisenheim uses
his powers to recover his lost love and subvert a plot to
overthrow the empire. Great stuff.
My wife is very particular about
movies. Our Friday date night challenge is finding one she
wants to see. The Illusionist ended up on both our
lists. For one thing, I’d pay money to watch Paul Giamatti
read the phone book for ninety minutes. Dagny
and I liked The Illusionist a lot. EXCEPT for that
one scene!
Sofie
(played by Jessica Beil) rides through the night to be with Eisenheim, creating a wonderfully romantic love scene. Before
anything gets uncomfortable, we see and hear all we need to
know to move the story forward. In the magic light of the
roaring hearth they embrace, then kiss and Eisenheim
discovers the necklace that holds the secrets of their past.
They kiss again. Terrific.
End of scene. No, wait! The scene is over, but the movie
goes on. We are ambushed very unexpectedly for another 45
seconds with extreme closeups of naked skin, faces, hands and body parts writhing
about to luscious music.
The movie is PG-13! Cut to the
next scene, stupid! We get it! Cut to the storm outside.
Cut to wind in the trees. Cut to the horse thrashing about,
but for goodness sakes don’t spoil a great movie for the sake
of 45 seconds of inconsequential images that add nothing to
the story! Dagny covered her eyes
and hummed to herself.
Was it written that way? I wonder.
Did Steven Millhauser include the love scene in his short story? Is the
talented writer/director Neil Burger a secular humanist? Why
did he opt to reduce his otherwise marvelous and moral characters
to the level of their basic instincts to titillate a theater
full of PG-13 teens? It baffles me. Truly.
Neil Burger is a very talented
writer and director. His films are close to being on the highest
plateau of value and virtue. Compared to the truly salacious
garbage and sexual deceptions masquerading as PG-13 films,
it is misleading to use The Illusionist as my example.
But that is my point exactly. That’s why we get ambushed over
and over again.
“To the pure all things are pure.”
That’s what Paul told Titus. “but
to them that are defied and unbelieving is nothing pure; but
their mind and conscience is defiled.” (Titus 1:15).
Consider Language
Little Miss Sunshine was
the first film to arrive in the annual deluge of screeners
from Hollywood studios to voting members of the Academy of
Motion Pictures. It is the story of a family’s determination
to take 7-year-old Olive from Albuquerque to California to
compete in the Little Miss Sunshine Pageant.
For once we have a story that
features a nuclear family with a mother, father and children.
We learn that “nuclear” and “normal” are not synonymous in
this charming little tale as the personalities and problems
of each emerge. The characters are well-drawn and quirky.
The premise might be, “When a family pulls together and self
interests yield to a common cause, emotional healing takes
place and good things happen.” The result is a funny,
positive upbeat movie that I would recommend, “except for
the language and a couple of scenes.”
Why do we always have to say
that?
A couple of scenes with Grandpa
spouting vulgar dialogue landed the film an R-rating. Profanity
defines his character. Played brilliantly by Alan Arkin,
grandpa’s cynical resignation is intended to be funny. People
in the movie business I admire argue that his profane dialogue
is essential to Grandpa’s character, and given Arkin’s
brilliant portrayal I can almost agree.
But do we draw a line in the
sand or don’t we? The question is this. If sifted upward
through a values filter, could creative writers find other
ways to keep the raspy edginess of the grandpa character without
punching holes in the audience’s ears? I believe the answer
is yes!
Can we ever argue that “good
writing” justifies the inherent evil of profane, vulgar, crude
and blasphemous dialogue? Isaiah didn’t go to many movies
or enjoy the convenience of Netflix,
but I wish he were here now to be the film critic for the
LA Times. “Woe unto them that call evil good and good
evil; that put darkness for light and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah
5:21)
Back to Little Miss Sunshine.
I am convinced that writer Albert Berger, director Jonathan
Dayton, and actor Alan Arkin could
have found alternative ways to preserve the cynical, foul-mouthed
coarseness of grandpa without resorting to words that mandated
the R-rating. It’s not only about the rating. It is ultimately
about the overall value of the piece. Filmmakers too often
forget that the audience judges a movie based on what is left
in. Not on what goes out.
Little Miss Sunshine is
an otherwise worthy little film that could have been a PG-13
or even a PG movie. The film became the darling at Sundance
and was snatched up by Fox Searchlight for $10.5 million.
It is sadly predictable that had Little Miss Sunshine
been made with a PG-13 or PG rating, it would not likely have
caused such a stir. The perception of edginess and the influence
of the Hollywood religion at Sundance was unquestionably a
factor in the break-through success of the picture.
An R-rating on a film about a
family taking their 7-year old daughter to the Little Miss
Sunshine Pageant makes no sense — unless you understand the
curious morality and mindset of Hollywood. A primary tenet
of the Hollywood religion is that since there is no God, there
is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no virtue. If there
is no virtue, then purity is an illusion. Is it any wonder
so many movies defile and assault the reality of God by embracing
the carnality of man?
There is something you can do
about it. Click here for information
about Audience Alliance Motion Picture Studios.
