An in class debate

We had a bit of a debate in class concerning the viewing of sex and violence - this is the initial position I defended. I apologize for any holes in the statements, I did leave some things out because I was talking to a bunch of people who had all seen and read the same material in preparation for class. But if it interests anyone, I'd be willing to discuss it further.

Watching Violence does not promote violence, but watching sex promotes sex. This is not an issue of whether or not watching something, anything, makes us do or want it. So the fact that watching someone eating pizza does not make you want to eat a pizza when you are not actually hungry is irrelevant, especially considering it works differently on different people. We are individuals, and therefore we do not react exactly the same way to anything put before us. And beyond that, we are inconsistent, so we do not act the same way each time the same thing is put before us.

There is a universal, and generally consistent thing that can be said, however. Anything put before us to view will drive us to think about that thing. Watching a political commercial is not designed to make you run from your living room and immediately vote for the candidate presented – they are designed to make you think about the candidate, so that you will remember them. Similarly, watching violence will cause us to think about violence, and watching sex will drive us to think about sex. It’s like saying “don’t think about pink elephants.” Short of a large amount of operant conditioning, we will think about pink elephants. I can fairly safely say that a good number of you are thinking about pink elephants right now – and considering the topics at hand, you may be thinking about pink elephants being violent, or pink elephants having sex. Anyway, the difference between sex and violence is what makes the outcome different. When we think about violence, we tend to ultimately end up thinking about it in a negative light, unless we are sociopaths. Whereas when we think about sex, because it is the beautiful wonderful thing that God made it to be, we end up thinking about it in a positive light, at least eventually. It doesn’t matter, necessarily that the images be arousing or not – our minds wander to positive thoughts about sex naturally, though there may be a long delay. Now, we are bound by societal rules and standards, so our actions are somewhat controlled. Most all of us here, for example do not believe that pre-marital sex is a good thing, so we won’t be going out and having sex anytime soon. But remove those standards and we might. Sex is a good thing – in the right context. I’m not saying we are controlled by our urges – otherwise those rules and standards would not work. But I would say that promoting sex does not necessarily mean that the subject matter causes one to engage in the sexual act – but it does bring it to mind, and in that way it does promote sex to a degree. I suppose it’s a matter of definition, but there is no need to jump to the conclusion that by promoting sex, a visual stimulus causes one to have sex.

As I said, this was my initial arguement - I had more to say as the discussion continued, but I didn't write it down, so I don't have it now. Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated.

In the land below Sodom and Gomorrah

This is a paper . . . and it's far from the conclusion of my thought on the issue of approaching film from a standpoint of faith . . . more likely it's just the beginning . . . but I'd love feedback, because I'm still formulating on this issue and I need to get out of my own head for a bit to consider it more fully. So here goes . . . please, please, PLEASE let me know what you think on this issue. We were to reference Niebuhr's 5 approaches to culture, but I'm really reaching a point where I don't like them . . . if that helps.

Cinema, from the Greek verb kinema, is a two dollar word for an eight to twelve dollar idea: movies. What was a novelty only a century ago has become more than a cultural phenomenon today. Have I really exercised neurons analyzing the cultural and theological ramifications of this icon of postmodern culture? Not hardly enough considering the amount of movies I see. Perhaps I should start, now even.
Maybe I should start back at the beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Okay, I should fast forward a bit. My introduction and exposure to cinema began with my parents, and even when I went to see a movie with my grandmother, it was ultimately up to my parents what we were allowed to see. My father will proudly tell you that his approach to movies, in general, is cautious, but my father is a consulting structural engineer: he approaches everything with caution (Harper). My mother is far less consistent. She avoids movies that highlight “man’s inhumanity to man,” which, coming from my mom, basically means violence. However, she is “a sucker for a schmaltzy romance,” and she has her favorite stars for whom she will give a film a great deal of grace in the areas of violence and indecent themes (Harper). Patrick Swayze is one of those men. By the time I was 12, I had probably seen Dirty Dancing and Ghost a good twenty times each, especially since we had them recorded back to back on a VHS tape.
Both of my parents agreed that when it comes to films, older is generally better. The list of favorite films included Captains Courageous, The Sting, Dr. Zivago, Hunt for Red October, The Fighting Seabees, King of Kings, Steal Magnolias, In Harm's Way, Disney's 'Aladdin', Star Wars (the first one), and Hunt for Red October (Harper). It should also be noted that my parents were both “Disney babies.” Both of my folks are over 50. Mom’s first film was either Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella; she was born in 1952. Dad’s first movie was Snow White; he was born in 1947 (Harper). I think I can safely tie my parents’ disappointment with newer films, at least in part, to the disappointing nature of the most recent Disney animated films prior to the introduction of Pixar. I am the generation X child of a pair of baby boomers, yet my first film was also Snow White, but it was a re-release.
I have realized, having asked my parents about their views of film in preparation for this paper, that my perception of their reactions was somewhat flawed. Of their two children, I was not the one who went and challenged their authority, or even their conception of how the world works, so the kind of realization that arises out of conflict never really happened to me. So, when I read their reaction to my asking what they thought about me participating in Hollywood, I was shocked. Neither of them are too happy I’m here. Dad doesn’t see it to be of much value aside from technical experience, a classic engineer’s perspective. Mom admitted she was glad it was temporary and that I’m leaving for Virginia at the end of December and not coming back. I had to laugh, though, when she said:
I think you can learn things (mostly how not to) out there, but it is not what I hope for you long term. Of course, I am a died-in-the-wool, East Coast, Southern woman who sees Hollywood as a step below Sodom and Gomorrah! (Harper)
Even I don’t think Hollywood is that bad, and I really don’t like it here.
Before I questioned them on the subject, I would have said my parents took the dialogue approach to the films they saw, as they are really fairly accepting in their movie choices, but now I know that they are much more cautious about movies than I had realized. I asked my mom how she approached movies and she summed up rather well the familial reaction to film: “I guess I mostly avoid any movie that I think would be a dramatic affront to my faith. Life is full of enough challenges without spending treasure on trash” (Harper). Ultimately, I believe they instilled a cautious but accepting approach to film in me. On the whole, we try to find out about a film before watching it. For them that means reading reviews in the newspaper; I prefer to watch trailers, usually on the apple website.
My experiences with my church growing up lend a distinct twist to this perspective. I am a Christian. I am not Catholic, but I most certainly am not Protestant. I was raised in the Episcopal Church. I have trouble understanding Protestant churches. I am far from a staunch traditionalist, but the historical and current trends in “the Church” that one finds in books or discussed in Christian College classes largely ignore non-Protestant churches. Beyond that, I think every congregation is different, and so despite what might be the official stance on a topic, what an individual might take away as their impression of the church’s stance could be vastly different, especially if that individual is a child.
That being said, cinema was largely absent from my church experience. Sure, we watched movies in the wee hours of the morning at a lock-in when we didn’t have the energy for much else. Services however, and sermons in particular, were times to discuss things of higher value. When I was eight, I’d heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth. When a sermon required illustration, our priest would pull an anecdote from a thinker or theologian, or tell something from personal experience. Church events often involved speakers or a live auction, wine, and good food. Church was about high culture. Lower forms of culture, film included, were simply not addressed. I can only assume that this is the case in more churches than I may have thought, as websites such as The Episcopal Church and Visual Arts, which stem from the National Church, make no mention of film as a form of art, or mention it at all (Episcopal Church and Visual Arts). In general, as far as I can see, the church I’ve grown up in neither approves nor disapproves of film of any sort; it simply doesn’t bother to talk about it.
College, for me, was a whole different experience. I arrived at Asbury College just after the advent of The Matrix, which was a point of contention on campus for various reasons, as well as the topic of a few sermons during chapel. Historically speaking, Asbury prides itself in it’s strong sense of community from which stems it’s community standards (Handbook). These standards have loosened slowly over the years; during my time at the school, screen print t-shirts became allowed as classroom attire. The community stance on film has waffled during my time at the college. Movies that have received an R rating are not allowed to be shown in the dormitories. Some years there have been exceptions, usually Braveheart, The Matrix, and The Patriot. Other years even those films were banned. Oddly enough, a raunchy film with a PG-13 rating would be allowed over an R rated film that had a strong message. But at least at Asbury film was a legitimate topic of conversation. Films are often examples in speeches and chapel talks, and many different films are discussed. From this, I would say that Asbury has a dialogue approach to film, with a slight restriction.
All of these approaches have affected my views of film over the course of my life, though it is safe to say that the biggest influence to my views has been the effect of the more closed minded aspects of any of these groups on non-Christians who subsequently developed negative views of Christianity. In considering these approaches I can see that I have purposefully kept my views open to more possibilities in order to relate to more non-Christians.
I am not my parents. I do not see Hollywood or film as such an evil thing as they do. In the same vein, I am willing to see a greater number of films, and often find deep meaning in things that my parents would refuse to watch.
I am not the church of my childhood. I do not view films as below art or higher culture. Film is the art of my era, and I can embrace it as such, finding meaning in it’s intricate language.
I am not Asbury College. I have much less problem viewing an R rated movie than a low quality film of any rating. I pull examples from films when I’m trying to explain a point of theology, but the similarity ends there.
I honestly think I’m situated somewhere along the line between caution and dialogue, but closer to dialogue. I have a penchant for “thinky movies;” the kind you can watch with a couple close friends, and then go discuss at Waffle House until you’re too tired to form sentences. In my mind, all truth is God’s truth, and as an extension of that all joy is God’s joy. If a film expresses real truth or brings real joy, then I see it as having value. There are things I try not to watch, however. I really have trouble finding value in what I call “highly disconnected postmodern awkwardly sad” films. I’m so disappointed in the outcomes of these films that I generally just avoid watching them. I think that is what keeps me from full dialogue status. I will only dialogue with movies I like to watch, not all of them.
Hollywood as an industry intrigues me, as do many of the films it produces. The moments when a director who does not know Christ chooses to express real truth (not to be confused with “reality”) in a film, I have to sit back and wonder just how that can happen. It’s fascinating to me. The Holy Spirit is truly a mystery. As human beings, we are often acting based on our sin nature; so how is it that we do great good from time to time? I know that Hollywood is something that God can speak through and has in the past. I think film is a powerful medium both in reflecting the current situation and in enacting change, and the fact that a non-Christian can send out a message of truth and hope when they do not yet know the source of that truth or that hope is what gives me hope that we will be seeing great things from this medium in the near future.
As of right now I see Hollywood as much like Palestine in the first century AD. It was dangerous to be a Christian in Palestine in the first century, death was often the consequence. In Hollywood it’s also not cool to be a Christian, and while the death isn’t literal, the death of one’s career can have as much meaning in this world of reputation and financial success. But there are openings where Christians can sow the seeds of love. Hollywood is not so far gone as Sodom and Gomorrah; it simply needs to be loved back into a more healthy frame of mind. In my opinion, God can use Hollywood, and He has.