Showing posts with label Michael Medved. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Medved. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Movies and the Culture Wars

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about movies. This follows this post about music.  For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.


Movies and the Culture Wars

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
The 63rd Golden Globe Awards in January 2006 shocked some people with four awards validating director Ang Lee's movie Brokeback Mountain . Academy Award nominations followed, and this story about two homosexual cowboys received considerable media attention and promotion around the world. The movie attempts to warm the audience to a sensual relationship between two married men. These are not the cowboys of your parents' era.
My generation could hardly imagine John Wayne falling in love with another cowboy. I don't think it would have made Clint Eastwood's day either. Yet Hollywood producers try to convince us that we must lighten up. Cowboys used to be quintessentially masculine role models that spoke of a lifestyle that defined bedrock values including displaying men as leaders of traditional families.
Shaping our culture
There was a time when movies validated traditional Christian values rather than pushing the limits of what many thought to be appropriate. We have come a long way from the epic Civil War picture, Gone With the Wind, first shown on the big screen in late 1940. At the time this cinematic showpiece was accused of pushing the limits when Rhett Butler said a four-letter word and left his shirt unbuttoned. Many movie theaters boycotted this risqué rendition of Margaret Mitchell's tale of sacrifice and hardship during America's bloody Civil War.
The makers of movies and television shows have often been accused of moving society along a liberal path, all the while insisting that they just reflect the latest trends.
For Christians, this is another test of our bedrock values. Either we spot the slippery, moral slide, or we float slowly along with the murky current of change. At the end time, the Bible reveals that the state of mankind will become worse and not better. “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13 2 Timothy 3:13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
American King James Version×
).
A movie comparison
A good illustration of this remaking of American values is revealed in two different movies based on a similar script: Academy Award winners High Noon in 1952 and Unforgiven in 1992 .
Peter Gibbon, in his book A Call to Heroism , makes the case that people today have a different view of heroes and a different culture to evaluate them. He compares these two movies produced 40 years apart. In the earlier version, Gary Cooper won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of a U.S. marshal in High Noon. Forty years later, Unforgiven also won four Academy Awards including Best Picture.
High Noon opens in the morning sunshine with a wedding, while Unforgiven opens in the night rain in a brothel. High Noon starts with a kiss; Unforgiven with the slashing of a prostitute. Will Kane, the hero of High Noon , is a U.S. marshal; Will Munny, the hero of Unforgiven , was a reformed killer and alcoholic reduced to pig farming. High Noon was set in the town of Hadleyville; Unforgiven in a town called Big Whiskey whose sheriff, Little Bill, was a sadist.
High Noon ends with order restored. Unforgiven ends essentially as it opens–in the dark and rain, in sorrow and violence, with anarchy ascendant. High Noon was about physical bravery and moral courage, about overcoming fear and fatigue, about doing the right thing no matter what the cost. Unforgiven was about weakness and revenge (Peter Gibbon, A Call to Heroism : Renewing America's Vision of Greatness , pp. 144-145).
What's the message?
A day at the movies offers a titillating opportunity to experience the latest adventure with high-tech graphics and special effects, including dynamic digital sounds. But the most critical part of high profile entertainment is the message that is communicated. Movies have often been an accurate commentary of culture. Directors feel they are reflecting the world around them. Arguably, the film industry picks up on marginal themes and moods that often shape the attitudes of others.
More and more people use sensate imagery to form their values rather than the written Word of God that makes them think through a scenario and compare it with the moral laws given to mankind. Powerful images, especially those coupled with high technology, sound and glamour, can move the emotions and taunt the conscience. Are you wise enough to notice the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, provocations?
A few days ago, my wife and daughter were watching a 1942 black-and-white film about famous baseball player Lou Gehrig, The Pride of the Yankees, with swelling big band sounds and formal clothing (men wore ties and ladies were in dresses). My initial inclination was to see what else was on (a bad habit of mine), but I soon realized this was not a cheap, old movie (starring Gary Cooper and Babe Ruth), but a touching tribute of courage, love and responsibility. I don't advocate that we go back to black-and-white Turner Classics, but audiences don't need crassness and vulgarity to entertain them. Good values can entertain and also inspire!
How to make a difference
The issue here is who defines values. Is it Hollywood or the Holy Bible? The way to make a difference is to boycott the type of material that degrades Christian values. There was a time when the majority of people recognized when something was outside acceptable bounds. The “bounds” seem to be moving more and more with some advocating that “bounds” are archaic.
The current interest in culture wars is encouraging, when we consider the number of people who feel some things in our culture have gone too far. But how far the entertainment industry will go largely depends on the next generations of ticket buyers. Patrons can vote with their wallets and decide what to put into their minds.
Perhaps there are a few people reading this who might want to make a few movies of their own, based on vertical themes that inspire and teach. How wonderful it would be to have access to good, wholesome entertainment that takes the high road of morality and virtue. The future belongs to our young adults. If you want to win the culture wars, speak up and make it clear what you want to see at the movies. VT

You might also be interested in...

Is it true that "anything goes"? Some people believe you can do anything you...






Thursday, September 17, 2015

How Hollywood's war movies have changed

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about movies. This follows this post about anti-Americanism. This follows this post about Syria and western weakness. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.





World News and Trends

How Hollywood's war movies have changed

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
Those of you who have been moviegoers for many years may have noticed a basic shift in the emphasis of war films in recent decades. Consider the 1992 movie A Few Good Men.
The villain was a high-ranking army officer (played by Jack Nicholson) stationed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so often in the news lately. The movie was basically about how army lawyers uncovered the big mistake that he had sought to cover up. His deeds were exposed in a military court and his closing remarks on the stand were not unlike the disgraced Captain Queeg's in the 1954 film The Caine Mutiny.
Other more recently released titles are The Jacket (2005), Courage Under Fire (1996) and Three Kings (1999). All portray the American military negatively. They feature such themes as U.S. troops committing atrocities during the first Gulf War, a friendly-fire tragedy, mistreatment of a female officer, the corruption of the American military establishment and the betrayal of allied nations.
Revolution (1985), about the American war for independence, apparently showed national hero George Washington in a negative light. Even Dances With Wolves (1990) compared the American military unfavorably with Sioux warriors. Notwithstanding Saving Private Ryan (1998), the general run of war films in recent decades has been mostly unpatriotic and derogatory toward the U.S. military.
Media author and commentator Michael Medved summed up this sad situation in a fairly recent speech. He said: “The truth of the matter is that war movies have changed in a fundamental way, and I would submit to you, a dangerous way for the health of our culture and for the strength of the [American] dream.”
Mr. Medved further asked: “Why has Hollywood decided seemingly illogically to make movies in the United States that depict the American military as unrepresentative and twisted, America as a malignant force in the world and all wars as fruitless?”
Those who remember viewing war movies with patriotic themes during World War II can easily see the sharp contrast between the way the U.S. military was depicted then and now. Our popular culture is in serious need of redemption. (Source: Imprimis .)

Friday, June 19, 2015

Find a Conservative Black Issues Speaker

A timely post about from www.yaf.org about Conservative Black Issues Speakers who are needed now more than ever! This follows this post about immigration restriction from both conservatives and liberals. This follows this post about Obamacare subsidies and the Supreme Court. 
You can follow me here.

Find a Conservative Speaker

http://www.yaf.org/forms/campusactivismguide2015.html

speakerLectureImage
Young America's Foundation will work with any student or campus-based organization that wants to host a conservative speaker. We provide both logistical and financial support to ensure your event is a success.
Regardless of your budget or experience, Young America's Foundation will walk you through the entire process and schedule for you the perfect motivational speaker who will energize your club, challenge the Left, and offer your peers an opportunity to hear conservative ideas.
Contact Patrick X. Coyle via email or call him at 800-USA-1776 to book your speaker today!
Now you can host the speaker of your dreams and receive a grant of up to $20,000 through Wendy P. McCaw Freedom Lecture Series.
The First Steps
Click here for the initial steps to get started hosting a prominent conservative speaker at your school.

Find a Speaker

Select a Speaker by Name
Select a Topic
Select a Price

Search Results

Ward Connerly

Ward Connerly

Topics: Law / Constitution, Multiculturalism, Race & Culture
Harvey Mansfield

Harvey Mansfield

Topics: Education, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race & Culture
Michael Medved

Michael Medved

Topics: Current Events, Media Bias, Race & Culture, Religion, Traditional Values
Jesse Lee Peterson

Jesse Lee Peterson

Topics: Political Correctness, Pro-Life, Race & Culture, Religion, Traditional Values
Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers

Topics: Education, Feminism, Law / Constitution, Political Correctness, Race & Culture
Walter Williams

Walter Williams

Topics: Economics, Law / Constitution, Race & Culture
Rachel Campos-Duffy

Rachel Campos-Duffy

Topics: Current Events, Feminism, Leadership, Race & Culture, Traditional Values
Jedediah Bila

Jedediah Bila

Topics: Current Events, Education, Leadership, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race & Culture
David Horowitz

David Horowitz

Topics: Campus Activism, Free Speech, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race & Culture, Radical Islam
Star Parker

Star Parker

Topics: Feminism, Economics, Political Correctness, Pro-Life, Race & Culture, Religion, Traditional Values
Joseph Phillips

Joseph Phillips

Topics: Current Events, Education, Leadership, Political Correctness, Race & Culture, Religion, Traditional Values
Deroy Murdock

Deroy Murdock

Topics: Second Amendment, Current Events, Education, Free Speech, Economics, Law / Constitution, Race & Culture, Radical Islam, Western Civilization
Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza

Topics: Campus Activism, Education, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race & Culture, Radical Islam, Religion, Ronald Reagan, Western Civilization, Traditional Values

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Michael Medved on Media and the Family

A very interesting book review from www.UCG.org  about media's affect on the family. This follows this post analyzing media professionals in the U.S.  This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE.

Michael Medved on Media and the Family






article by Jerold Aust





An interview with Michael Medved, author of "Hollywood vs. America"



The Good News: One of the things that I noticed in your best-selling 1992 book Hollywood vs. America was your analysis of the way movie producers are out of touch with the American public's wants and needs as they relate to movies as entertainment.



Since the writing of that book was based on the prevailing data and statistics of the late '80s and '90s, would you bring us up to date as to Hollywood's ignorance-or willing ignorance-of what the public wants in its movies and television viewing?



Michael Medved: One of the things that has happened since the book came out, and the book played a role in achieving, was the deflation and destruction of the idea that the R rating [restricted: children under 17 not admitted without a parent] was some kind of advantage in marketing a movie. In 1992 there was a great emphasis by studios in releasing as many R-rated titles as they possibly could. Largely that was a response to the kind of movies that directors and producers wanted to make, but it was also based on the idiotic idea that more people embraced R ratings more regularly and more readily than they embraced other more family-friendly ratings. In the book I spent a good deal of time and effort debunking that idea.



There has been a series of studies confirming that research, showing that the R rating is in fact a commercial disadvantage. The result of all of these studies has been a deemphasis on that rating and a higher percentage of PG and PG-13 films. In fact, it has become common, and it never was before, that filmmakers-as part of their contract-have to promise that they will avoid an R rating.



So that's the good news, that there's a spreading recognition that people do not really crave harsh language and graphic sexuality and violence. One of the big surprise hits of the summer of 2001 was a G rated film. In fact, one of the most successful G-rated live-action films ever was The Princess Diaries , which is really a charming film. It's by the maker of Pretty Woman and Runaway Bride , Garry Marshall.



In fact, we've seen a whole tendency of some very well-known directors to release G and PG material, directors who were noted for other material. For instance, David Lynch did quite a lovely film called The Straight Story that was rated G-that's the same David Lynch, the maker of Blue Velvet , rated R. We also had David Mamet, a playwright and filmmaker known for harsh language, release an outstanding G-rated film-really one of the best films of recent years-called The Winslow Boy.



GN: So they can do it?



MM: They can do it, and again that's worked out fairly well. The downside of all of this, and there is a downside of course, is that to some extent the ratings have slipped. In other words, some movies that will slip in with a PG-13 rating now would definitely have been R-rated 10 years ago. The film that most disturbed me with a PG-13 was a film called Crazy Beautiful , which included very graphic sex and alcohol abuse by a 17-year-old, and it never, never should have been rated a PG-13.



GN: You wrote in your book Hollywood vs. America that, back in 1992, movie producers were attacking religion, assaulting the family and glorifying ugliness. In your opinion, has this condition gotten worse or better today?



MM: It's hard to say overall. America is a very complex country, and the movie industry is a very complex business. There are aspects of the entertainment industry that are worse than ever. Consider the music business. American popular music has never been so ugly, so profane, so degrading, so lacking in any restraints at all, so ready to promote larceny and rape. American popular music and the music-video industry are in terrible shape. By the same token, television is more sexual than ever before-more intense and edgy sexual references, lots of nuances of some gay sexuality. But at the same time the violence has been dramatically toned down.



GN: Let's turn to the amount and level of violence and sex in movies and compare what you found in 1992 with what we have on television and in the movies today. How can someone rate the level of violence and sex in movies, by what method?



MM: There are people who actually rate this, quantifiably. What they do is have graduate students watch prime-time TV for a week. So I don't think there is any question about this. If you look at any of the top-rated television shows, there are no top-rated violent shows right now. They just don't exist. But there are a lot of toprated sleazy shows. One of the most violent shows on TV is also one of the most critically acclaimed- The Sopranos , available on cable. So it's complicated.



In terms of movies, there has certainly been a deemphasis on violence. You can't mistake it. It's obvious. The popularity 10 years ago of what I call creeps and killer machines-movies with mass slaughter in them, that kind of film-has pretty much slipped from view. They're just not being made right now. That doesn't mean that the movie business is going through some kind of renaissance or that things are vastly better. Anyone who looks at the pathetic quality of movies today can't celebrate.



But there are notable exceptions. One of the notable recent developments was Prince of Egypt , the animated film that told the story of Moses, where for the first time a major studio made an effort to reach out to religious believers of every stripe.



It was generally true to the Bible, though perhaps borderline as a teaching tool. They were very, very careful not to offend anybody's sensibility. At the same time they made a visually spectacular, entertaining film and a quite successful one. But Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks Studio met with several hundred religious leaders, including people like Jim Dobson [of Focus on the Family], beforehand to have them consult and advise on what they wanted to see in the film-and he actually listened to people.



GN: Did he also involve rabbis in the process?



MM: He did. A number of them, including some Orthodox rabbis, and the film was a commercial movie. But it was such an obvious thing to do to try to get the goodwill of the religious community, and it's just amazing that it wasn't done before.



GN: On a related subject, you collaborated with your wife, Dr. Diane Medved, on a book titled Saving Childhood: Protecting Our Children From the National Assault on Innocence [1999]. How do the media figure into the assault on our children's innocence?



MM: The book is divided into two fundamental parts. The first part is called the assault, and the second part is called the defense. When we talk about the assault on childhood innocence, we talk about the assault coming at kids from four directions at once.



First is the media, which represent such a huge portion of everyone's life. Secondly, the schools, where the school system no longer has the least respect for childhood in a sense and in fact makes a point of scaring children often and assaulting their innocence.



The third area is the peer group, and the fourth is the parents, who often play a role in corrupting their own children.



GN: On the subject of television viewing, did you have any connection or collaboration with Steve Allen, whose book Vulgarians at the Gate was published recently around the time of his death?



MM: I did indeed. I knew Steve for many years, and he's terribly missed. He was an absolutely wonderful man. He really represented a lot of what was best about American culture three and four years ago. He was witty and cutting-edge, and he didn't change. He was always a decent, wholesome, good man.



What happened was that the culture changed around him. I worked with Steve in a group called the Parents Television Council, where we were both on the board. He and I largely agreed. The only area that Steve and I might have disagreed on is that ultimately I believe the real solution, particularly for people of faith, is not just working for more wholesome, more substantive TV but actually watching less TV, both for adults and children.



I've been telling people on my national show, actually telling them repeatedly, that the real problem isn't the low quality of media; it's the high quantity of media. Even if the quality were improved, it still would be disastrous for our kids and for us to be spending so many hours a week watching TV. The average American household now watches close to 50 hours a week of television.



One of the ironic things is that there is talk of a boycott by black families of network TV because of their treatment of African-American characters and issues. I think that would be a wonderful idea because there is a huge problem in the African-American community. The average African-American family spends over 62 hours a week with the TV on.



Blacks watch TV much more than whites do, which helps to explain differentials in school performance. It's become almost commonplace among educational psychologists that if they could cut back on the level of black TV watching some of the differentials in school performance could be reduced.



Children watch too much TV. Parents watch too much TV. It's a major contributing factor to marital breakdown. My wife wrote a book called The Case Against Divorce , a very controversial book that came out 12 years ago. It was a first of its kind. It was the first book to really attack the divorce industrial complex.



It's still generating controversy. One of the things that Diane found out in The Case Against Divorce , and we allude to in Saving Childhood , is that this obsession with television is a contributing factor to marital breakdown-and a major contributing factor because couples don't have time to talk to each other. They are spending a lot of downtime watching flickering shadows on a cathode-ray tube. That does nothing to enrich your marriage or to improve your communication.



GN: Can it also reshape our thinking, say, from a standard of morals that we were raised to follow?



MM: There's no question about it. But the point that I emphasize in Hollywood vs. America , and that I've emphasized in all my work, has been that the real power of TV, movies and popular music is not that someone is going to see something and then run out and immediately imitate it. That happens, but it doesn't happen with everyone. What happens with everyone is that we allow mass media to normalize outrageous and unacceptable behavior.



That deals with, for instance, language. I don't think there is any question, for anyone who is sensitive to this at all, of the deterioration in language, the breaking away of moral restraints.



I recently took my 14-year-old daughter on a trip to a big city where I used to live. It was the first time I had been there in three years. But walking down the streets with my daughter was incredible this time.



Of course people, like those on a construction site, would use a lot of four-letter words. For them that's normal. But here, walking down an upscale street and seeing elegantly dressed people hollering at each other, effing this and effing that-it's just really collapsed out there. There's no question that mass media have led that trend. They haven't just followed it.



GN: So it's not just a matter of art imitating life.



MM: Right. This is just one example. The other example would be homosexuality. If you read every study, gay behavior is very, very rare. It is not 10 percent of the population. It's not even 5 percent of the population.



GN: Aren't those percentages actively promoted?



MM: Yes, they are. Of course, on TV and in the movies there is such a tremendous emphasis on it. This was incredible to me: The Lambda Gay and Lesbian Education Fund released a study showing that gay behavior has gone up dramatically in America in the last 10 years, and nobody is able to figure it out-because they say you're programmed, you're born gay, you can't do anything about it. So why would this behavior go up? The spokespeople for these gay organizations said it was media influence. They said that the normal appearance of gay people in mass media made it more acceptable for people to express their gay sexuality.



GN: Doesn't that suggest our gullibility?



MM: Yes, it goes without saying because if you see the most glamorous people in the world engaging in some behavior, whether it is violence or promiscuous heterosexual sex or homosexuality or foul language or whatever it is, it provides a sanction, an acceptability, for others to do the same. That's the whole idea behind advertising. That's why they have sports stars and movie stars appearing in ads: because you want to be associated with these people, so you're going to imitate the behavior that you see. It not only works in ads, unfortunately. GN

.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Hollywood's Horrendous Consequences

An interesting article from http://www.gnmagazine.org/ about the influence of mass culture. This follows this post  about Satan's influence, even in Christianity!!  For a free magazine subscription click HERE!!  or call 1-888-886-8632.



Mass Culture's Horrendous Consequences


The 21st century sees the entertainment-centered culture of the Western world spread around the globe through movies, television, music and the Internet. Rather than genuinely "entertaining" in a wholesome sense, the effect appears to encourage self-indulgence of the crudest and rawest elements of human nature.

by Cecil E. Maranville

Entertainment is both pleasurable and necessary for establishing and maintaining good health. By "entertainment," I mean the type of activity that uplifts, inspires or relaxes the human spirit. The biblical "There Is a Season" poem acknowledges this truth with its declaration that there is "a time to laugh...and a time to dance" (Ecclesiastes 3:4).



One of the saddest realities of the present culture of the Western world is that it broadcasts a type of "entertainment" that pulls one down much more than it uplifts. The themes marketed as entertainment typically focus on self-destructive behaviors that would ruin the life of any individual who practiced them. Further, the pursuit of the way of life shown on the big screen, the television screen or "screamed" from musical presentations would also corrupt the broader community.



The fabulous wealth and influence of the West have enabled it to spread this poisonous product worldwide. Millions of people living in the West would immediately protest, saying their personal values are in no way reflected by the entertainment industry. Nonetheless, the all-pervasive Western entertainment is a prime illustration used by radical religious extremists to recruit terrorists to destroy "the corrupt West."



In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks, many Americans asked: "Why do so many people in other countries hate us?" "Part of any honest response involves the movies, TV shows and popular music we export around the globe" (Michael Medved, "Can Hollywood Change Its Ugly Version of USA?" Oct. 18, 2001). Many Americans may look at their beautiful homes, pleasant neighborhoods, fabulously-equipped schools or at the freedoms they enjoy and think, "This is America!" If they spent a day watching the latest Hollywood releases, the latest television programs and listening to the most popular music—without looking at any other aspect of America, they would realize in horror, "This is the America that the rest of the world sees."



Medved noted in the above piece that a Pakistani theater had been destroyed recently by anti-American rioters when showing the R-rated film Desperado. Americans know that Hollywood productions are more fantasy than fact, but people in other parts of the world may not know that. "If you live in Indonesia or Nigeria...you'll get little chance to balance the negative impressions you draw from The X-Files, Hannibal or Natural Born Killers... No wonder so many Islamic extremists (and so many others) now look upon the USA as a cruel, godless, brutal and vulgar society—a 'Great Satan,' indeed."



Americans say, "Don't portray us this way!"



In spite of the fact that survey after survey shows that the American public prefers the type of entertainment material that portrays and encourages the values of family, faith and flag, nearly 65 percent of all movie releases in the United States are R-rated, according to Medved.



He made the claim that R-rated movies are the least profitable nearly 10 years ago in his book, Hollywood vs. America (1992). Several years later, a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine, conducted a major scientific study on this claim. Arthur DeVany's sophisticated study proved that Medved was correct. R-rated films fared more poorly than "G, PG, and PG13 in all three dimensions of revenues, costs, return on production cost, and profits" (Medved, "Politicos, Hollywood Heavies: They Can't Both Be Right About Public Preferences," Feb. 23, 2001).



TV writers, programmers, performers and executives were called the "vulgarians at the gate" by the late Steve Allen in his book by that title. Consider the following statistics: 77 percent of people polled by Family Circle magazine (reported in its May 15, 2001 issue) have a problem with the sexual content of television; 61 percent won't watch some shows because of the sexual content; 84 percent won't allow their children to watch some shows for the same reason; 93 percent changed the channel or turned off the television entirely, because of sexual content of a program (Cal Thomas, "Must-Sleaze TV?" 2001 LA Times Syndicate).



Thomas also cited a Newsweek survey from 2000, which showed that over 90 percent of parents of children ages 5 to 17 said that limiting the amount of violence children are exposed to in the media is an important factor in reducing crime.



Why "entertainment" is low quality



Why would the entertainment industry continue to generate a classless and crude product, if people do not want it? There are three fundamental answers to that question. First, they market their product to a small niche of the population—young people who have the money and the inclination to indulge themselves in what Hollywood has to offer. Medved calls them "a relative handful of drooling, subliterate, hormone addled adolescent males" (Medved, Feb. 23, 2001). (I don't believe he meant to imply that all teens are of this caliber!) Cal Thomas referred to a Federal Trade Commission report of 2000, which found that the entertainment industry is targeting violent films, music and video games to young people (Thomas, Aug. 9, 2001).



Parents may not be happy with television programming, but they're allowing their children to watch it in record amounts—probably due in part to not knowing how to say "no" to the demands that their children make. According to a Nielsen Media Research report of 1993, children spend nearly as much time learning about life through media as in formal schooling. The average child spends approximately 28 hours a week watching television, not including movies and/or Internet games.



The Parents Music Resource Center reports that American teenagers listen to an estimated 10,500 hours of rock music between the seventh and 12th grades alone—which is more than 95 percent of the time they spend in school over 12 years (Entertainment Monitor, December 1995)!



Second, some producers of Western entertainment are more interested in the respect and accolades that they receive from their peers than they are in turning a profit at the box office. They are independently wealthy enough that they can afford to be so incredibly self-absorbed.



Citing Martin Scorsese as an example of a director with a string of financial failures, Michael Medved wrote: "The horrific, chillingly rendered violence, the loveless sex and gutter language that characterize most of his films may help to alienate millions of moviegoers but they only add to the luster of his industry reputation as a cutting edge artist, worthy of support... Peer respect matters more than box office success to many industry insiders... Instead [of pursuing quality programming that emphasizes wholesome values] industry veterans passionately pursue good reviews, respectability, and serious esteem-providing reassurance to the nagging insecurity that often accompanies the artistic temperament" (Medved, Feb. 23, 2001).



The third reason that Hollywood can afford to continue to produce and market its corrupt form of entertainment brings us back to the sober reality of how Western culture has impacted the world. That is, Hollywood now receives a majority of its income from foreign audiences. As recently as 20 years ago, foreign revenue accounted for only approximately a third of Hollywood's income, "but in the year 2000, these foreign audiences generate[d] more than 60% of Tinseltown's cash flow" (ibid, emphasis added).



Consider the irony: Many Americans decry Western "entertainment," and many foreigners are aghast at the America they see portrayed in the electronic media. At the same time, millions, both in America and in other countries, have an increasing appetite for this type of trash. And they are willing to pay for it. The result: there will continue to be more of the same.



Evil vs. good



At the root of this battle is a spiritual struggle of evil vs. good. It's not, as many tend to portray it, "good vs. evil," because good doesn't struggle against evil—good is inherently better. Nor is this a new struggle, in spite of the fact that human pride causes some to point back a few decades to a time when some godly values were more widely accepted than they are today.



The truth is, whenever men give in to their basest impulses, evil prevails. It's been so since the beginning.



One of the oldest texts in the Bible is Job. He lamented in his day about an over-indulged generation of children, which did nothing more than pursue entertainment. "They spend their time singing and dancing. They are wealthy and need deny themselves nothing; they are prosperous to the end" (Job 21:12-13, The Living Bible). Because their lives were so prosperous, the youths saw no practical need for God and subsequently had no respect for what He had to say.



And so it will be until the end of the age of mankind. Warning of the end-time world conditions, Jesus said, "But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day [of My return to the earth] come on you unexpectedly" (Luke 21:34).



Playing with the devil



Satan is a real being to most people of the world, apart from the West. But evil spirits are relegated to horrifying super-criminals or slow-minded buffoons in much Western entertainment.



Witchblade is a movie cum television series in which a female police officer is both master and servant to a mysterious supernatural weapon. This weapon was supposedly wielded by Joan of Arc and many other "warrior women" down through history in times of great crisis. Dark Angel is another supernatural show about a genetically-enhanced human prototype who battles evil in a run-down world. The main character is also a woman, which is part of a trend to portray women as dominant heroines in a modern world.



People the world around are familiar with the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, based upon the first of J.K. Rowling's series of novels about a young boy in a school for witchcraft and wizardry. With each new novel, the boy grows a year older and a year further educated in the "art of wizardry."



Charmed is a show about three sultry sisters, who are witches. Buffy, the Vampire Slayer and Angel are similar programs, which mix the typical immorality of Hollywood with the Western proclivity to make demons into dancers. A more childish version of the same tripe is Sabrina, the Teenage Witch—a "comedy" about a bumbling girl with supernatural powers.



Of course, producing programs about demons and other evil, whether in a comedic or horror setting, isn't new to Hollywood. But now the Hollywood image of "spiritism" has a worldwide audience. How must these programs and movies like The Mummy, Pet Cemetery, Nightmare Before Christmas, etc., come across to the world?



Producers of movies, television or music do not shun evil spirits; they use them as bit players in an entertainment-addicted world. The devil's power isn't a laughing matter. He has godlike power over this present world and is committed to using his formidable resources to prevent its citizens from enjoying what is truly good (2 Corinthians 4:4).



Study after study shows that children exposed to violent themes in entertainment are seriously damaged. Sadly, these facts are quickly swept aside in the rush to the ticket counter, the TV remote or the music store. An eye-opening study—for those with eyes to see—has been conducted in various countries to measure the increase of murder after the introduction of television. The shocking truth: Homicide rates doubled within 10 to 15 years. TV was introduced at different times in the countries studied, but the results were the same (B.S. Centerwall, Comstock G. [ed.], "Exposure to Television as a Cause of Violence," Public Education as Behavior, 1989, 2:1-58).



Crimes of a sexual nature are part of the results, too. "Did we really think that there would be no consequences—no hell to pay—as we slowly repealed personal and corporate codes of conduct? Images and music say to young boys that women are nothing but sex objects. Why are we surprised when they learn and act out that lesson? Their cultural and political icons speak as if sex is a personal entitlement and that women are as disposable as rags" (Cal Thomas, "The Abusive Date. Why Are We Surprised?" 2001, LA Times Syndicate).



The Old Testament concludes with an encouraging promise from God, coupled with a truly sobering warning. The good news is that He has promised to do a work at the end of the age of mankind, which would turn the hearts of fathers back to the children and the hearts of children back to their fathers—restoring the family. The sobering news is, were it not for this work of God, the human family would become so corrupt that even God could not save the resultant world (Malachi 4:4-6).



The heritage of Western culture is that evil—the family is that important—the work of the Church of God is that vital. WNP

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Hollywood's Bombs aka Movies

In another of what Michael Medved called "Hollywood versus America", Newsbusters has given an interesting article of current movies!

Hollywood to Produce Yet Another Leftwing Box Office Bomb
By P.J. Gladnick (Bio Archive)February 3, 2009

Tell me if this movie doesn't have "bomb" written all over it. First of all it is being written by Aaron Sorkin. Secondly it is being produced by George Clooney. Finally, the movie theme has BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) at its center. Is this not the perfect formula for yet another leftwing movie that is destined to die at the box office? How long before Hollywood finally figures out that such movies are always doomed to fail bigtime?

The most recent such box office failure of a leftwing film is "Che" which so far has grossed a grand total of only a million bucks. Perhaps the producers knew in advance that this flick would be a bomb which is why it is already available on Pay-Per-View.

Remember Oliver Stone's "W?" If you have forgotten it even existed, that is because it died a quick death at the box office immediately upon release last October.

Both of these movies suffered exactly the same fate as all the other leftwing movies produced in the past few years by Hollywood.
"Redacted?" DEAD!
"Rendition?" DEAD!
"Syriana?" DEAD!
"Stop Loss?" DEAD!
And on and on and on it goes. So do you think Hollywood has finally learned its lesson? According to Variety, the answer is no:

Warner Bros. has set Aaron Sorkin to write "The Challenge," a courtroom drama for George Clooney's Smoke House shingle.
Clooney is producing with Smoke House partner Grant Heslov. Clooney may direct and hopes to play Navy lawyer Charles Swift in the drama about the effort by Swift and Georgetown U. law professor Neal Katyal to ensure a fair trial for Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, who'd been held at Guantanamo Bay for five years.
WB and Smoke House got started on the project over the summer by optioning Jonathan Mahler book "The Challenge: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Fight Over Presidential Power"
The courtroom drama wouldn't debate Hamdan's guilt or innocence but chart the dogged efforts of the two lawyers who sue the president because they feel the U.S. government has broken the law and violated the Constitution.
Captured in 2001 in Afghanistan while transporting two missiles in a car, Hamdan was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 5½ years by a military commission for providing material support to Al-Qaeda. He was cleared of the terrorism conspiracy charges that would have drawn a much longer sentence.
It sounds like the perfect formula for box office failure. And yet Hollywood will probably not learn the lesson even after "The Challenge" flops bigtime as it inevitably will. There is sure to be a scene in some Hollywood producer's office. An earnest promoter will be pitching a project called, say, "Gitmo," about the the supposed abuse and torture of the prisoners in Guantanamo by air conditioning and overfeeding. As a kicker the promoter will proclaim, "Hey, the script was written by Aaron Sorkin with George Clooney producing. Plus the camp commandant will be played by Matt Damon. It can't fail!"
But it will.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.