Is Hollywood Anti-Religion?

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Cinco Paul, the co-writer of animated Hollywood hits such as Despicable Me (and its equally funny sequels), The Secret Life of Pets, and The Lorax, weighs in here in a fine guest post about one of the questions he’s often asked by Mormons–basically, is Hollywood the playground of Satan and his minions?

No, not really, he says. In fact, such questions may reveal more about the people asking them than they do about Hollywood.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.  Some important bits:

Quote

“What’s it like working in Hollywood as a Mormon?”

In other words, how do you survive as a person of faith in a business as amoral and degrading and evil as the entertainment industry?

It’s a question that I’m always happy to answer, because it gives me an opportunity to tell the truth about my experience in Hollywood.

And here it is: my experience as a religious person has been almost unequivocally positive. I can’t speak to the experiences of others, but neither I nor my writing partner Ken have been subjected to any sort of discrimination because of our beliefs. Or been pressured to do something contrary to the teachings of our religion.

This is nice to hear.  (BTW, Ken Daurio is also LDS.)

Quote

The truth is, the movie industry is just like any other industry, filled with a lot of people, some good and some bad.

Have I occasionally been lied to? Sure. Treated poorly? Of course. But I’ve had similar experiences at my other jobs, at school, and yes, even at church.

It’s true the movie and TV business has its share of Harvey Weinsteins. But thankfully my industry is finally leading the way in outing and condemning these sexual harassers and the horrible things they’ve done. And I hope that this sea change will spread to every other industry. Because this sort of behavior, sadly, is everywhere. Again, even at church.

I am glad to hear this.

Quote

I honestly have not seen Hollywood to be anti-religion. Both Despicable Me and Despicable Me 3 have scenes of the girls praying, and we never heard a single objection to that from anybody. My experience is that the reason there’s not a lot of depiction of religion in movies and TV shows is that everyone is terrified of getting it wrong and offending/angering religious people.

So it’s safer just not to go there. But I’m glad that some of my favorite movies and TV shows do—Jane the Virgin and Lady Bird are recent examples of great entertainment that includes religion as part of their characters’ lives.

Huh.  I had never thought about that angle (that writers avoid addressing religious issues because they are afraid of offending religious people).

Quote

I can understand where the questioners are coming from, though, because I think most of them were raised in a culture where Hollywood was vilified regularly and seen as the enemy. I’ve heard these attacks on my industry often, sometimes from the pulpit.

That sort of talk always reminds me of The Music Man. In that musical the con man Harold Hill descends upon River City, Iowa determined to sell them band instruments and uniforms (that actually will never materialize). But in order to do so he first picks something in town to attack—in this case, a pool table. He gets everyone in River City so riled up about the evils of this pool table that it’s easy to con them into buying the idea of a youth band as a solution.

I'm not quite buying into this bit.  In The Music Man, Professor Hill fabricates a threat to morality, a corrupting influence (a pool table) and he has a bad motive for doing so (he's in it for the money).

But I think there is still a lot of morally questionable/offensive material coming out of Hollywood.  The leaders of the Church are not cautioning us against an innocuous thing (a pool table), but against media that contains (and glorifies) gratuitious violence, vulgarity, promiscuous sex, and so on.  We aren't making up a corrosive influence in a way comparable to Harold Hill, and we certainly aren't speaking against such things for selfish reasons (again, like Harold Hill).

So this part of the article is really quite disappointing.  Bro. Paul is glossing over some of the main points of concern that religious people have about Hollywood.  Insulting religious people by comparing them to a con artist (Harold Hill) doesn't help.

Quote

So I say beware of anyone preaching about the evils of Hollywood—they are probably trying to sell you something.

The leaders of the Church, from local leaders on up, aren't in it for the money.  They don't have ulterior motives.  They aren't "trying to sell" us anything except the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disappointing to see this rhetoric coming from a Mormon.

Quote

In many ways I think the real issue with Hollywood for most religious people is more political than spiritual. Most creative people I know are more politically liberal, while the church members I know are conservative.

I think that most church members in the LDS Church are sociopolitically "conservative" as to moral issues.

I think Paul's implication here is interesting.  He seems to be juxtaposing "politically liberal" people as creating "the real issue with Hollywood" in the eyes of church members.

Quote

But I feel it’s wrong to make religion a part of this conflict. The truth is, the gospel is much bigger than that, so big that if we think it can be contained in one political party we’re probably only living half of it.

I agree with this.

Quote

It’s true that a lot of movies contain sex and profanity and violence. I personally have chosen to include less of that sort of stuff in what I write, and I believe that people have every right to avoid entertainment that they find offensive, or that they feel drives away the Spirit. But the fact is those things are in our movies and TV shows because, like it or not, they are a part of life.

Yes.  But I don't see why objecting to content which is "offensive or "drives away the Spirit" (I note that he qualifies this with "they find" and "they feel") is problematic.

Perhaps what he means is that we should not paint Hollywood in such broad strokes.  If so, I agree with thim.

Quote

And art reflects life. It’s not because moustache-twirling villainous studio executives, screenwriters, and directors are determined to corrupt our youth. And the sooner we move on from that simplistic notion, the better.

Oh, I'm not so sure.  I think it's quite fair to discuss whether Hollywood contributes to the coarsening of society, or merely reflects it (as Paul suggests).

Quote

So I always try to disabuse people of the notion that Hollywood is satanic and out to get them. First of all, look at the movies that are being made. Look at the box office. Every year the top ten movies are almost always those targeted towards the family audience, a trend which has been going on now for decades.

I can appreciate that some criticisms of Hollywood are overwrought. 

But I think Paul is going too far the other way.

Quote

And secondly, look at what movies are about. The core values of almost every movie are love, courage, honesty and integrity. Most tell stories of flawed characters trying to change and become better. Of good defeating evil. Of love turning bad people into better people (like a certain misanthropic villain who adopts three little girls). That’s the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

But then I also consider things like Game of Thrones and its apparent normalization of depraved violance, deviancy and debauchery.

Or The Sopranos, and The Shield, and Dexter, and Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones (again!), and Natural Born Killers, and Oz, and many, many other movies and TV shows that seem to want us to root for the bad guys as they do bad things.

So "what movies are about" is all over the map.  And obviously religious people are not concerned about "core values" like "love, courage, honesty and integrity," but about those media which undermine and pervert and re-define these values.  

In short, Bro. Paul is not really playing it straight.  A lot of crap comes out of Hollywood, in addition to some good stuff as well.  Religious people object to the crappy stuff, but Bro. Paul is saying "Look!  Squirrel!" and pointing to the good stuff, and then excusing the crappy stuff with "Yeah, well, art reflects life."

Quote

So let’s not be the gullible citizens of River City, buying everything Harold Hill is selling. And let’s not be Harold Hills, either, demonizing one thing in order to sell something else. Hollywood is not evil. They are not the enemy.

Meh.  People like Bro. Paul insult our intelligence when they suggest that Hollywood is merely reflecting life and society, and not trying to influence and affect it.

He also insults us by comparing us to "the gullible citizens of River City," who were taken in by a scam artist fabricating social outrage about a pool table.

There really and truly is some pretty awful stuff coming out of Hollywood.  We're not making that up.  We're not being gullible by noticing it.

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

I take issue with the 'art reflects life' mantra in film because he seems to be implying that explicitly showing violence, gore, sex, and nudity is necessary to keeping movies and t.v. true to life.  It seems thought that such things can very easily be implied without being explicit and achieve the same 'this is life' feel.

Besides that, everyone knows that sex sells and it seems less than forthright or honest to ignore that in a discussing about morality and Hollywood.  This exchange between an HBO executive and a director of an episode of Games of Thrones is pretty well known.

Speaking to Empire, 'Game of Thrones' episode director Neil Marshall ("Blackwater") spoke out about HBO's tendency to push for further nudity, even during filming of already-scripted episodes.  Marshall spoke about his recent directing duties, saying:

The weirdest part [of directing Game of Thrones] was when you have one of the exec producers leaning over your shoulder, going, 'You can go full frontal, you know. This is television, you can do whatever you want! And do it! I urge you to do it!' So I was like, 'Okay, well, you’re the boss.'"

This particular exec took me to one side and said, 'Look, I represent the pervert side of the audience, okay? Everybody else is the serious drama side, [but] I represent the perv side of the audience, and I’m saying I want full frontal nudity in this scene.' So you go ahead and do it.

[Duncan]

I think if you're good at what you do then you can call the shots and have it done your way, whether or not the audience likes it is another issue. You can be clean and be the biggest name in Hollywood, I look at Seinfeld, Weird Al,  Buster Keaton, Chaplin all fairly clean comedy-their personal lives is another matter but if you are good at what you do then people will knock on your door and ask if you want to do something.

[2PairsofCletes]

There are plenty of Mormons who work in Hollywood. Even several Osmonds, for what it's worth. 

[kllindley]

Thanks for sharing. I also think that we tend to over villanize Hollywood. The world isn't as hostile to religious belief as some want to make it seem.

At the same time, I can't imagine denying that entertainment is actively used to promote viewpoints and values that are incompatible with the Gospel. It is disappointing to see here. 

[Amulek]

Quote

So I always try to disabuse people of the notion that Hollywood is satanic and out to get them. First of all, look at the movies that are being made. Look at the box office. Every year the top ten movies are almost always those targeted towards the family audience, a trend which has been going on now for decades.

Focusing on box office numbers is a bit of an evasion, in my opinion. Sure, studios do make films with mass market appeal; I'm not saying those films don't exist. However, when Hollywood gets together to celebrate Hollywood (e.g., the Academy Awards), the films held up for praise and acclaim are almost never these films. The films that the people in the industry think are the 'best' they have to offer are almost invariably laden with content that is not...targeted towards the family audience.  

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Focusing on box office numbers is a bit of an evasion, in my opinion. Sure, studios do make films with mass market appeal; I'm not saying those films don't exist. However, when Hollywood gets together to celebrate Hollywood (e.g., the Academy Awards), the films held up for praise and acclaim are almost never these films. The films that the people in the industry think are the 'best' they have to offer are almost invariably laden with content that is not...targeted towards the family audience.  

 

Good point.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Focusing on box office numbers is a bit of an evasion, in my opinion. Sure, studios do make films with mass market appeal; I'm not saying those films don't exist. However, when Hollywood gets together to celebrate Hollywood (e.g., the Academy Awards), the films held up for praise and acclaim are almost never these films. The films that the people in the industry think are the 'best' they have to offer are almost invariably laden with content that is not...targeted towards the family audience.  

 

I agree with that to a point but Walt Disney is the most winningest person in Academy Award history and i don't recall Mickey and Minnie doing drugs together or Donald Duck blowing up a meth lab or something, Disney came out allright

[HappyJackWagon]

The only thing that unites all people in Hollywood is the desire to make movies. For some, art is the primary motivation. For others, profit. Beyond that, it's far too simplistic to treat Hollywood as a monolith intent on the destruction or devaluation of religion.

If religion can make a profit, they'll make the movie, as has been the increasing trend. If violence, nudity, crudity etc. make the profits, Hollywood will make more of that. Personally, I'm happy that Hollywood is seeing profits and art by making musicals again.

[Jeanne]

Actually, it is just Las Vegas..😍

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I agree with that to a point but Walt Disney is the most winningest person in Academy Award history and i don't recall Mickey and Minnie doing drugs together or Donald Duck blowing up a meth lab or something, Disney came out allright

I understand what you're saying, but let's be frank: Best Animated Short isn't considered a major category. When it comes to the big five (i.e. best picture, best director, best screenplay, best actor, and best actress), Walt was only ever nominated for a single award (Best Director for Marry Poppins)...and he lost. 

And don't let the cartoons that Disney makes fool you. The Walt Disney Corporation has been putting out plenty of films with more...adult fare, for decades - they just don't release those projects under the Disney brand.

So,  for example, when Disney wants to release an R-rated film about a prostitute (i.e., Pretty Woman) it gets produced by Touchstone Pictures instead. Want to put out a Tarantino flick? Hmm...that doesn't seem very Disney. Probably best to just purchase Miramax (run by the Weinsteins) and use that to publish Pulp Fiction instead. Sorry, but the house of mouse has transformed into a major international multimedia corporation, with all the good and bad that that entails. 

 

[6EQUJ5]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In short, Bro. Paul is not really playing it straight.  A lot of crap comes out of Hollywood, in addition to some good stuff as well.  Religious people object to the crappy stuff, but Bro. Paul is saying "Look!  Squirrel!" and pointing to the good stuff, and then excusing the crappy stuff with "Yeah, well, art reflects life."

Meh.  People like Bro. Paul insult our intelligence when they suggest that Hollywood is merely reflecting life and society, and not trying to influence and affect it.

He also insults us by comparing us to "the gullible citizens of River City," who were taken in by a scam artist fabricating social outrage about a pool table.

Do you know of a concept called "supply and demand?"

If people didn't buy it, they wouldn't make it.  But your ability to find offense and play the Mormon victim is always appreciated.

Quote

When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

-- Elder Bednar

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

.........................................

Disappointing to see this rhetoric coming from a Mormon.

...................................Oh, I'm not so sure.  I think it's quite fair to discuss whether Hollywood contributes to the coarsening of society, or merely reflects it (as Paul suggests).

............................Meh.  People like Bro. Paul insult our intelligence when they suggest that Hollywood is merely reflecting life and society, and not trying to influence and affect it.

He also insults us by comparing us to "the gullible citizens of River City," who were taken in by a scam artist fabricating social outrage about a pool table.

There really and truly is some pretty awful stuff coming out of Hollywood.  We're not making that up.  We're not being gullible by noticing it.......

But we are often overwhelmingly gullible, and one society after another has gone down the tubes precisely due to gullibility.  That is a correct observation, not an insult.

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I take issue with the 'art reflects life' mantra in film because he seems to be implying that explicitly showing violence, gore, sex, and nudity is necessary to keeping movies and t.v. true to life.  ...........................Besides that, everyone knows that sex sells ........................

I  think that both you and Spencer are missing the  point that Paul is being descriptive, not prescriptive.  It is not so much that Hollywood paints a true-to-life picture as that sex and violence sells.  There is both art and money to be made, and our world has a wide range of values, not all of them so high and pure.  Hollyweird is not a single institution, and it is not necessarily dedicated to eleemosynary acts.  It is as many-faceted as the individuals (and corporations) who engage in it.  In an open and pluralistic society that means that there will be a wide variety of productions, not all of which appeal to you and me.

[Vanguard]

I think the "biggest load" that is peddled is this idea of Hollywood merely reflecting our realities. Rather, I see them actively shaping and distorting these realities by pushing them toward our most prurient desires - desires that were once latent but now openly sought out after and glamorized. As the "unsuspecting public" we seek to push our realities toward these fantasized, idealized caricatures and although we might not quite get there, we can always fantasize and pine for the next installment of reality distorting images. Hollywood continually pushes this new reality & ideal. And collectively we lap it up.

Mr. Paul suggests conservative Christianity treats Hollywood way too simplistically. I would suggest his defense of Hollywood and his critique of conservative religious concerns is doing the exact same thing. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I take issue with the 'art reflects life' mantra in film because he seems to be implying that explicitly showing violence, gore, sex, and nudity is necessary to keeping movies and t.v. true to life.

The other night Sister Gui and I were watching a Netflix series that is pretty good and somehow the good guy ended up having to take refuge in a stripper's house. Hookers, drug dealers, crooked cops, and strippers are ubiquitous in the movies, even many made for the family audience. So, I've been around for a long time, met a lot of people, gone to many places, read a lot of news stories. I've never met a hooker, drug dealer, or a stripper or read about ordinary people coming into regular contact with such folks. Anyone here ever met a crooked cop or a stripper? Whose life does "art" really reflect?

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Would we necessarily know?

I did know a young man who who was in love with a stripper.  Troubling relationship.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

So,  for example, when Disney wants to release an R-rated film about a prostitute (i.e., Pretty Woman) it gets produced by Touchstone Pictures instead. Want to put out a Tarantino flick? Hmm...that doesn't seem very Disney. Probably best to just purchase Miramax (run by the Weinsteins) and use that to publish Pulp Fiction instead. Sorry, but the house of mouse has transformed into a major international multimedia corporation, with all the good and bad that that entails. 

The mouse also produces a lot of material on the Disney Chanel aimed at kids that I, as a parent and grandparent, don't believe Walt would approve of. 

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would we necessarily know?

I did know a young man who who was in love with a stripper.  Troubling relationship.

Well, there it is. Someone does know someone who loved a stripper. That would be an issue that should be addressed. When was it revealed to him that she was a stripper? 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, there it is. Someone does know someone who loved a stripper. That would be an issue that should be addressed. When was it revealed to him that she was a stripper? 

I remember vaguely she told him when they were doing high school detention, but that may be just when they first met.  Sounded like she had major rebellion issues, she wasn't doing it for the money.  There is a possibility she was lying to him at that time, but given what happened later, which I will not share, I buy it as the truth.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I  think that both you and Spencer are missing the  point that Paul is being descriptive, not prescriptive.  It is not so much that Hollywood paints a true-to-life picture as that sex and violence sells.  There is both art and money to be made, and our world has a wide range of values, not all of them so high and pure.  Hollyweird is not a single institution, and it is not necessarily dedicated to eleemosynary acts.  It is as many-faceted as the individuals (and corporations) who engage in it.  In an open and pluralistic society that means that there will be a wide variety of productions, not all of which appeal to you and me.

I remember driving from Santa Fe to Albuquerque one night back in the early 70s. There used to be a drive-in theater on the highway whose screen faced the road....you could see the movie on the screen as you drove by. The traffic was crawling along about 10mph and I had to pick up someone at the ABQ airport. The future Mrs. Gui who was coming to meet my parents, as a matter of fact. I couldn't figure out why the slow traffic until I finally was able to see the screen. There was a nude love scene playing and lots of folks were slowing down to watch. Hanging out of their windows, honking their horns.

My point....back then it was such a novelty that it stopped traffic. Today, such a scene is pretty much a given in most movies PG13 and above and on many main-stream TV shows on cable and network. I also remember when one f-- word would garner a huge warning, but now it is ubiquitous. Seems to me that something has changed.

How many movies and shows we have had to turn off once they start the f--word carpet bombing. Even kids saying it. But it would appear Paul thinks that to object to this situation says more about me than about the movies.

Quote

In fact, such questions may reveal more about the people asking them than they do about Hollywood.

The only thing we have is to vote with the pocketbook, but not everyone does that, so it creates an unhealthy ambience in which we have to live and work, and is not effective. What a world we live in.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I remember vaguely she told him when they were doing high school detention, but that may be just when they first met.  Sounded like she had major rebellion issues, she wasn't doing it for the money.  There is a possibility she was lying to him at that time, but given what happened later, which I will not share, I buy it as the truth.

Well, meeting a stripper while in high school detention is pretty much what happens to every young man nowadays. It's a good thing he didn't have to tease out the truth. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I encourage you to read the whole thing.  Some important bits:

This is nice to hear.  (BTW, Ken Daurio is also LDS.)

I am glad to hear this.

Huh.  I had never thought about that angle (that writers avoid addressing religious issues because they are afraid of offending religious people).

I'm not quite buying into this bit.  In The Music Man, Professor Hill fabricates a threat to morality, a corrupting influence (a pool table) and he has a bad motive for doing so (he's in it for the money).

But I think there is still a lot of morally questionable/offensive material coming out of Hollywood.  The leaders of the Church are not cautioning us against an innocuous thing (a pool table), but against media that contains (and glorifies) gratuitious violence, vulgarity, promiscuous sex, and so on.  We aren't making up a corrosive influence in a way comparable to Harold Hill, and we certainly aren't speaking against such things for selfish reasons (again, like Harold Hill).

So this part of the article is really quite disappointing.  Bro. Paul is glossing over some of the main points of concern that religious people have about Hollywood.  Insulting religious people by comparing them to a con artist (Harold Hill) doesn't help.

The leaders of the Church, from local leaders on up, aren't in it for the money.  They don't have ulterior motives.  They aren't "trying to sell" us anything except the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Disappointing to see this rhetoric coming from a Mormon. 

I think that most church members in the LDS Church are sociopolitically "conservative" as to moral issues.

I think Paul's implication here is interesting.  He seems to be juxtaposing "politically liberal" people as creating "the real issue with Hollywood" in the eyes of church members.

I agree with this.

Yes.  But I don't see why objecting to content which is "offensive or "drives away the Spirit" (I note that he qualifies this with "they find" and "they feel") is problematic.

Perhaps what he means is that we should not paint Hollywood in such broad strokes.  If so, I agree with thim. 

Oh, I'm not so sure.  I think it's quite fair to discuss whether Hollywood contributes to the coarsening of society, or merely reflects it (as Paul suggests).

I can appreciate that some criticisms of Hollywood are overwrought. 

But I think Paul is going too far the other way.

Yes, I acknowledge that.

But then I also consider things like Game of Thrones and its apparent normalization of depraved violance, deviancy and debauchery.

Or The Sopranos, and The Shield, and Dexter, and Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones (again!), and Natural Born Killers, and Oz, and many, many other movies and TV shows that seem to want us to root for the bad guys as they do bad things.

So "what movies are about" is all over the map.  And obviously religious people are not concerned about "core values" like "love, courage, honesty and integrity," but about those media which undermine and pervert and re-define these values.  

In short, Bro. Paul is not really playing it straight.  A lot of crap comes out of Hollywood, in addition to some good stuff as well.  Religious people object to the crappy stuff, but Bro. Paul is saying "Look!  Squirrel!" and pointing to the good stuff, and then excusing the crappy stuff with "Yeah, well, art reflects life."

Meh.  People like Bro. Paul insult our intelligence when they suggest that Hollywood is merely reflecting life and society, and not trying to influence and affect it.

He also insults us by comparing us to "the gullible citizens of River City," who were taken in by a scam artist fabricating social outrage about a pool table.

There really and truly is some pretty awful stuff coming out of Hollywood.  We're not making that up.  We're not being gullible by noticing it.

-Smac

The Bible is just as full as "depraved" material as Hollywood. For that matter, so is Shakespeare and ancient Roman literature. That's the nature of artistic expression - it pushes boundaries, it reflects the human experience, which is frequently not "safe".

Generally I gravitate toward material that is safer. But that's probably because I'm a philistine who just wants to be entertained by comic book movies.

[Gray]

Regarding hostility to religious belief, on TV at least I seem to sense a pro-Catholic bias and an anti-evangelical bias. The Catholics fight against forces of darkness, the evangelicals (preachers, especially) are out to get rich or are secretly monsters and/or crazy. Could be my choice of programming though.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But we are often overwhelmingly gullible, and one society after another has gone down the tubes precisely due to gullibility.  That is a correct observation, not an insult.

Sure.  But the people of River City were "gullible" in that they were tricked into fretty about a threat to the moral fabric of their community that had been entirely fabricated by a con man who was using that false panic to bilk those folks out of their money.

In contrast, the leaders of the Church - the ones which Cinco Paul faults for criticizing problematic content in movies, TV, etc. - are not trying to trick the members of the Church into panicking about a non-existent threat to the moral fabric of our society.  That threat really exists.  The pool table in The Music Man was something that was made to look bad.  The media content the Brethen warn us against really is bad.

Quote

I  think that both you and Spencer are missing the  point that Paul is being descriptive, not prescriptive. 

I think he's creating excuses for the offensive content that comes out of Hollywood.  He's essentially ignoring it, and telling us to ignore it.

Except that it's everywhere.  And our children can run into it, too.

Quote

It is not so much that Hollywood paints a true-to-life picture as that sex and violence sells. 

I don't think anyone is complaining about whether Hollywood "paints true-to-life."  I think people are complaining because some (a lot?) of the content Hollywood is putting out is vulgar, profane, misanthropic, glorifies depravity and violence and mindless, meaningless sex, objectifies women, and so on.

Quote

There is both art and money to be made, and our world has a wide range of values, not all of them so high and pure. 

I accept that.

But Bro. Paul denigrating and dismissing legitimate concerns about the smutty stuff coming out of Hollywood doesn't help.  He just comes across as just another out-of-touch coastal snob.

Quote

Hollyweird is not a single institution, and it is not necessarily dedicated to eleemosynary acts. 

I get that.  I don't expect Hollyweird to be altruistic.  It is an industry (nobody is suggesting that it is "a single institution") that is putting out a lot of smut, so Bro. Paul sneering at those who voice concern about that smut doesn't resolve or help anything.

Quote

It is as many-faceted as the individuals (and corporations) who engage in it. 

So is the Beltway crown in Washington, D.C., and yet we all complain about the collective and cumulative flaws of that group.

So are attorneys, and yet we all regularly find fault with that group.

Hollywood is being critiqued in the aggregate, not as individuals (many of whom are indeed fine and wonderful people).

Thanks,

-Smac

Quote

In an open and pluralistic society that means that there will be a wide variety of productions, not all of which appeal to you and me.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Bible is just as full as "depraved" material as Hollywood.

Yes, but those depravities are condemned, not glorified and upheld as exemplars.

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

For that matter, so is Shakespeare and ancient Roman literature. That's the nature of artistic expression - it pushes boundaries, it reflects the human experience, which is frequently not "safe".

I accept that.

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Generally I gravitate toward material that is safer. But that's probably because I'm a philistine who just wants to be entertained by comic book movies.

Same here.

But what of those who gravitate toward the smutty stuff?  The disturbing stuff?  Consider this story:

Quote

A Louisiana appeals court ruling last week, throwing out a suit against Warner Bros. and director Oliver Stone over the ultra-violent movie "Natural Born Killers," was more than a victory for free speech -- it was also a useful reminder of the true meaning of personal accountability.

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Sarah Edmondson in 1995 by survivors of convenience store clerk Patsy Ann Byers, who Edmondson shot and killed during an armed robbery in 1994. Edmondson said she and Benjamin Darrus had been inspired to go on a violent crime spree after seeing Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis as Mickey and Mallory -- the blood-soaked lovers who become media darlings in "Natural Born Killers."

She also said she and Darrus were tripping on LSD when they watched the movie. A few days later, Darrus had killed a man in Mississippi and Edmondson had killed Byers in Louisiana.

The wrongful death suit was amended in 1996 to include a new wrinkle -- a contention that the studio and the Oscar-winning director of "Platoon" and "Wall Street" knew or should have known that the film would provoke criminal behavior in people who saw it.

In 1998, the Louisiana appeals court ruled that Byers' family was legally entitled to sue Stone and the studio and argue that the movie incited the killing. In last week's ruling, the court said that procedural requirements precluded any consideration of First Amendment issues in the earlier ruling.

The latest ruling holds that speech can be restrained, but only when it is an incitement to lawless action. The justices ruled that nothing in "Natural Born Killers" constitutes incitement.

Personally, I agree with the Court's ruling.  I think it is correct.

However, I am also reminded of this "ethics lesson" from Dr. Ian Malcom in Jurassic Park (ironic, eh?):

Here's a transcript:

Quote

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Gee, the lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.

Donald Gennaro: Well thank you, Dr. Malcolm, but I think things are a little bit different then you and I had feared...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, I know. They're a lot worse.

Donald Gennaro: Now, wait a second now, we haven't even seen the park...

John Hammond: No, no, Donald, Donald, Donald... let him talk. There's no reason... I want to hear every viewpoint, I really do.

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.

Donald Gennaro: It's hardly appropriate to start hurling generalizations...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now

[bangs on the table]

Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...

John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Replace "dinosaurs" here with "media content that is vulgar and based and obscene, that glorifies violence and mindless, meaningless, promiscuous sexuality, that objectifies women, that is profoundly misanthropic, that lionizes horrible characters and horrible behaviors," and you'll have a better understanding of my point.

Hollywood is so preoccupied with whether or not they could "push boundaries" that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Hollywood has been pushing boundaries for years.  Hollywood has been destroying boundaries for years.  Is that uniformly a good and healthy thing?  I don't think so.  I am reminded of a quote from G.K. Chesterton:

Quote

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This concept has been more pithily summarized this way: "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up."

Our society is taking down fences everywhere.  Hollywood is a part of that.  There seems to be precious little consideration as to why these fences were put up in the first place.

Some of them were undoubtedly bad, and I rejoice that they have been torn down (racial inequities, sexual harassment, etc.).  But others are giving me some real concern.  

But according to Cinco Paul, my concerns are akin to those kooky Iowans fretting about a pool table.

-Smac