Films.

[tinyjo]

I didn't know that doors opening and closing inexplicably constituted offense to God :) I've just been visiting CAPalert website for the first time (thanks Alex) and it's ... hypnotic I guess. I just don't get this guy at all - I'm not entirely sure how you're supposed to have a movie at all if you avoid all the things that he finds distasteful. And I'm going to watch Mary Poppins (the only movie to get 100) again because I'm sure she has witch like powers or magic in it which he definitely comes down hard on elsewhere (e.g. Harry Potter). And Dick Van Dykes accent comes under Offense to God in my book :) It just strikes me as slightly odd that bad things which don't succeed/are defeated and the consequences shown are considered just as bad as bad things which succeed/have no consequences which means that hardly any films get good marks even when they might have a positive message.

Comments

On Mary Poppins...

[jinty]

At the end of the LoTR article, the CAPalert guy does actually go into the differences between how he sees Harry Potter vs how he sees Mary Poppins:

The "magic" in Mary Poppins presented nothing evil or sinister as did The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Indeed, the Mary Poppins character could have been of an angel for what she did. She was not hailed as a witch/sorcerer(ess) nor advertised as such. If Jesus had thrown Himself off the pinnacle at Satan's tease would the angels in Matt. 4:5-6, who would have lifted Him up from being dashed on the rocks, have sinned with their "magic?" Did Jesus sin as He used His "magic" to cast out demons? Heal the sick? Make the blind see and the lame walk? Re-attach a sliced off ear? There is a great deal of difference between the witchcraft/sorcery/wizardry in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring and the "magic" in Mary Poppins. The source of the power determines the holiness of it, not the use of it nor the user. And this very issue is yet another corruptive influence of The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: to get people to think about P*O*W*E*R over others through sorcery/witchcraft; emboldening the viewer to be desirous of such power; emboldening the viewer to experiment or dabble ... just to see or find out for themselves. If you think movies and other forms of entertainment do not or cannot influence even our basic thought patterns, behavior management and coping skills, the American Medical Association disagrees with you. The American Psychological Association disagrees with you. The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry disagrees with you. God disagrees with you [1Cor. 15:33]. And I disagree with you.

Re: On Mary Poppins...

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

This was one of the reasons I wanted to see Mary Poppins again - I don't remember any indication at all of the source of her power and I'm surprised that the CAPalert guy would let that slip past. I would have expected his attitude to be that if it's not made clear that the power comes from God then it's bad.

I think that power is a good topic for films to be addressing as long as the consequences are also addressed. In LotR they clearly are and the Fellowship is created precicely because it is decided that the consequences of the power of the ring for anyone are too terrible to accept. HP is less clear on consequences but is interested in the responsiblity that comes with power - here the good guys are the ones who are interested in protecting muggles and think that they too have rights (including the right to be left alone) although there is still a strong paternalistic element in their attitude.

I agree that peoples behaviour can be influenced by movies but I'm not sure that I agree that an example of bad behaviour with the consequences shown and considered will necessarily encourage that bad behaviour. Indeed, I would have thought that properly handled it could provide a disincentive for that behaviour, encouraging empathy for the victims of the actions.

Re: On Mary Poppins...

[jinty]

The argument from Trainspotting -- was that a drug-encouraging film, or the reverse? I incline to saying that it discouraged drug taking rather more than anything -- it showed consequences in graphic detail (even before anyone got ill, the scene with Spud and his soiled bedsheets was pretty damn offputting!), and it showed how the innocent could end up corrupted (the guy who started off saying he would never take heroin and ended up dying of aids). Some people might argue that Trainspotting glamorizes certain aspects of the drug subculture (and quite a few of the main characters end up fine, with no overall consequences) -- but I would say that actually it realistically depicts how variable the outcome can be -- you can't count yourself in advance among either the damned or the saved.

I think this sort of message is a much more powerful and realistic message than either in Mary Poppins (everyone is already one of the saved, or nearly so), or LoTR/Harry Potter (in both of these, people have the chance to fall, and may indeed do so, but whether or not they do is very much to do with their inner characteristics -- it is almost determined in advance whether they will be one of the elect or not, even if we the audience do not yet know what will tip the balance).