|
 |
So I went back. I was irked that the cap guy went and hid before the last argument was settled, and I was hoping to get some sort of reasonable reaction out of him this time by talking about his little cap model thingie of which he is so proud. I should have known better.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wildsong
To: cap@capalert.com
Subject: The bible
I'm just wondering how the bible came out when tested with your cap model.
If you could send me the scores, it would help me with my study. Thanks
-w
|
 |
From: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:59 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: The bible
On 5/29/02 5:24 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:
> I'm just wondering how the bible came out when tested with your cap model.
> If you could send me the scores, it would help me with my study. Thanks
> -w
W:
To honor your request I offer the following. Fasten your seatbelt.
God condemns sin whether in our lives or the lives of those in the Bible. That a sin is in the Bible does not excuse the sin *nor* does it excuse sins in our lives NOR in and as entertainment. Trying to excuse sins in entertainment with the sins in the Bible is narrow minded, ignorant and selfish and *clearly* points to whether one honors God's Word AND whether one reads only the little pieces and parts that seem to fit an agenda, ignoring the total of what is said. The sins in the Bible are spoken of to provide example by which to *teach*, not to participate in or demonstrate let alone in and as entertainment nor to excuse our own. The sins of the men in the Bible are NOT there to give us justification to do them ourselves, entertain ourselves with them or to give us the autonomy to decide on our own whether a behavior God says is sinful really is or not. Whether intentional, the sins in entertainment serve as lures and examples for aberrant behaviors and thoughts and inevitably become behavioral templates whether those templates are acted on or not. Further, rarely are the "consequences" in movies, if any, more than mere token. The Bible *always* speaks to the consequences of unforgiven sin. Also, nowhere in the Bible are there any audio or motion picture demonstrations of sinful behavior, e.g., immoral sex, murder, etc. Which movie have you seen that can make that claim? And in which sin did Jesus either participate or encourage our participation in to teach us about it? What about descriptions of such events in any sort of graphic detail? You will find that the Bible speaks in understatement, e.g., "He took her" or "She laid with him." Quite a bit of difference in perspective to the mature, informed, open minded and knowledgeable. Much experiential maturity not possessed by most kids (which includes at-home teens) is required to perceive the true meaning of such texts without letting one's own hedonism contaminate and counterfeit the Words and their meaning. Not so in films which steal the very childhood from children. By the way, what behavior which is sinful for a child is not also sinful for an adult ("legal" is not part of the question). As another example for comparison, reading "sliced off his ear" is a l-o-t different than *watching and hearing* someone thrust a 14" knife into a man's body, seeing the steel of the blade repeatedly disappear then reappear more stained with each withdrawal, the body twitching with each thrust until it twitches no more, then pumping eight rounds of .45 ammo into the body with steely coldness to make certain the victim is dead. As graphic as that description is, it is not nearly as invasive as seeing it in action on the larger-than-life screen WITH hearing the vileness of it in 1000 watts of audio power. And what do you think would happen if Playboy(tm) magazine were to replace its photographs with written descriptions of its victims using only terminology found in the Bible? Quite a bit of difference in perspective, huh? For the mature, informed, open minded and knowledgeable anyway.
T
|
|
From: Wildsong [wildsong@presidentbushviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:20 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry
Subject: RE: The bible
So, then, you acknowledge that the sins in the bible are there for a reason. Do you feel, then, that entertainment serves no purpose in making social commentary? Even Shakespeare did that. And in order to make social commentary, even the bible had to show people performing unacceptable actions. Yet I note that the cap model makes no allowances for this method of commenting. While it may be undesirable to show offensive behaviour in order to make a point, I should point out that if the bible is inspired by god, and that's the way he does it, it seems unlikely that we would be able to come up with a better method. Since your cap model negatively views movies that even mention unacceptable behaviour, how is a movie supposed to get the point across? Even your reviews have to mention those things that are considered unacceptable in order to point out that they ARE unacceptable. Otherwise, no one would know what you meant. If the bible just said "Don't do bad things," no one would know what was bad. Of course, not all movies are making a social comment, and a lot of movies do show such content solely for entertainment purposes, which is a reflection of the morality of the society in which we live, but the point I'm after making is that the cap model does not make a distinction between commentary and entertainment, which is why, if you applied it to the bible, the bible would score so badly.
As to the statement that the bible does not show its content in video or audio, that's only because there was no way of recording and distributing such content at the time it was written. The medium doesn't dictate the message, and images are far more effective when making a point than words in this day and age. If you compare the sales numbers between books and movies, you can see which is the more popular.
Though the bible may speak in understatement, you need to realise that no matter the motivation, a movie has to sell tickets in order to survive, and it has to survive in order to spread its social message. This means that it has to cater to what the people want in order to give them what they don't want, which is morality. People don't want to be told that they're immoral. They want to have fun. Bludgeoning them over the head with morality isn't going to work because they don't want it, and therefore they won't go out and pay money for it, and the movie needs that money to survive. So if you have a movie about a killer coming to a bad end, you probably can't have all of the killing done off screen. Not when the people want to see it. You have to have action. And so you give the people what they want, and sneak in your message. That way they get the whole package. If you tried to produce a movie in today's society that fit the cap model 100%, people would stay away in droves and the movie would close by the first weekend. Whether that's right or wrong is immaterial. The point is that the world exists as it does, not as it should according to any worldview. And in order to accomplish anything, you have to play by those rules. If you don't, no one will care what you have to say. So you can't give the audience just what you want them to see. You have to give them what they want, just like any other business. Given that choice, is it better to do your best to spread your message within the limits of your audience, or to not even try?
:: And in which sin did Jesus either participate or
:: encourage our participation in to teach us about it?
Example: The fifth commandment, transgression of which is a sin, states "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother."
jesus says: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) (The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny.")
I note also that hating mother and father counts as points against a movie in the cap model.
|
|
From: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:16 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: The bible
On 5/30/02 2:19 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:
> So, then, you acknowledge that the sins in the bible are there for a reason.
I acknowledge the sins in the Bible are there NOT to give us permission to demonstrate them in and as entertainment. I think you are fighting a losing battle and I hope I have the time to see the end of it.
> Do you feel, then, that entertainment serves no purpose in making social
> commentary? Even Shakespeare did that.
is that supposed to make demonstration of sin in and as entertainment okay?
Is that supposed to make planting sinful behavioral templates in thought or deed okay?
> And in order to make social
> commentary,
Why does a social commentary have to be made? It takes a l-o-t more than filth in film to teach the realities of life, son.
> even the bible had to show people performing unacceptable
> actions.
But not in and as entertainment. Nor were the sins in the Bible demonstrated for the sake of teaching. Y'see, to demonstrate a sin does not excuse the one demonstrating it from the sin of it.
> Yet I note that the cap model makes no allowances for this method
> of commenting.
No scoring allowances anyway.
> While it may be undesirable to show offensive behaviour in
> order to make a point, I should point out that if the bible is inspired by
> god
I was.
> , and that's the way he does it,
Not in and as entertainment.
> it seems unlikely that we would be able
> to come up with a better method.
Why should we?
> Since your cap model negatively views
> movies
The CAP model reports on what is there. The content of the movies makes the content of our analysis report "negative." Focus, son. Focus.
> that even mention unacceptable behaviour,
Mentioning sinful behavior is a l-o-t different than demonstrating it for pleasure.
> how is a movie supposed to
> get the point across?
Why must it get that point across at all?
> Even your reviews have to mention those things that
> are considered unacceptable in order to point out that they ARE
> unacceptable.
But our "reviews" (which they are not) do not demonstrate any sin.
> Otherwise, no one would know what you meant.
If there were no unacceptable behaviors in any movie, my job would end. Let Hollywood make what ever they want to make. God said sin would be rampant in the end days. But as long as movies teach and/or cause our youth to sin, I will have something to say about it. Boldly. Unashamedly.
> If the bible just
> said "Don't do bad things," no one would know what was bad. Of course, not
> all movies are making a social comment, and a lot of movies do show such
> content solely for entertainment purposes, which is a reflection of the
> morality of the society in which we live,
I see. Truth in entertainment. Har har. And that makes it okay to show millions how to sin. Tell me. Where in the Bible are there instructions for practicing immoral sexual intercourse? Intercourse at all? Where in the Bible are there instructions for making weapons? How to use them? Etc.
> but the point I'm after making is
> that the cap model does not make a distinction between commentary and
> entertainment,
Why, yes. It does. That is why our reports are called "CAP ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA Analysis Reports."
> which is why, if you applied it to the bible, the bible would
> score so badly.
I've already adequately sunk that reasoning. Specifically, because the Bible does not *demonstrate* sins in and as entertainment. Indeed, in no case does God have anyone demonstrating sin. The people did that all on their own.
> As to the statement that the bible does not show its content in video or
> audio, that's only because there was no way of recording and distributing
> such content at the time it was written. The medium doesn't dictate the
> message, and images are far more effective when making a point than words in
> this day and age.
PREcisely. Much more efficient at teaching and or causing our youth to sin.
> If you compare the sales numbers between books and movies,
> you can see which is the more popular.
I somehow doubt that Jesus would have sinned by paying actors and/or actresses to demonstrate sin to teach us about it.
> Though the bible may speak in understatement, you need to realise that no
> matter the motivation, a movie has to sell tickets in order to survive, and
> it has to survive in order to spread its social message. This means that it
> has to cater to what the people want in order to give them what they don't
> want, which is morality. People don't want to be told that they're immoral.
> They want to have fun.
And it is the narcotics of that "message" is what I am fighting. Just because people *want* sin in sinema does not make it to put it there. Why do you suppose people *want* it in sinema? We have been so saturated with sin in and as entertainment that we have become addicted to it. And it takes more and more each time. Just like narcotics.
> Bludgeoning them over the head with morality isn't
> going to work because they don't want it,
That doesn't mean they don't need morality by example, and that people want IMmorality does not mean they are absolved of the consequences of immorality just because they want it.
> and therefore they won't go out
> and pay money for it,
Which they shouldn't anyway.
> and the movie needs that money to survive.
Man has survived a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time without them.
> So if you
> have a movie about a killer coming to a bad end, you probably can't have all
> of the killing done off screen.
Why not? Less Columbine killers would be created that way. And, yes, I am ready to argue that point to its end if you wish and are responsible about it.
> Not when the people want to see it.
Why should they?
> You have
> to have action.
Which can be done without sin. Filmmakers have lost that art. Or have discarded it because people want filth in film. So who is more the sinner? He who demonstrates it or he who draws pleasure from it?
> And so you give the people what they want, and sneak in your
> message.
Often invisibly to the unArmed.
> That way they get the whole package. If you tried to produce a
> movie in today's society that fit the cap model 100%, people would stay away
> in droves and the movie would close by the first weekend.
Okay. I guess filmmakers really have lost the art of being able to make a really good movie.
> Whether that's
> right or wrong is immaterial.
No, it isn't immaterial. Not by a LONG shot.
> The point is that the world exists as it does,
> not as it should according to any worldview.
Which doesn't make it right and brings us right back to where you started. Lust for sin in sinema does not excuse it.
> And in order to accomplish
> anything, you have to play by those rules.
And those "rules" are sin.
> If you don't, no one will care
> what you have to say.
Maybe that which is being said shouldn't be said.
> So you can't give the audience just what you want
> them to see. You have to give them what they want, just like any other
> business. Given that choice, is it better to do your best to spread your
> message within the limits of your audience, or to not even try?
I have an audience of One.
> :: And in which sin did Jesus either participate or
> :: encourage our participation in to teach us about it?
>
> Example: The fifth commandment, transgression of which is a sin, states
> "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother."
> jesus says: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
> wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
> he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) (The word "hate" here is miseo, the
> Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and
> "misogyny.")
> I note also that hating mother and father counts as points against a movie
> in the cap model.
"misew" (miseo). Shows what you see in His Word. Jesus was speaking to those who cannot leave their families to serve God's Plan are not of the caliber to to do so. Specifically, he who cannot love Jesus more than his family is not worthy of being a disciple. We are indeed to love Jesus more than anyone on this planet. And only those who could do that were chosen to be His disciples. And you are quite probably ignoring the fact that God can (and did) take better care of the families then the men who left them so they could become disciples without the worries about their families haunting them. And God filled their families with more love than the men could ever fill them. It is a matter of plus/minus, yes/no, not fractions. If it is not love, it is hate absolutes. Though I love and serve you, I would leave you in a drop of a hat if Jesus told me to (and no, I do not know if I could do that with my family). What Jesus said "...and hate not his father, and mother ..." put in our modern vernacular would be "...and does not care more for me than his family..." "not care" = hate relative to absolutes. Focus, son. Focus.
Quite a bit of difference in perspective, huh? For the mature, informed, open minded and knowledgeable anyway.
I guess I did have the time to see this to its defeat.
|
|
From: Wildsong [wildsong@presidentbushviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:52 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry
Subject: RE: The bible
:: > So, then, you acknowledge that the sins in the bible are there
:: for a reason.
::
:: I acknowledge the sins in the Bible are there NOT to give us
:: permission to
:: demonstrate them in and as entertainment.
But their depiction in the bible does serve a purpose.
:: I think you are
:: fighting a losing
:: battle and I hope I have the time to see the end of it.
Such a remarkably childish statement. Remember, maturity and open-mindedness seem to be your watchwords.
:: > Do you feel, then, that entertainment serves no purpose in
:: > making social
:: > commentary? Even Shakespeare did that.
::
:: is that supposed to make demonstration of sin in and as
:: entertainment okay?
:: Is that supposed to make planting sinful behavioral templates in
:: thought or
:: deed okay?
Yes and no. You have to use the tools that are available in order to reach an audience that can only be reached in that fashion, and you have to reach that audience in order to make your social comment. I think you misunderstand the reason that such behaviours are depicted in movies. It's rarely about suggesting that someone behave in the manner depicted. It's not like the movie makers are out to program the youth of today. They're out to A) make money, and B) make some sort of social comment about the world in which we all live. Look at Spider-Man. In order to provide the message that power must be tempered, it was necessary to kill one of the characters close to the main character. Few things hit you as hard as the death of a relative, and this was the catalyst through which the character is motivated to go out and prevent evil. This motive appeals to everyone, not just those who share the same morality. And in this manner, the point is made even though the tools employed may not be the first choice of the person making the film. Do you believe, then, that Spider-Man has suggested in any way that to go out and kill someone is ok? Even at the end, when the Goblin kills himself, there is no happy ending. How do you feel that this plants any sort of template for unacceptable behaviour?
:: > And in order to make social
:: > commentary,
::
:: Why does a social commentary have to be made?
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps no one should make any social commentary. That being the case, why do you write your reviews? Why do pro-life groups demonstrate? Why do religious groups protest so much over what is taught in schools? Everyone has a comment to make on what is right and what is not, and if no one made any comment, no one could bring about any change. I'm sure that you wish that you could change the world to suit your view of how it should be. And that's why you make the social comments that you do on your own web site. If you do not favour social commentary, why do you do what you do?
:: It takes a l-o-t more than
:: filth in film to teach the realities of life,
Do you, then, believe that the 'filth' is not present in reality? Do you believe that people never really act in any manner contrary to what you consider acceptable? Is the world one big happy place in which no one does anything mean? Do you think that there is anything to be gained by hiding from the truth by making movies that are all sweetness and light? Realistically, the world contains violence, drugs, crime, and lots of other unpleasant things. In order to make any comment on these things, you have to actually depict them. Look at Minority Report. It's about absolute state control. You can't make a movie that depicts the horrors of absolute state control without depicting that control. If you want to warn people about the horrors of something, you have to see to it that they actually see those horrors. Otherwise they won't get your message. In some cases, it's just about showing life as it really is. It makes you think. Suppose you live in a nice little suburb, and you see a movie wherein they show the life of the inner city kids. A lot of people don't know anything about them, but the movie might make them think about it, and that might motivate them to help. A lot more effectively than if the movie weren't made, anyway. In the same manner, the bible depicts sin, and the consequences thereof.
:: son.
"Son?" You do assume, don't you?
:: > even the bible had to show people performing unacceptable
:: > actions.
::
:: But not in and as entertainment. Nor were the sins in the Bible
:: demonstrated for the sake of teaching. Y'see, to demonstrate a
:: sin does not
:: excuse the one demonstrating it from the sin of it.
The important thing is that entertainment entertains, certainly, but if you think that it has never made social comments, you're very much mistaken. Read Shakespeare. Or Wilde. Or Lennon. Or any one of a number of other playwrights, poets, artists... the list goes on and on. Every form of entertainment has been used to make a comment, whether it be about the government of the time, the social classes, the military, someone in particular, etc.
If the sins in the bible were not there for teaching, why were they there? They weren't there for teaching the reader that the sin is ok, but that doesn't mean that they weren't there for teaching. If you didn't learn from the bible that sin is bad, you didn't read it. Otherwise, they were there for no reason at all.
:: > Yet I note that the cap model makes no allowances for this method
:: > of commenting.
::
:: No scoring allowances anyway.
Precisely. And this is why I asked how the bible scored. If one form of social comment is exempt, why should not others be? They're doing the same thing, after all. It becomes a question of the bigger picture. If all you do is look at the individual actions in the film, you will miss the moral, the comment. If you just read one of those parts in the bible wherein sin is described, you would miss the consequences. If you have a zero tolerance policy where entertainment is concerned, you've missed the point.
:: > , and that's the way he does it,
::
:: Not in and as entertainment.
I've covered that.
:: > it seems unlikely that we would be able
:: > to come up with a better method.
::
:: Why should we?
That's exactly the point. If god does it a certain way, it's obviously a good enough way of doing it, right? So why would we try to change that way of doing things, thinking that we know better?
:: > Since your cap model negatively views
:: > movies
::
:: The CAP model reports on what is there. The content of the
:: movies makes the
:: content of our analysis report "negative." Focus, son. Focus.
Yes, but what you fail to take into account is the purpose for which that content is there. If you were to try to make the point that killing is bad without showing it happen, you would not make your point as strongly. For instance, your example of stabbing a person is, as you mentioned, not as graphic as depicting it with sound and video. If you want to make the point that killing is a bad thing, you want to show how horrible it is, and in order to do so, you need the most powerful imagery possible to revolt the viewer. Someone who has seen a murder is a lot more repulsed by it than someone who has not.
:: > how is a movie supposed to
:: > get the point across?
::
:: Why must it get that point across at all?
That's what social commentary is for. Covered that at the beginning of this message.
:: > that even mention unacceptable behaviour,
::
:: Mentioning sinful behavior is a l-o-t different than demonstrating it for
:: pleasure.
True, and yet you score both the same with your model.
:: > Even your reviews have to mention those things that
:: > are considered unacceptable in order to point out that they ARE
:: > unacceptable.
::
:: But our "reviews" (which they are not) do not demonstrate any sin.
You often describe the movie and offer opinions on it, frequently mentioning what you thought were good points and bad. This makes your write-up a review. And while that review may not demonstrate anything that you consider unacceptable, it does describe these things which, you have said, is unacceptable. Your reviews have mentioned that a movie lost points for relating an incident. For example, in Planet Of The Apes, you consider the talk of evolution to be a scoring matter, and yet you describe the representation of evolution in your review. How is it, therefore, not ok to talk about it but it is ok to write about it? Regardless of your spin on the matter, because let's remember that the cap model only takes into account the appearance of the subject, not its purpose.
By the way, regarding that review: chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys. "Monkey" refers to medium-sized primates with tails. Chimpanzees do not have tails. I see that biology is not your strong suit.
:: > Otherwise, no one would know what you meant.
::
:: If there were no unacceptable behaviors in any movie, my job
:: would end. Let
:: Hollywood make what ever they want to make. God said sin would
:: be rampant
:: in the end days. But as long as movies teach and/or cause our
:: youth to sin,
:: I will have something to say about it. Boldly. Unashamedly.
You'll have a social comment, then? Let me ask you: why does that something need to be said at all? I've paraphrased your question, but perhaps you have an answer for it.
:: I see. Truth in entertainment. Har har. And that makes it okay to show
:: millions how to sin. Tell me. Where in the Bible are there instructions
:: for practicing immoral sexual intercourse? Intercourse at all? Where in
:: the Bible are there instructions for making weapons? How to use
:: them? Etc.
Let me ask you: when was the bible written? Do you think that society is the same now as it was then? Do you believe for one moment that the same methods that were used to introduce people to the bible's morality would work today on the majority of people? And if so, why is it that sin is rampant, as you put it? People want what they want, and whether it's right or it's wrong doesn't make any difference when you're talking about getting people to listen. If you want someone to listen to you, you have to speak their language. Again, the tools might not be the ones you want, but you have to work with what you can get. If you don't do so, people stop listening. Perhaps that's why sin is rampant, hmm? People don't want morality shoved in their faces. They want entertainment, and the people making that entertainment have to do what the crowd wants. Look at boxing, or the gladiators (much the same thing), or any other form of public entertainment. If you don't give the crowd what it wants, you don't have its attention. In order to say anything, be it good or bad, you need that attention. Otherwise, no one cares what you have to say. The world changes, and if you don't change with it, you die off.
:: > but the point I'm after making is
:: > that the cap model does not make a distinction between commentary and
:: > entertainment,
::
:: Why, yes. It does. That is why our reports are called "CAP
:: ENTERTAINMENT
:: MEDIA Analysis Reports."
Again, you misunderstand. There is no separation. Only distinction. In every review of yours that I have read, you have missed the social commentary part of the movie (when there was one) and seen only the surface, entertainment content. If you fail to take into account the entire movie, your content is not complete, and your review inaccurate.
:: > which is why, if you applied it to the bible, the bible would
:: > score so badly.
::
:: I've already adequately sunk that reasoning. Specifically, because the
On the contrary, you have done just the opposite. You've made it clear that the bible needs sin in order to prove that it is a bad thing. That's why people like jesus and god don't sin, but people who do suffer eternal torment, in context.
:: Bible does not *demonstrate* sins in and as entertainment. Indeed, in no
:: case does God have anyone demonstrating sin. The people did that all on
:: their own.
Yes, and god punished them for it. And therefore the reader knows that it is bad. Otherwise, how would the reader know? No, I'm afraid that you've made exactly the point that you didn't mean to make here. If the bible didn't contain sin, it couldn't teach about it. Whether demonstrating or just discussing, the cap model would use this as basis for scoring, as has been seen in movie application, and therefore the bible would score badly. I suggest that you try it. Remember, regardless of the reason, any mention, any depiction, and the score is affected. That's how you treat the movies.
:: > such content at the time it was written. The medium doesn't dictate the
:: > message, and images are far more effective when making a point
:: than words in
:: > this day and age.
::
:: PREcisely. Much more efficient at teaching and or causing our
:: youth to sin.
Again, you misunderstand. Remember that part about the medium not dictating the message? The message could be whatever you want it to be, while the medium is just the way of getting that message to the viewer. The medium does not cause something to be good or bad. It is simply a method of presenting it. Just like writing isn't good or bad. Consider: the bible is written. So is the Torah, the Koran, the Origin of Species. If the medium dictates the message, these things are all the same. So yes, video and audio are more efficient than text, but if you see that as exclusively a bad thing, you're not watching the content. And the content is the whole point.
:: > If you compare the sales numbers between books and movies,
:: > you can see which is the more popular.
::
:: I somehow doubt that Jesus would have sinned by paying actors and/or
:: actresses to demonstrate sin to teach us about it.
And I guarantee you that if the bible were released today as a new book, most people would wait for the movie. And if one wasn't made, not a lot of people would pay much attention to it. Lots of books are still being written, but book sales numbers decline each year. It's tragic, really.
:: And it is the narcotics of that "message" is what I am fighting. Just
:: because people *want* sin in sinema does not make it to put it
:: there. Why
You have to use the tools you have.
:: do you suppose people *want* it in sinema? We have been so
:: saturated with
:: sin in and as entertainment that we have become addicted to it. And it
:: takes more and more each time. Just like narcotics.
Rather, people want things in movies that are exciting. Fighting, sex, and so on is exciting because it appeals to the very basic human drives of aggression and sex. And if you don't think that those are basic human drives, just check out a bar on a Friday night sometime. Your mistake comes from the fact that you believe that the entertainment industry drives the way the world is. In fact, it is a mirror which reflects certain aspects of reality. In some cases, it's just for fun. In other cases, it's the film-maker showing the audience what the world is like from a different point of view. And then, yes, in many cases, entertainment can influence reality. I won't argue that. I just think that it has less impact than you think. Please don't go quoting "experts" since the title "expert" has no legal meaning, and there are "experts" on both sides of the issue, thus rendering their opinions null.
:: > Bludgeoning them over the head with morality isn't
:: > going to work because they don't want it,
::
:: That doesn't mean they don't need morality by example, and that
That's just it. That example has to be worth watching, and for many people, that means that it needs excitement. Since to many people excitement means sex and violence, that's what you have to use to capture their attention before you can make any moral statements. Otherwise, you lose their attention before you have it, and there goes any hope of making your example. You have to use the tools that are available. Look at what draws audiences: Showgirls was huge. Spider-Man was huge. Lord Of The Rings was huge. If you made a movie that didn't have the elements that those movies had, you would make a movie that no one would see. Before you can tell them anything, you have to actually have an audience.
:: people want
:: IMmorality does not mean they are absolved of the consequences
:: of immorality
:: just because they want it.
Don't forget, immorality is subjective. Again, if you don't believe me, check out a bar on Friday night. It is definitely subjective. We're talking about a very diverse culture here, and everyone has different values. That means that if you try to force your morality on someone who doesn't share that morality, they will not come to your movie. So your movie can't be too preachy. It has to either make its comment subtly, or to make a comment that will be universally accepted. There are few cultures or religions that feel that murder is ok, as far as I know, so you're pretty safe making a movie wherein people being killed is depicted as bad. If you made a movie that depicted sex as bad, no one would see it because people like sex. They don't want to be told that something that they like is bad. You could make a movie that says that cheating is bad, but not sex in general. So, as you can see, there are limits to the kinds of movies that you can make. You have to work within the arena that is available if you are to make your movie a success. Your model doesn't take this into account. Your model doesn't take into account that content is present in a movie for a reason, and focuses only on that content. It provides a very incomplete representation of the movie because it does not look at the whole picture. If you took the Mona Lisa and broke it up into ten centimetre squares, and then looked at each individually, it would not have the same effect as looking at the entire painting. It's the same thing exactly.
:: > and therefore they won't go out
:: > and pay money for it,
::
:: Which they shouldn't anyway.
Heh, you just go out and find me some free entertainment, then. Something with excitement.
:: > and the movie needs that money to survive.
::
:: Man has survived a v-e-r-y l-o-n-g time without them.
A limited argument. Human kind has survived even longer without computers, but if you took them all away tomorrow, the world would stop. At least, for a time. The point is that no matter what has come before today, today is where we are.
:: > So if you
:: > have a movie about a killer coming to a bad end, you probably
:: can't have all
:: > of the killing done off screen.
::
:: Why not? Less Columbine killers would be created that way.
Mmm.. doubtful. See, maybe you get an image in your head from something that you see, but entertainment isn't the cause of that problem. Do you think that no one had ever gone into a building and killed a lot of people before? In that case, someone was psycho enough to emulate the movie, but the movie didn't make him want to kill everyone. It just gave him an idea of how to do it. I've seen a lot of violence in my time. And I mean a lot, both through entertainment and in reality. I'm not a violent person, though.
I assume that you saw Star Wars: Episode I. That death scene with Qui-Gon would have been nowhere near as effective if the audience hadn't seen it. Nowhere near. During the fight you thought that he was going to win, since he was a hero, so it came as a real shock when the blade went through his chest. Had that been done off screen, you would have lost the whole effect, and that would mean that it wouldn't touch the audience as much. And since that's what you're trying to do, that would be a silly move.
:: > Not when the people want to see it.
::
:: Why should they?
Because it makes the movie more complete. If you spend a movie building up a character, and then you want to kill him off but you can't do it on screen, the audience will be disappointed. They want closure to the character, either happily ever after or dead. Either way, they want to see it. Movies are all about visuals.
:: > You have
:: > to have action.
::
:: Which can be done without sin. Filmmakers have lost that art. Or have
:: discarded it because people want filth in film. So who is more
:: the sinner?
You think so? Can you point to a single movie that doesn't contain any sin at all? Plot is about conflict. At its very root, conflict is good against bad, subjectively speaking. Can you find a movie that has action without sin? Go ahead, I'll wait. But I'll be waiting for a while. Action means that you have to have a positive force fighting a negative force.
:: He who demonstrates it or he who draws pleasure from it?
That depends upon the motivation. And keep in mind that your morality is not shared by the majority of movie-goers. Something that needs to appeal to a wide range of people cannot be so narrow in the scope of its views toward morality or, as noted, no one will go to see it.
:: > And so you give the people what they want, and sneak in your
:: > message.
::
:: Often invisibly to the unArmed.
That's one of those little christian labels for non-christians, isn't it? Keep in mind that most people are not christian, so any messages you want to put into your movie have to be almost universally applicable. If you try to appeal to just christians, again, your movie will close in the first weekend. They don't make up enough of the movie-going audience, and you can see this by looking at the content of the movies, and how they relate to the christian beliefs.
:: Okay. I guess filmmakers really have lost the art of being able
:: to make a
:: really good movie.
"Really good" is subjective. Lord Of The Rings was a really good movie. Spider-Man was a really good movie. Star Wars was not bad at all. Your idea of really good might differ from someone else's idea of really good, but then, maybe you like dark chocolate and someone else likes white. Does that mean that white is better than dark? Or does it just mean that you prefer one over the other? So saying that film makers can't make a really good movie is incorrect. Rather, they can't make a movie that you feel is really good.
:: > Whether that's
:: > right or wrong is immaterial.
::
:: No, it isn't immaterial. Not by a LONG shot.
Yes it is when you're talking about trying to survive in this world, and in order to do that, you need to make money. With me so far? In order to make money, you have to give the customer what (s)he wants. Remember, the customer is always right. So, if people want sex and you want money, you give them sex. It's that simple. If you want to make a comment along the way, you give them sex and a comment, but if you just give them the comment and they want sex, you're not going to get the money you need to survive. If you don't change with the times, you disappear. That's why the number of christians has declined so much. There used to be more christians in the western world than any other religion, but this is no longer the case because, as I say, people want sex and violence, and they aren't going to get that from the bible. So whether it's right or it's wrong is immaterial. That's the way life is. Look around you, and you'll see that it's true. Regardless of how the world should be, it is the way it is. If you want to survive in that world, you need to face reality, not hide from it. Not if you're trying to make a living giving people what they want. In order to do that, you have to know what they want and actually give it to them. Any marketing person, any business person can tell you that.
:: > The point is that the world exists as it does,
:: > not as it should according to any worldview.
::
:: Which doesn't make it right and brings us right back to where
:: you started.
:: Lust for sin in sinema does not excuse it.
No one is looking for an excuse. If you go up to someone and ask them why they like sex in movies, they'll look at you as if you're stupid. If you look at the sales figures of movies, the ones with sex and/or violence outsell the ones with nothing but dialogue. Sex and violence are a part of life, and in order to make any kind of comment about that, you need to include them in your reflection of reality. If you exclude them, your reflection of reality is completely inaccurate, and your message will not be heard, or will be diluted to the point of meaninglessness. Again, whether that's right or not is immaterial. The point is that that is how the world is, and if you don't see that, you're hiding from reality. Remember, you have to work with the tools you have, in the arena that exists. You can't change the world from the outside because there's no outside from which to act.
:: > So you can't give the audience just what you want
:: > them to see. You have to give them what they want, just like any other
:: > business. Given that choice, is it better to do your best to
:: > spread your
:: > message within the limits of your audience, or to not even try?
::
:: I have an audience of One.
You're obviously not a film maker, then. An audience of one wouldn't pay even one camera operator to make the movie, let alone cover the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on. Either you're intentionally misunderstanding, or you're just being obtuse. I mean, come on, what kind of argument is that? It doesn't pertain to what I said at all, which suggests that you simply don't have anything to say in response. Is it better to make no effort to spread your message, or to do the best you can in the environment that exists? I'm sure you can think of an answer to that.
:: "misew" (miseo). Shows what you see in His Word.
Keep in mind that the word is a Greek word, therefore written in the Greek alphabet and romanised before it could be written with the Roman alphabet we use today. As a result, either spelling is accurate. I see that language is not your strong suit.
:: Jesus was speaking to
:: those who cannot leave their families to serve God's Plan are not of the
:: caliber to to do so. Specifically, he who cannot love Jesus
That is your interpretation. And that's the point. What he said was "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." and you interpret that to mean what you mentioned above. But the point is that, no matter what you read it to mean, he said "hate," and hating your parents is a sin. So, you can see, the presence of that sin is there for a reason. he's using it to make a point, to be interpreted, to mean something different from what it would mean normally. That's no different from the film maker's attempt to do the same with his/her movie. Each scene serves a purpose, and whether it depicts something that you consider good or bad, it is there for a reason. Hating your parents is bad, but jesus apparently said it for a good reason. Taken on its own, it would be bad. Taken in context, it is good. Do you understand now?
:: Focus, son. Focus.
That's getting really tiresome. If you have a basis for argument, that argument can be made without resorting to such childish attitude. If not, then why even respond? If your point cannot be made without the superiority complex, then you don't have a point. It undermines any credibility you may have. You're always going on about maturity. You're also going on about leading by example. Let's put the two together, shall we?
-w
|
|
From: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry [cap@capalert.com]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:29 PM
To: Wildsong
Subject: Re: The bible
On 5/31/02 4:51 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:
> :: > So, then, you acknowledge that the sins in the bible are there
> :: for a reason.
> ::
> :: I acknowledge the sins in the Bible are there NOT to give us
> :: permission to
> :: demonstrate them in and as entertainment.
>
> But their depiction in the bible does serve a purpose.
But not in and as entertainment.
> :: I think you are
> :: fighting a losing
> :: battle and I hope I have the time to see the end of it.
>
> Such a remarkably childish statement. Remember, maturity and open-mindedness
> seem to be your watchwords.
Just because it is a true statement does not make it childish.
> :: > Do you feel, then, that entertainment serves no purpose in
> :: making social
> :: > commentary? Even Shakespeare did that.
> ::
> :: is that supposed to make demonstration of sin in and as
> :: entertainment okay?
> :: Is that supposed to make planting sinful behavioral templates in
> :: thought or
> :: deed okay?
>
> Yes and no.
Yes and no? There is in your morals a need to teach and or cause our youth to sin?
After scanning through this, the rest of your diatribe is of the same evil caliber, excusing sin for the sake of entertainment. Saying there is no sin where there is.
it is clear you are brainwashed to defend filth in film beyond my capabilities to help you see the Truth.
This discussion is over. I will see your mail in our inbox no more.
Goodbye.
|
|
From: Wildsong [wildsong@presidentbushviolently-happy.net]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:45 PM
To: ChildCare Action Project (CAP) Ministry
Subject: RE: The bible
It's sad that, when you run out of reasonable arguments, you run away and hide rather than thinking about the points that have been made on either side. It makes one wonder how firm your beliefs are in the first place, if you cannot adequately defend them against opposing points of view with logic and reason rather than righteous ranting. It's a shame, because I thought that you were taking this argument a little more seriously than our last, actually making an effort to use some form of reason to make your points. But instead, you hide from any form of rationality. Fairly typical of your type, I'm afraid, in spite of my hopes for you.
cheerful regards,
-w
|
|
|
