Movie Distractions
by Ted Slater on 12/01/2006 at 2:45 PM
I do love movies. I avoid a lot of them after reading their reviews on MovieGuide or PluggedIn, but when I finally do sit down in front of one in the theater or my home, I tend to lose myself in the story and characters.
Sometimes, though, I'm distracted by something I've discovered about one of the actors. I admit that finding out about the gay-lobbying activities of key actors in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (my all-time favorite "movie") and End of the Spear affected my engagement with those movies. My viewing of films featuring Cary Grant, Judy Garland and Humphrey Bogart has been affected by documentaries I watched about their tragic lives.
And now I find myself anticipating being distracted if I watch The Nativity Story. I was surprised to see that it was directed by the same woman who brought us the quite vulgar Thirteen and Lords of Dogtown. Now I'm further distracted to find out that the 16-year-old actress who played Mary is pregnant by her 19-year-old boyfriend. I can't help but think that if I watch the movie I'll find myself wrestling with the incongruity of the blessed virgin Mary and the promiscuous young actress who plays her.
Perhaps I'd be better able to enjoy the movies that I've chosen to watch and engage their story lines if those behind the makeup didn't give me reason to be distracted.
1. Kerry said the following at 3:45 PM on Dec 1:
I would like to comment about the actress from the Nativity story. I really find it sad that we are judging the actress who is playing Mary for having her child when so many other young actresses would choose to have an abortion. If anything, as Christians, we should applaud her for choosing not to have an abortion despite the fact that she is not married. While having a child outside of marriage clearly is not how God designed families, I do not think we should be so offended that this girl is pregnant, and instead should pray for her and her child.
2. Anonymous said the following at 6:55 PM on Dec 1:
Wow. This is the second or third post that's made me question reading Boundless. Even an article this week was a little sketchy to me ... And I've been a faithful reader for a long time.
In regards to this particular post, did you read "Turning Tinsletown Around" a couple of months ago? It was in Focus on the Family magazine ... Are you praying for these people who distract you? Or are you above noticing them in that manner?
I don't mean to sound critical, though I know I do, but ... Wow.
3. Ame said the following at 10:21 PM on Dec 1:
i saw the movie tonight and thought about this afterwards (having read the post before i went)... and i thought: how poignant that the young woman portraying a pregnant woman who has not consumated her marriage is now pregnant outside of marriage. she acted a role, holding a baby who was portrayed as the Son of God, who came to save the world from their sin. how poignant. the baby she held is the One who can forgive her and love her unconditionally. may she come to know the connection.
4. Jane said the following at 12:00 AM on Dec 2:
I don't think a child out of wedlock inherently signifies promiscuity. I think it signifies a poor choice, but one which, by not choosing abortion, she has decided to face.
5. Josue Sierra said the following at 4:15 PM on Dec 2:
Ted, Perhaps you are expecting to much from the world. I understand distractions--I was distracted by the actor behind the angel, and kept thinking about his role on StarTreck DS9.
I was encouraged by stories of how actors and crew's life where impacted by the movie End of the Spear, and such. There is more to an actor's life than the stories you read online or on some magazine. Don't forget that.
Josue
6. John M. said the following at 8:08 PM on Dec 2:
I’m an engineer. Should Christian people who use the products I design be “distracted” by my lack of self control, my anger or my pride? Should they avoid my work because I occasionally stumble and live a less than perfectly holy life? Of course not. You are not absorbing or supporting the imperfections of the people whose work you enjoy. Pray for them and delight in the talents that God gave them, in the realization that we all fall short.
7. Fred Walker said the following at 7:46 PM on Dec 3:
Good on you Ted, I agree completely with your post and I don't think that you are dismissing all movies or being too harsh on the 'Mary' actress.
It would be nice if people could ask Ted to explain what he means instead of jumping to conclusions.
And to the engineer, if I buy your products I am supporting you and your sins. You can disagree on how far to take it but if I buy from a company that supports, say, Planned Parenthood, then I am supporting Planned Parenthood or if I buy from a corner store who's owner is abusing his/her spouse I am supporting his/her behaviour because I am supporting their business.
You can argue for supporting that business or not, that is not the point and you can take the point and stretch it out so that it loses all relevance but that still does not dismiss the point.
8. Rebecca said the following at 10:13 AM on Dec 4:
As a film school graduate, I have difficulty watching movies without being distracted. I often find myself wondering about the logistics related to location scouting, casting, production design, scheduling, and so on. The knowledge I gained from my studies can serve as a distraction.
I think the more knowledge we have about the "behind the scene" aspects of movies, the more distracting they can be for us. This can include the personal lives of the actors. Perhaps some of us are able to watch films with little thought of anything but the story playing out before us. Others, such as myself, aren't.
Just because Ted would be distracted by a unwed pregnant teenager playing the virgin Mary, doesn't make him judgmental. It simply means he doesn't passively watch movies without caring about what's gone into them.
While we are to love non-Christians, that doesn't mean we aren't supposed to point out sin. Jesus was able to both love the sinner AND take a stand against sin. As a whole, I think Christians have become far too tolerant of sin, while at the same time ready to label any Christian who makes mention of sin as "judgmental." Why are we so quick to extend grace the unsaved and so quick to assume the worst of Christians who make mention of sin?
9. Gina Dalfonzo said the following at 12:11 PM on Dec 4:
Ted, I would think perhaps it would help you enjoy the movies if you could think about what a blessing it is that these people are still able to use the gifts God gave them and meant for them to use, and to reflect His greatness in that way, even when they tragically fall short in their personal lives.
I highly recommend Dorothy L. Sayers's introduction to her play cycle "The Man Born to Be King," which provides some insight on this subject. A quick sample:
"When a story is great enough, any honest craftsman may succeed in producing something not altogether unworthy, because the greatness is in the story, and does not need to borrow anything from the craftsman; it is enough that he should faithfully serve the work. . . . It is [writers' and actors'] craft to tell stories, and that is the only craft we know. We have done what we could; may the Master Craftsman amend all."
10. Rebecca said the following at 1:01 PM on Dec 4:
This is another Rebecca:-)
This topic has been on my mind, and my tongue, a lot recently. My roommate and best friend is a movie nut. That is her way to relax and it is her preferred storytelling media. For me, films are distracting because I cannot engage in the story deeply enough to not notice logicaly inconsistencies in character or story, bad writing, or a worldview that I disagree with. All of which often result from the collaborative nature of film. There are days when I fell my critical thinking skills are far too developed.
I have asked God to make this easier for me, sometimes praying in frustration to be a bit less discerning, a bit less quick to pick up these details. He has decided not to help me out in this. So I go to books and other written narratives for my entertainment and save movies for something a little more... The visual culture is the forum for ideas in our present age and I cannot negate that. I just know which movies I can watch without distraction, and which will be good fodder for thought and discussion.
11. Torey said the following at 1:17 PM on Dec 4:
I found myself bristling at the reference to Keisha Castle-Hughes as "promiscuous". While I certainly do not condone her behavior and was a little shocked to read of her pregnancy when it was first announced, the word "promiscuous" is defined by the Oxford dictionary as "having casual sexual relations with many people"- and according to reports Miss Castle-Hughes and her boyfriend have been together for a period of three years- hardly deserving the impression lent by labeling her as "promiscuous". Also, her own parents were never married (and later separated) so to a certain extent, this is what has been modeled for her.
12. Lynette said the following at 2:07 PM on Dec 4:
Don't we vote or not vote for politicians based on their personal lives, as well as, their public lives? What about Pastors, do their private lives influence whether we attend their public churches? Why should actors be any different? Are their private lives deemed of no consequence to their public performances?
13. Gina Dalfonzo said the following at 2:31 PM on Dec 4:
Lynette, my answer would to your question would be yes. Politicians and pastors have very different jobs from actors. An actor's job is to tell a story. Is it nice if they're role models in addition? Yes, indeed. Does it matter TO THE STORY if they're not? Usually it doesn't.
Now, there are a few actors I find myself unable to watch for various reasons. In most cases it's just for an emotional (and probably silly) reason -- i.e., I've seen them play a character that I disliked so very much that I simply could not watch them ever again without memories being raised that I didn't want to raise. Again, that may be silly, but it's just how I feel, and it doesn't happen very often.
But the most prominent actor I can't watch is Tom Cruise, because in many ways he has made his personal life the public's business, and that personal life apparently involves participating in a dangerous and greedy cult and sucking the mother of his child into it as well. His offscreen behavior, in short, has been so very public and so very bizarre that he has made it impossible for me to forget it while I watch him in a movie. But most actors, no matter how weird their behavior, manage to keep some degree of privacy. If they don't try to make their business my business, then I don't see why it should be.
14. Samantha said the following at 2:37 PM on Dec 4:
In a turn-about, I find it hard to watch Tom Hanks movies now that he's done The Da Vinci Code. I know he's just playing a part, but at the same time, that book was written with an agenda (see the FACT page of the book) and, by extension, I can't see how the movie was made for pure entertainment.
Call me naive or whatever, but seeing Opie and Forrest Gump making a movie like The Da Vinci Code makes my nostalgic heart hurt.
15. Gina Dalfonzo said the following at 4:44 PM on Dec 4:
Oh, and Torey's definition of "promiscuous" and reason why it doesn't apply here is correct. I also agree that the parents are chiefly to blame here; according to what I've read, Keisha Castle-Hughes started dating this boy at the age of thirteen. That reflects very badly on mom and dad, in my opinion.
16. Ted Slater said the following at 5:08 PM on Dec 4:
I was imprecise and should have found a better word than "promiscuous." I should have used "immoral," "licentious" or "unchaste" instead.
The point remains that knowing what I now know, it would be difficult for me to lose myself in a movie where the Virgin Mary is played by an unchaste actress. I suspect that the incongruity is too great for me to be able to "suspend my disbelief" for a couple of hours of movie-watching.
Now Bruce Marchiano -- there's an actor whose personal life has contributed to the role he's played! In my humble opinion, of course.
17. Farley said the following at 9:26 PM on Dec 4:
This young woman made the wrong moral choice, which confirms she is truly a human being. As far as being a distraction, I wonder if there is something else going on. I watch quite a few movies. When the performances are great, I get caught up into the character. When they are less than great, my mind starts to wander. For example, I was a Queen Latifah anti-fan, and didn't realize she was in Stranger Than Fiction until her face popped up on the movie screen. My wife can tell you that I groaned at the sight. Her performance, though, won me over. I didn't see her as Queen Latifah, but as her character, Penny Escher. So maybe your lack of engagement, isn't what you think it is. Maybe you are bored? If it was purely due to knowledge of the actor, or actress' moral failure, I'm wondering how you could enjoy any movie...or novel...or music...or anything.
18. Fred Walker said the following at 9:51 PM on Dec 4:
Is it just me or do people seem to be excusing 'Mary's' behaviour by blaming the parents or saying at least she is not having an abortion. If someone engages in sinful behaviour it is still sinful even if they have bad parents and the good never negates the bad.
19. Anna said the following at 7:47 AM on Dec 5:
Every time we buy a product, watch a film, endorse a politician, or use a service, we are supporting a sinner. ALL have sinned and fall short.
Pregnancy out of wedlock is not a sin, it is a consequence of sin. This young woman's choice to carry her child to term, instead of quietly aborting it like she so easily could have done, should be applauded, not condemned. The sin -- premarital sex -- has already been committed, the pregnancy itself is not sinful. We say we want women to stop having abortions, but we continue to heap shame on them when they choose life -- how can they win?
20. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:28 AM on Dec 5:
I understand. I didn't see MI3, #2 was bad enough (but I loved #1). I would have had a hard time buying just how concernce Tom Cruise could be for his wife, when in the real world he trades them up when he gets bored.
On the other hand, Sir Ian McKellen's activism for the homosexual community doesn't spoil LOTR or X-men for me. So I'm probably only bothered by incompatibility between actor and role.
21. Farley said the following at 12:02 PM on Dec 5:
Sometimes I think too much, and this is probably one of those times. The obsession (maybe too strong of word) with other people's failings, troubles me. My daughter is nearly 9 years old. She is only a few short years away from having to make a choice, much like this actress. I would like to think I've prepared her to make the correct decision, yet there has to be an acknowledgement that she may fail. Would I be disappointed if she did? Yes, I would be heartbroken, because I love her dearly. But, I will love her just as dearly the next day, as I did the day before. What would it say about me, if every time I see her, it reminds me of her failure? In my mind, I think her problem would pale to that of mine. May I never be that kind of father, or person.
22. Katherine Jacobs said the following at 5:11 PM on Dec 5:
I find it very sad that the Christian community is hung up on this young girl's pregnancy and cannot appreciate the beautiful portrayal of Mary and the wonderful way the story is told. There are lots of us who will invite our families and friends to this movie as a witnessing opportunity. It would be nice for them not to be distracted by all this criticism. I was conceived out of wedlock in 1944. My mother and father were married when I was 3 months old in the womb. But when it came time for me to be baptized, the church would not allow me to be baptized in their sanctuary. I had to be baptized at home. We can have hard hearts and our focus may be in the wrong place.
We should be grateful for this movie.
23. Fred Walker said the following at 6:03 PM on Dec 5:
Katherine,
It is not that we cannot appreciate the movie, the whole point of the post is how the personal lives of actors affect the way we watch their movies. Look at it like this ... what if Mary was being played by a pornstar. Would that have no impact on the way you watched the movie?
Just in case you jump to more conclusions, I'm not equating 'Mary's' behaviour with porn. I am attempting to show how we are all the same in kind; it is only the degree that changes.
It is also incorrect to refer to the whole Christian community. As wonderfully popular as Boundless is, it does not speak for all Christians as a number of the comments indicate.
24. Ted Slater said the following at 9:28 AM on Dec 6:
Bob Topartzer has an insightful comment about this movie over at SharperIron. In his first paragraph he compares The Nativity Story with End of the Spear:
It's nice to see such a thoughtful reflection on movies and actors.
(FWIW, I still find the irony of a particularly unchaste young actress playing the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary incongruous and distracting.)
25. Gina Dalfonzo said the following at 2:37 PM on Dec 6:
Without having gone over to read the whole comment, I would just want to make the point that a movie is not a ministry. A movie is a movie. Movies can be USED for ministry, but I believe we run into problems when we blur the line -- as Christians are increasingly doing -- between an art/entertainment form and a ministry.
Again I would refer you to Dorothy Sayers, who touches on this in several of her writings. Several of her plays were impressive in their grasp of theology and brought Christian stories and themes to a whole new audience -- and usually they featured non-Christian actors. As she explains somewhere, it did not matter to the play, its performance, or its message whether she found the most pious actors she could find. What mattered was that she found the most talented actors she could find.
As for "End of the Spear," I interviewed Steve Saint about the controversy. His most important point was that he knew he would one day have to answer to God for his actions, and he couldn't think of any good explanation he could offer to God for why he would turn an actor -- yes, even a homosexual actor -- away from the only opportunity he might ever have to hear the Gospel.
I don't mean to be a pest about this, and I appreciate Ted's and everyone else's patience. But I do think it's an important point.
26. Bethany said the following at 3:09 PM on Dec 11:
I have found people's comments on this discussion very interesting.
I have to admit that I don't get distracted by an actor's personal life when watching him/her in a film role. I admire an actor or actress more if they hold up good morals, but while watching a film, I am only judging him/her on performance in that role.
In the particular case of Keisha Castle-Hughes, I think she should be commended for keeping her child. I think it is naive of us to assume that most young actresses are living chaste lives. (Of course, I wish they were but it is a sad truth that they are not.) The only difference is that Keisha is now pregnant from her lifestyle choices.
It is also interesting to note the responses to Keisha's pregnancy as opposed to responses that Mary received for her pregnancy. Aside from conservative Christians, most people are saying "She is too young!" Rather than "She committed a sin!" (like people said about Mary).
27. Leah said the following at 12:58 AM on Dec 12:
To Fred Walker: if you think buying products off a sinner supports his sin, then how do you exist without supporting sin? Buying off a sinner does not support their sins. It supports them as a person. And I should hope you are able to discern between the sin and the sinner.
As for the original movie post: every actress/actor is a sinner. Does this mean we should not watch any movies for fear of supporting the sins of the people in it? Of course not. As I said to Fred, if you believe buying from/supporting a sinner in some way (which is all of us) is wrong, then how do you exist? Wouldn't this mean that sponsoring a child (who is a sinner) through Compassion or World Vision would be supporting, even sponsoring, their sin? Of course not. You need to discern between the sin and the sinner. If you are going to stop supporting sinners, there would be no people left.
28. Ted Slater said the following at 7:57 PM on Dec 12:
Leah, you start your second paragraph with "As for the original post," but then go on to discuss something I never even hinted at in my original post. I never wrote anything about withholding my finances from "sinners" (I *am* one, after all).
I'm finding the comments on my post fascinating, especially in that the writers seem not to have even read the initial post....
FWIW (and this is *really* off-topic), I've been supporting a child through Compassion for many years....
29. Samuel Jones said the following at 1:45 PM on Dec 18:
I've refrained before from commenting here to what I knew would become a lengthy string of comments to this post. Even though this is a subject I'm pretty passionate about, I wasn't sure I had much to contribute.
I think it's silly to comment on whether Ted is right or wrong in feeling the way he does. If he's distracted, he's distracted. Even seeing 'the making of. . .' usually ruins a film for me. Some of us are better at what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called, "The willing suspension of disbelief," than others.
Related though, is the whole controversy as to modern Christians' roles as consumers of the arts. Personally, I'm of the mind that we need to judge the art for what it is (if we can), apart from the personal character of the artist. A rigid standard connecting the two would preclude the reading of greats like Oscar Wilde, Byron, or the aforementioned Coleridge. Even Shakespeare is pretty suspect. We need an understanding of "common grace."
At the same time, I can sympathize with Ted completely. It's a lot harder to make that separation with actors. Perhaps it's because when you're actually watching a person doing something, or being someone, part of us believes that's who they really are. We usually don't imagine the author as their main character, yet as a young person I had a really hard time realizing the actor wasn't always like their character in a film. Amazingly, Anthony Hopkins can be a brilliant C.S. Lewis in "Shadowlands," then turn around and be Hannibal Lechter in "Silence of the Lambs." Even as someone who's done some acting, that's just hard to wrap my mind around.